The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 Ilana Mercer BlogviewTeasers

Said the president: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and, at times, a policy-making arm of the Government. … [T]his quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.”

This dire warning about the propensity of the Central Intelligence Agency to go rogue came from Harry S. Truman.

Truman’s call to “limit the CIA role to intelligence” was published in December 22, 1963, by the Washington Post (WaPo). The same newspaper is now decrying Presidents Trump’s decision to “end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.”

The move is a good one. The WaPo threw Russia into the reportorial mix purely to sully President Trump (and due to the intellectual deficiencies of correspondents incapable of teasing apart policy from political intrigue).

The 33rd U.S. president, a Democrat before the great deformation of that party, was first to issue the warning against the agency he had established. Not only was the newly founded intelligence arm of President Truman mutating into “a policy-making arm of government,” but it was “a subverting influence in the affairs of other people,” he cautioned.

In 1963, Truman was meditating on restoring the monster he had created “to its original assignment” of intelligence gathering in the raw. The CIA’s sole purpose was to keep the president apprised of information unfiltered, un-politicized.

In 2017, Trump is dealing with a genie too powerful to beat back into the bottle: a mutated swamp creature.

So, is this a screeching U-turn in Trump’s foreign policy? Who know, but in Syria, at least, President Trump is inching closer to delivering on a campaign promise. The president finally appears to be seeking a solution sans regime change, with strongman Bashar Al Assad still at the helm.

Curtailing this “symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue”—stopping the CIA and the National Security Council (another of President Truman’s metastatic creations) from fomenting more war in Syria and confrontation with Russia—is a start. In ending the “covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria,” Trump, hopefully, has disassociated from the “rebels.” The little we know about these people is not good.

For one thing, they play Americans like a fiddle. For another, they can’t be trained.

One US training program for these prize Syrian fighters—for whom John McCain is plumping from his sickbed—cost the American taxpayer one billion dollars. The program yielded “four or five” trained people on the battlefield! Not “four or five” battalions, but “four or five” individuals. That’s no waste of American taxpayers’ money! That’s not a bad return on an investment; it’s a scandal! For corruption on this scale in China, the politicians in charge are executed.

The Swamp—the generals, the CIA and the NSC—is roiling. Try as they may, their arguments for unseating Assad are poor, best encapsulated in the angels-and-demons worldview of Nikki Haley, Trump’s U.N. ambassador. The president has hired individuals who don’t articulate the principles he ran on, former Gov. Haley, for example. Thanks to President Trump, Haley went from provincial idiot to global village idiot.

Once confined to spitefully tearing down Gen. Lee’s battle flag in South Carolina—Haley’s windy verbiage is now heard around the world. The woman promotes war on behalf of an administration that promised diplomacy where doable.

“In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government,” thundered Haley. Her Disneyfied production at the U.N. stars an evil dictator who was killing his noble people, until, high on paternalism, our heroic Haley (and Hillary before her for Libya)—rode to the rescue.

Our bickering wards in the region aren’t about to forget their religious jealousies and join forces, and certainly not under American guardianship. The conflict is regional, tribal, ancient. Syria is impervious to outside, top-down intervention.

For their part, the marionette media and their political puppet-masters detest Donald Trump. For them, an honest examination of the merits of his decision to divest from anti-Assad rebels is out of the question.

Instead, a decision to terminate what Truman himself would view as a rogue CIA operation is refracted through the distorting prism of America’s “reigning Russophobia.”

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: CIA, Donald Trump, Syria 

Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, seems a perfectly nice man. But nothing he has said during confirmation hearings, on July 12, distinguishes him as someone who would reform Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamophilic FBI.

President Trump ran on a quixotic set of ideas about aggressively stopping Islamic terror. Like a fly in amber, the standard operating procedures (SOP) governing the Obama Federal Bureau of Investigation guarantee to preserve the same systemic, intractable failures that unleashed mass murderer Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik, to maim and murder dozens of Americans.

From Wray’s comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee, we know how he’ll bravely break with President Trump but that he’s partial to his predecessor, James Comey. To wit, Wray said he sided with Comey in rejecting a domestic surveillance program in 2004, “… not because he knew the substance of the dispute,” but because of his affection for Comey.

Given his unalloyed loyalty, Wray’ll be unlikely to remove from FBI training manuals the fiction about Jihad being a peaceful pillar of the Islamic faith.

To get a sense of how the outfit being glorified by the Senate panel operates, consider this: You hire a private firm to protect you, only to discover that, as part of your protection plan, your protectors undergo sensitivity training to desensitize them to potential perpetrators and evil-doers, thus giving the latter easy access to you and yours. This “strategy” would endanger your life. The company executing this harebrained scheme, moreover, would be in violation of its contractual obligation to keep you safe. If you came to harm, you’d sue.

But first, fire the fools before they get you killed.

Thanks to the president, we can only hope that firing the director of the FBI will become a new norm. For among his many other “virtues,” former FBI Director Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US. We know this because Comey said it on “60 Minutes”!

In 2014, he was asked about the status of the fighters America, unwittingly, exports to ISIS Land. This sanctimonious civil servant, traitor to the people who pay for his keep, promised to “track [the fighters] very carefully,” after he let them in.

At the time, anchor Megyn Kelly had aptly used the word treason, although she applied it exclusively to ISIS-Americans, when they, at least, were being true to their vampiric god. To whom was Comey being true? Certainly not to the law. In Judge Andrew Napolitano’s telling, the federal government’s top law enforcement agent didn’t know the law [or, was willfully ignoring it]:

“[Comey] forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization. So, if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”

That’s our crazy Comey. And the new guy, Christopher Wray, loves him just the way he is.

Another swamp creature for whom Wray has “enormous respect” is former FBI Director Robert Mueller. “[T]he consummate straight shooter,” gushed Wray.

Both the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute would agree. Thanks to Mueller, Comey’s predecessor, these and other special interests were involved in shaping FBI counterterrorism training.

Before Russia (B.R.), when the-now monomaniacal media touched occasionally on an issue of abiding interest to Americans (“murder-by-Muslim-immigrant“), they used milquetoast words. Again, the T-word (being floated for Donald Trump Jr.) would more appropriately describe how White House and FBI leadership invited Muslim advocacy groups to shape American counterterrorism training.

In Feb., 2012, WIRED magazine published an article titled “FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia,” and hashtagged Islamophobia. The magazine took some credit for urging the FBI to scrub counterterrorism training manuals of what sentient human beings would view as undeniable and dangerous trends and proclivities in Islam and its practitioners. Bragged the author: “The White House ordered a government-wide review of counterterrorism training late last year [2011]. A Pentagon document responding to the order cited [WIRED magazine's series] as an impetus for the effort.”

To better know thy enemy, your FBI had purged the scholarship of the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes from the FBI training library at Quantico.

How did this book-burning go down? Enter Director Mueller. In 2012, wrote WIRED, Mueller, who was succeeded by Comey, undertook to excise the FBI’s counterterrorism training program of “anti-Islam materials.” Essentially, Mueller saw to it that Islam was porcelainized.

Soon, the agency was redacting or expunging documents perceived to “stereotype” Arabs or Muslims, to sport “factual errors” (such as that Islam is not peace, presumably), be in “poor taste” (perhaps a less than polite reference to The Prophet), or “lacking in precision.” (Because the “truth” is that no “authentic” Muslim theologian would ever suggest that decapitation of a non-believer could be considered a mitzvah in Islam.)

Guidelines were published to help our comical FBI “protectors” defend against “anti-Islam documents.” You can feel safe. New FBI recruits are brainwashed to believe Americans who fly Gen. R. E. Lee’s Battle Flag are as likely to erupt as Muslims.

It’s easy to see how this frightful situation saw Mohammed A. Malik, friend to Orlando mass murderer Mateen, dutifully report Mateen to the FBI, only to be dismissed. (Just another self-hating Muslim. Hug?) Faithful to Mueller’s mandate, Director Comey personally vouched for the botched investigation that facilitated slaughter in Orlando.

Both men, role models to the new guy, were clearly Eric Holder loyalists. The attorney general had declared that the FBI harbored “systemic” anti-Islam bias and needed a fix.

One such “fix” entailed ridding the FBI of heroic men like Philip Haney.

Forcibly retired from the Department of Homeland Security, the soft-spoken, demure Haney has since divulged that the Obama Administration “nixed the probe into the Southern California jihadists” (Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik and their network), eliminating a program he, Haney, had developed. The Haney database would’ve helped connect certain networks—Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement—to domestic terrorism rising. Haney’s files were destroyed and he subjected to an internal investigation for doing his patriotic duty to protect Americans.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, FBI 

For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—doesn’t feature. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.” (They were!)

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders (Rep. Ron Paul excepted) “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Indeed, especially adamant was Jefferson about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’”

For this reason, the philosophy of government articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

By “all men are created equal,” moreover, Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” was certainly not implying that all men were similarly endowed. Or, that they were naturally entitled to healthcare, education, a decent wage, amnesty, or entry into the country he and the Constitution makers bequeathed.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

But Jefferson’s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

Notwithstanding the claims of the “multicultural noise machine,” the Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon.

Our Founding Fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he so cherished, imagine how he’d view America’s contemporary cultural and political conquistadors—be they from Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond—whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus, they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

Like it or not, Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration, was sired and inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube.

 

Yes, it has happened. A mere 23 years after the 1994 transition, in South Africa, to raw ripe democracy, six years following the publication of a wide-ranging analysis of that catastrophe, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, a Beltway libertarian think tank has convened to address the problem that is South Africa.

The reference is to a CATO “Policy Forum,” euphemized as “South Africa at a Crossroad.” One of the individuals to headline the “Forum” is Princeton Lyman, described in a CATO email tease as having “served as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa at the time of the transfer of power from white minority to black majority.” At the “Forum,” former ambassador Lyman was to discuss “America’s original hopes for a new South Africa and the extent to which America’s expectations have been left unfulfilled.” (Italics added.)

The chutzpah!

The CATO Institute’s disappointment in the South Africa the United States helped bring about is nothing compared to the depredations suffered by South Africans, due to America’s insistence that their country pass into the hands of a voracious majority. Unwise South African leaders acquiesced. Federalism was discounted. Minority rights for the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu were dismissed.

Aborted Attempts at South African Decentralization

This audacity of empire is covered in a self-explanatory chapter of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, titled “The Anglo-American Axis of Evil,” in which Lyman makes a cameo. (It’s not flattering.) From the comfort of the CATO headquarters, in 2017, the former ambassador will also be pondering whether “growing opposition will remove the African National Congress [ANC] from power.” The mindset of the DC establishment, CATO libertarians included, has it that changing the guard—replacing one strongman with another—will fix South Africa, or any other of the sites of American foreign-policy interventions.

So, what exactly did Princeton Nathan Lyman do on behalf of America in South Africa? Or, more precisely, who did he sideline?

Ronald Reagan, who favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, foresaw the chaos and carnage of an abrupt transition of power. So did the South Africans Fredrick van Zyl Slabbert, RIP (he died in May 2010), and Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The first was leader of the opposition Progressive Federal Party, who, alongside the late, intrepid Helen Suzman became the PFP’s chief critic of Nationalist policy (namely Apartheid). The second was Chief Minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). At the time, Buthelezi was the only black leader with any mass following who could act as a counter to the ANC. These men were not “lunch-pail liberals” from the West, but indigenous, classical liberal Africans—one white, one black—who understood and loved the country of their ancestors and wished to safeguard it for their posterity.

Both Buthelezi and Slabbert had applied their astringent minds to power-sharing constitutional dispensations. Both leaders were bright enough to recognize democracy for the disaster it would bring to a country as divided as theirs; they understood that “a mass-based black party that received enough votes could avoid having to enter into a coalition and could sweep aside the minority vote.” Thus, Buthelezi espoused a multi-racial, decentralized federation, in which “elites of the various groups” would “agree to share executive power and abide by a system of mutual vetoes and spheres of communal autonomy.” Paramount to Buthelezi was “the preservation of the rights of cultural groups and the protection of minorities.” Slabbert studied a “new system that entrenched individual rights, encouraged power-sharing through a grand coalition of black and white parties, and gave a veto right to minorities in crucial issues.”

Although he eventually threw his intellectual heft behind simple majority rule, in better days, Slabbert had spoken with circumspection about “unrestrained majoritarianism,” expressing the eminently educated opinion that, were majority rule to be made an inevitable corollary of South Africa’s political system, the outcomes would be severely undemocratic. It’s worth considering that even Zimbabwe for its first seven, fat years of independence, allowed “white members of parliament [to be] elected on a special roll to represent white interests.”

Washington Destroyed South African Federalism Before It Began

In his tome, Partner to History: The US Role in South Africa’s Transition to Democracy (2002), Princeton Lyman, the American Ambassador to South Africa from 1992 to 1995, records the active role Americans performed in the transition to democracy, especially in “dissuading spoilers”—the author’s pejorative, it would appear, for perfectly legitimate partners to the negotiations. One such partner, introduced above, was Buthelezi; another was military hero and former chief of the Defense Force, Constand Viljoen.

Avoid “wrecking the process”: This ultimatum was the message transmitted to the Afrikaner general and the African gentleman, loud and clear. The United States, with Lyman in the lead, failed to lean on the African National Congress (Nelson Mandela’s goons) to accommodate a federal structure. It promised merely to hold a future South African government to its “pre-election commitments, including shared power and the protection of minorities.” Until then, the skeptical Buthelezi was instructed to trust the ANC to relinquish the requisite power. Enraged, Buthelezi threatened to take his case to the American people and “spotlight” the knavish confederacy between their government and the ANC. (Then, Republicans were generally with Buthelezi, Democrats with the ANC. These days, both parties are with the ANC.) Being the man Prime Minister, F. W. de Klerk was not, Buthelezi rejected the pressure and overtures from the West. “I am utterly sick of being told how wrong I am by a world out there,” he wrote to Lyman. The dispensation being hatched was “an instrument for the annihilation of KwaZulu.”

Viljoen, who represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces, believed de Klerk had abdicated his responsibilities to this electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state. Likewise, Buthelezi, whose championship of self-determination had been denied, was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis (warriors) were every bit as fractious as Viljoen; every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden. For setting his sights on sovereignty, the Zulu royal and his following (close on twenty percent of the population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West (and by CATO’s point person).

 
• Category: History • Tags: Apartheid, South Africa 

Periodically, America experiences episodes of mass, hysterical contagion.

What is “hysterical contagion”? A sociologist explains it as the spread of symptoms of an illness among a group, absent any physiological disease. It provides a way of coping with a situation that cannot be handled with the usual coping mechanism.

For example, in 1983, girls in the West Bank fell ill, one after the other. Soon, all the schools and finally the entire community was engulfed, affected with the same symptoms. Arab doctors implicated the Israelis. But of course. The Israeli Occupation had poisoned the girls by gas to reduce their fertility. When real doctors arrived on the scene to examine the neurotics; the girls were pronounced physically healthy.

The frenzied behavior known as mass hysteria or hysterical contagion is well documented. The Trump-Russia “collusion,” “obstruction of justice” probe qualifies, with an exception: This particular form of mass madness involves a meme, a story-line, rather than the physical symptoms observed in the West Bank.

Rumor recounted as fact for which no evidence can possibly be adduced: Indeed, the Establishment and opposition elites have poisoned the country’s collective consciousness. However, it’s the emotional pitch with which the Trump-Russia collusion group-think is delivered, day in and day out, that has gripped and inflamed irrational, febrile minds.

What sociology terms “a collective preoccupation” is fueled by organizational- and communication networks. Friendship networks (the liberal kind) and work organizations (government departments infested with like-minded individuals) serve as nodes in a system that transmits faulty signals across the synapses of this collective, damaged brain.

The storyline du jour is manufactured by America’s gilded elites. During the era of Bush II, DC operative Karl Rove put it plainly: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the US government certainly is—the only government to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (“good” bombs, because dropped by the US)—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality. Or else.

The manufacturing of Fake News by the Deep State, circa 2017, is of a piece with the anatomy of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, in 2003. (Chronicled in achingly painful detail in Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture.) Except that back then, Republicans, joined by diabolical Democrats like Hillary Clinton, were the ones dreaming up Homer Simpson’s Third Dimension.

Conscripted into America’s reality, Iraqis paid the price of this terrible American concoction. Hundreds of thousands of them were displaced and killed due to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Because of Fake News generated so effectively by the likes of Judith Chalabi Miller, the Gray Lady’s prized reporter at the time, American soldiers paid dearly, as well. Miller shilled for that war over the pages of the New York Times like there was no tomorrow. She’s now a Fox News “specialist.”

To manufacture consent, elements in the intelligence community worked with neoconservative counterparts in Bush 43′s administration, in particularity with “the Office of Special Plans.” And while Fake News babes did wonders for the cause of senseless killing—the dissemination of Fake News vis-a-vis Iraq was hardly the exclusive province of Fox News. With some laudable exceptions, Big Media all was tuned-out, turned-on and hot for war.

Now, it’s all-out war on Trump. Then it was war on Iraq.

Salient in 2003, as in 2017, was the monolithic quality of the cheer-leading coming from the networks; an unquestioning uniformity that spoke to a slutty sell-out throughout the media establishment. For journalistic jingoism, it’s impossible to best the coverage of the high-tech media extravaganza known as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Embedded with the military turned out to be a euphemism for in bed with the military. Practically all network embeds focused exclusively on the pentagon’s version of events, to the exclusion of reality on the Iraqi ground. Yet reporters who slept with their sources were treated as paragons of truth. Those of us who refused such cohabitation were labeled “unilaterals.” (This column paid with a syndication deal.)

Reporting hearsay as truth and failing to verify stories were all in a day’s work on cable and news networks. A Geiger counter that went off in the inexpert hands of a marine, stationed in Iraq, became “Breaking News,” possible evidence of weapons-grade plutonium. Every bottle of Cipro tablets located was deemed a likely precursor to an anthrax factory. Anchormen and women somberly seconded these “finds,” seldom bothering to issue retractions.

To comprehend the hysterical mass contagion that is the war on Trump it’s essential to trace the contours of that other war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the way it was peddled to the American public.

The war on Trump could end badly. By “badly,” I don’t mean the violent silencing of conservative speakers, the firebombing of Republican Party headquarters (October, 2016). Or, the attempted murder of Republicans representatives (June, 2017).

These are barbaric. But if past is prologue; the frenzy of inflamed imaginations could spill over into all-out war—against Russia, Iran, North Korea.

You’ve been warned.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Fake News 

He pleaded the case of a loyal soldier, rather than forsake retired US Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn to the mercies of FBI director James Comey. And he asked for loyalty from the congenitally disloyal. You’ll agree: President Donald Trump is being indicted on technicalities and on personal style.

Distill the president’s unremarkable actions, subject to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, and it becomes clear that The establishment—for sensible people outside the beltway have dissociated from the Russia-collusion phantasmagoria—is indicting him on the plain, impolitic speech that catapulted Donald Trump from candidate to president.

Trump is “aggressive and oblivious to the rules of engagement,” fumed CNN’s sibilant Chris Cillizza, formerly of the Washington Post. Correct. But was the language of combat you deployed, Mr. Cillizza, a Freudian slip?

The president’s linguistic infelicities—a word salad, at times—have given the press popinjays and their Washington overlords the foothold needed to go after the president. That, and the “bad” habits of a businessman he has retained. Trump transacts with everyone, Russians too. Besides, we voted for deals, not wars.

In any event, this is the sum and substance of President Trump’s offenses. That, and beating Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Proponents of free-markets understand how business operates. Statists don’t. To the statist, the Fake News fabricator and the stark raving mad Washington Post (WaPo), “Trump sitting next to Russian Ambassador Yuri Dubinin, at a luncheon hosted by Leonard Lauder, the oldest son of Estée Lauder,” in 1986, is incriminating evidence … of something.

The tidbit made it on to a sinister WaPo list, “Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests.” To the same statists, Trump “meeting with Russian businessmen, including a real estate developer,” in 2013, “while in Moscow for his Miss Universe competition,” is yet more circumstantial evidence of … something.

Citizen Trump was bringing a fun event to Russia! To members of the American media-military-congressional-industrial complex, being amicable with foreign interests is a foreign concept. At the same time, he did some business there. Inconceivable! Had Mr. Trump smuggled a dirty bomb into Russia, under the “clever” guise of pursuing commerce, his militant enemies stateside might forgive him today. The tools threatening President Trump with impeachment have one bag of tricks stuffed with power tools: They audit, indict, arrest, bomb, change regimes. They don’t make profitable business deals; they tax them. They don’t make peace, they wage war.

Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the reporters—they’ve lost their minuscule minds—frame the act of putting in a kind word for “a good guy,” as Trump did in February 2017, for Gen. Michael Flynn, as an obstruction of justice. Trump had forgotten he was talking to a cunning, career bureaucrat and government attorney. Naively, he asked “Showboat” Comey to take it easy on Flynn. “He’s a good guy,” said the president. “I hope you can let this go.” Trump’s language is that of a regular guy. He sees a decent man who’s served his country with distinction being hounded. He puts in a good word for him.

Flynn is not a Federal zombie in the mold of the terrorist-fighting Jack Bauer, protagonist in the defunct cult TV series “24.” Did the general not say bad things about Islam (whose intimate association with blood-letting has been expunged from FBI training manuals)? Indeed he did.

A theme in “24” was Bauer’s eternal willingness to be chewed and spat out by the successive governments he serves. As Bauer’s Chinese jailers hand him over to his American handlers, the latter chain him like a dog to a fence. Bauer is accustomed to being manacled by his owners. The Top Dogs just don’t trust their lapdog, despite his blind devotion. In fact, Bauer was forever being chained by his “colleagues” and “escorted” to the Los Angeles Counter Terrorist Unit’s “holding cells.” These hermetic chambers were used mostly to confine and torture America’s enemies, which included some of CTU’s finest. Or, agents who’ve been tortured by the enemy and must now be counter-tortured by CTU. Assets have to be utilized to the full.

Flynn broke free. So what? Let him be.

Donald Trump is unschooled in the rules of state. The president is too set in his ways and independent-minded to imbibe the layers of debased semiotics with which government lawyers routinely rape reality. Requesting mercy for Flynn was legally foolish, but it was the humane thing to do. It can’t be considered illicit in natural law.

Of course a president is allowed to assemble around him an administration willing to carry out his plans. Thus, inquiring whether as fickle a man as Comey would support, not sabotage, the president’s administration is a perfectly rational way of determining whether Comey should remain in place as FBI director or be replaced.

Outside politics, fending for Flynn would be normal. Within the dead zone of politics and state-made law, a president who speaks kindly about a marked man becomes one himself.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Check out Ilana’s YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, James Comey, Russia 

If you want to picture the relationship between the 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump and the Deep State seeking to unseat him; DON’T picture a Venn diagram. There is no overlap between the two solitudes.

Rather, picture a giant amorphous amoeba, geared toward survival. This single-celled organism will galvanize all systems within to preserve its threatened integrity.

Much like our parasitical one-celled protozoa, the Deep State has an overriding purpose and a fixed repertoire of reflexes. “Some amoebas protect their bodies by covering themselves with sand grains.” The Deep State organism protects itself by throwing dust in our eyes.

Hence the Russia probe. The production that is the Russia probe is courtesy of agents of the Deep State—the “managerial society” and its ruling elite, as political philosopher James Burnham (1905-1987) called it.

Like nothing else, the Trump populist revolution has exposed the sub rosa presence in American lives of a “transpartisan elite with its own interests.” “Such an analysis of the political and economic elite—its composition, its genesis, its beliefs, its myths, and its failures—is the common strand running through the [prescient] writings of James Burnham,” observes Julius Krein of American Affairs.

“Increasingly power is shifted away from individuals elected to represent the political community toward unelected officials qualified to hold the positions responsible for administering the government … Like all managers, they derive their power from the administrative expertise and credentials that qualify them for office rather than from democratic legitimacy. They are accountable, that is, not to the political community but to the other managers that define their qualifications.”

“Deep State” is no conspiracy theory. There’s nothing mythical about the Republican and Democratic career government workers, embedded like parasites in the bowels of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community, the military, and a like-minded media, who’ve risen on their hind legs to protect their turf and protest an agenda that leaves them out in the cold.

The anatomy and workings of the Deep State are, in my opinion, reflexive, rather than a matter of collusion and conspiracy. Simple psychology—human nature at its worst—sees government jobs and programs, war and welfare alike, protected in perpetuity and at all costs by the administrators of government jobs and programs.

Hidden or in plain sight, The State is geared toward increasing or maintaining its sphere of influence, never reducing it. Voters are paid lip service, provided their wishes coincide with the aims of this unelected, entrenched apparatus.

But when the popular will defies Deep State, that monster breathes fire.

The “technocratic elite” has a corporate extension. Engorged government bureaucracies are complemented by colossal corporate entities, whose virtue-signaling managers have occupied “the commanding heights of the economy, politics, and culture.” As Burnham warned they would.

The corporate element of this government-within-government superstructure (yes, the conservative Burnham had a Trotskyite beginning) has special access by virtue of its obscene wealth. Think the liver-spotted George Soros, who moves to overthrow governments in “lesser” countries. Think Apple’s Tim Cook, Microsoft’s Brad Smith, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Uber’s Travis Kalanick, or Google’s Sundar Pichai. They all sprang into action against Trump’s secession from the Paris Climate Accord.

Candidate Trump got considerable support for his promise to secede from or renegotiate this or the other agreement between the U.S. government and various supranational systems. Successive U.S. governments have ceded the rights and sovereignty of Americans to these supra-state systems.

Deplorables voted for more, not less, sovereignty. But bien-pensant Elon Musk of the Tesla and SpaceX fame is having none of this sovereignty stuff.

Musk, worth $15.2 billion, is muscling the Trump administration to further tax Americans so as to fund the Europeans and their polluting cosignatories to the climate accord.

Mr. Musk trashes the environment with his “Commie Cars,” electrical cars which discharge into the environment lead, cadmium and nickel—the byproducts of batteries—and whose impact on the environment has been shown to be worse than that of the gasoline-powered car.

Trashing the popular will is all in a day’s work for the corporate arm of the Deep State.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed(June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Check out Ilana’s YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump 

“ISIS” did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.

The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a performance of pop tart Ariana Grande.

ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.

The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the idiotic belief that, underneath the nosebags (the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle), they were just like us.

Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.

This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in White Hall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably Anglo-American, maybe even a tad monocultural.

While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us.

Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don’t describe exactly who’s killing us; we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.

You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush’s dumb dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.

Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.

Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.

Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are State central planners: Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.

If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.

**

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Check out Ilana’s YouTube channel

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration, Muslims, Terrorism 

Mayor Mike Signer—who had declared his intention to make Charlottesville, Virginia, the “capital of the resistance” to President Trump and a sanctuary city “to protect immigrants and refugees”—is refusing to protect a symbol saluting one of America’s greatest men.

Yes, Robert E. Lee was a great American.

If Signer knew the first thing about human valor, he’d know that there was no man more valorous and courageous than Robert E. Lee, whose “two uncles signed the Declaration of Independence and [whose] father was a notable cavalry officer in the War for Independence.”

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia—known as “Lee’s Army”—is not to be conflated with the “Stars and Bars,” which “became the official national flag of the Confederacy.” According to Sons of the South, the “first official use of the ‘Stars and Bars’ was at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1861.” But because it resembled the “Stars and Stripes” flown by the Union, the “Stars and Bars” proved a liability during the Battle of Bull Run.

The confusion caused by the similarity in the flags was of great concern to Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard. He suggested that the Confederate national flag be changed to something completely different, to avoid confusion in battle in the future. This idea was rejected by the Confederate government. Beauregard then suggested that there should be two flags. One, the national flag, and the second one a battle flag, with the battle flag being completely different from the United States flag.

Originally, the flag whose history is trampled these days was a red square, not a rectangle. Atop it was the blue Southern Cross. In the cross were—still are—13 stars representing the 13 states in the Confederacy.

Wars are generally a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight. Yankees are fond of citing Confederacy officials in support of slavery and a war for slavery. Most Southerners, however, were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a “War for Southern Independence.” They rejected central coercion, the kind we readily submit to these days. Southerners believed a union that was entered voluntarily could be exited in the same way. As even establishment historian Paul Johnson concedes, “The South was protesting not only against the North’s interference in its ‘peculiar institution,’ but against the growth of government generally.”

Lincoln grew government, markedly, in size and in predatory boldness.

“Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil,” wrote the South’s greatest hero, Gen. Lee. He did not go to war for that repugnant institution. To this American, local was truly beautiful. “In 1861 he was offered command of all the armies of the United States, the height of a soldier’s ambition,” chronicles Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina. “But the path of honor commanded him to choose to defend his own people from invasion rather than do the bidding of the politicians who controlled the federal machinery in Washington.”

Lord Acton, the British historian of liberty, wrote to Lee in praise. The general, surmised Lord Acton, was fighting to preserve “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will”: states’ rights and secession.

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

“… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Another extraordinary Southerner was James Johnston Pettigrew. He gave his life for Southern independence, not for slavery. Quoting Pettigrew, Professor Wilson likens the forbearance of his own Confederate forebears to “the small Greek city-states who stood against the mighty Persian Empire in the 5th century B.C.”

“The U.S. government had quadruple the South’s resources.” Yet “it took 22 million Northerners four years of the bloodiest warfare in American history to conquer five million Southerners,” who “mobilized 90 percent of their men and lost nearly a fourth.”

Shades of Leonidas’ 300 Spartans, at Thermopylae.

When they hoist the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, it is these soldiers Southerners honor, not slavery.

Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white.

With their battle flag, Southerners commemorate these innocents. With its statue, Charlottesville salutes Gen. Lee, who, in a letter to his sister, expressed unhectoring clarity as to where his loyalties lay:

“With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.”

Lee, you see, was first and foremost a Virginian, the state that gave America its greatest presidents and the Constitution itself.

Born in New York (confirmation of which Sergey Brin’s Google search is reluctant to cough up), steeped in Berkeley and Princeton—Mayor Mike Signer is nothing but a carpetbagger.

* * *

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Check out Ilana’s YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 

As a newly elected president, Donald Trump was quick to take one of Washington’s institutional pillars down a peg. By snubbing the 2017 annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD), the president deflated what should have been more appropriately called the Sycophants’ Supper. Would that it was the last such supper. For now, the POTUS’s slap to this gathering of sycophants this past weekend will have to do.

Like nothing else, the annual Correspondents’ Dinner is a mark of a corrupt politics. It’s a sickening specter, where some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—convene to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us in Rome’s provinces.

Those gathered at the Annual Correspondents’ Dinner, or its Christmas party, are not the country’s natural aristocracy, but its authentic Idiocracy. No matter how poor their predictive powers, no matter how many times they get it wrong—in war and in peace—the presstitutes always find time for this orgy of self-praise

And they’re all on the same circuit, beavering at sculpting celebrity personas. Anchors at major networks hangout on late-night shows, where presidents and first ladies hobnob, too. Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show” may be a vaudeville of giggles, goofiness, and mind-numbing banter. But providing bread and circuses for Booboisie comes with a “responsibility” the dancing, prancing, androgynous Mr. Fallon takes seriously. To his tomfoolery, Fallon once added a spot of promotion for ObamaCare (March, 2014), to honor Michelle Obama’s visit to the set. Fallon’s lead was a signal to Sister Act. FLOTUS launched into her own agitprop for her husband’s healthcare juggernaut on that show.

Meanwhile, “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central is a professional Shangri-La for the cast of characters at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This year, the downright mirthless “Daily Show” donated one Hasan Minhaj as its circus clown to amuse the sycophants. I hope he came for free, for Hasan is worthless as a funny man. Not a funny bone in his body.

Hasan’s idea of verbal swordplay: calling The Donald “liar in chief.” The quip has 9,650,000 results on Google, most of them unrelated to hackneyed Hasan. “Liar in chief” goes back to 2011 and before, and has been applied to every president and candidate since 2011.

Hasan’s “originality” came together in lines as, “I would like to say it’s an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact.” He also invented a new form of satire: the sermon on The Hill. Interspersed with kvetching—“No one wanted to do this so, of course, it landed in the hands of an immigrant, [t]hat’s how it always goes down”was a string of clichés on the press’ duty to do a better job. For “our democracy,” you know.

The press is meant to be roasted at the WHCD. Were I a Muslim ostensibly roasting the press, like Hasan, I’d lampoon how present company covers my peaceful religion. But to do that, Hasan would have to be clever, creative, and willing to say what everyone is thinking but is too afraid to say. He’s none of those.

Someone who’s all of those things is Anthony Jeselnik. Here’s a demonstration, for future mediocrities to emcee an event like the annual Correspondents’ Dinner. It’s courtesy of the gifted (and gorgeous) Mr. Jeselnik, whose rape and Holocaust jokes are obviously more irreverent than his digs at Islam. (Smart. The offended cohort won’t KILL YOU.) To the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council:

  • “Muslims are not known for it, but they do have a sense of humor. For example, your greeting, “Peace be unto you,” is that supposed to be sarcastic?”
  • “Devout Muslims keep their women covered, don’t allow them to drive, leave the house alone, or go to school. So would you say that a lot of Islamic practices are just common sense?”
  • “Why do Muslims seem so angry all the time? Is it because you guys don’t have Christmas?”

The event and the invited say a great deal about the state of satire in the US, killed off by the twin tyrannies of political correctness and affirmative action.

In America, funny has always been, still is, the forte of black men, white men, and a smattering of white women, who’re funny until they contract left-liberalism. (As opposed to my own classical liberalism.)

Roseanne Barr[f], Sarah Silverman, Kathy Griffin, Chelsea Handler: They weren’t all lousy comedians, but they devolved when they took to preaching progressivism. To wit, the performance, in 2015, of Cecily Strong. Example of Cecily’s weak whining:

  • [I am] “shocked that someone named (Senator) Tom Cotton is a senator, and not a character from an old racist cartoon.”
  • “I’m not going to try and tell you comedians how to do politics. That would be like you guys telling me what to do with my body.”

Black women are way funnier than white, liberal women. But sisters are too angry, scary-angry, to be funny. Heartfelt rage is not funny. For instance, in 2009, Wanda Sykes—talent undeniable—started her WHCD debut with great material. She soon descended into fury and vulgarity. To be smart, satire must be irreverent, brutally offensive and always personally deprecating and detached.

As to Brothers at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner: He’s no Jeselnik, but judging from the sourpuss faces in the crowd, Larry Wilmore acquitted himself well in 2016. My favorite lines:

  • “It’s nice to match the names (in this room) to the faces in the Panama Papers.”
  • “Obama can’t be killing print journalism tonight, that industry has been dead for a while.”
  • “Beyoncé is not anti-cop, at the most, she’s anti-pants.”

More than about the state of a vital art form does the event and the invited speak to the press corps’ ethics and code of conduct. The un-watchful dogs of the media have no business frolicking with the president and his minions. This co-optation is the hallmark of a corrupt, celebrity press. (And, when did Hollywood become a fixture in our New-World tradition? In case the country has forgotten, actors are a troupe that makes a living pretending to be something they’re not. Professional poseurs, if you like. Granted, they’re not parasites, like the politicians with whom they cavort. But Tinseltown is a left-liberal ideological collective. They march in thematic unison. That their cultural products have become artistically worthless could well be because activism has replaced acting, and sermons have supplanted stories and good scripts. Hollywood is a pretty, pea-brained community. Why are their ranks at the WHCD at all? And why do we forget that these are, in the words of Borat, “trash people”?)

Kudos to the likes of former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, who’ve excoriated the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, or who’ve refused to attend, irrespective of the political affiliation of the man ensconced in the White House.

Finally, for days following these glitzy events, the Gilded Ones will share their night of glory with the lowly viewer. We watch them like poor servants, noses pressed against the master’s mansion windows, as they genuflect to themselves. How many times were we “taken behind the scenes” with megalo-Megyn (Kelly), to gaze at the gowns she wore to one of these circle jerks?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

ILANA Mercer is the author of "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed," (June, 2016) and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.


PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.