While the hawkish NeverTrump NeoCons bemoan the fact that President Trump has not only refused to start any new wars, he’s also been steadily bringing our overseas troops home, most Americans likely view this as a positive accomplishment, whether they admit it publicly or not.
But POTUS has perhaps been a trifle remiss regarding the war against America happening within our borders ever since he took office. Of course in this he’s not alone: Fox News and a great many Conservatives often made light of the Dems’ obvious anti-Trump ploys—especially the more ludicrous ones like the claim that he fed the fish wrong during his Presidential visit to Japan. The dishonest, partisan, “fake news” media have had a field day trying to turn the public against our President by nattering about his taxes, Trump University, Stormy Daniels, Putin, etc. ad nauseam—culminating in the 2-year Mueller witch-hunt and the Ukrainian phone call impeachment hoax. Between the hoaxes, nonstop Leftist propaganda and massive psy-ops, Americans must struggle to keep their grip on reality, and many have been unsuccessful in that endeavor—most notably your average Democrats.
From the start, Trump had very few allies even among his cabinet and top officials—some of whom were Obama holdovers— and he lost arguably the most important one in very short order: General Michael Flynn. In any case, POTUS needed a trustworthy, honest, justice-seeking and courageous Attorney General to go about the enormous task of draining the swamp and thereby protecting his America First agenda. Once his first choice, Rudy Giuliani, declined, he went with Jeff Sessions, who, sadly, proved to be useless. Perhaps Sessions believed he stood on principle when he recused himself, but even if so, he was tone deaf to the reality of Trump’s situation and failed to comprehend how badly POTUS needed an aggressive AG to have his back.
And now we know for sure what many of us suspected for some time: Bill Barr is also part of the Deep State. So if Trump has been playing 3-D chess, as many suggest, he’s been doing so without a bishop or a knight—making it all the more amazing he’s kept so many promises and has such a long and stellar list of accomplishments, including brokering historic new peace agreements in the Middle East. No wonder he’s recently received his third nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize!

Two Top Generals Weigh In

But now the game is urgent, the conflict escalating, and the enemy—firmly entrenched within the gates as well engaging from abroad—must be confronted. I believe that’s why two decorated generals—General Michael Flynn and retired General Thomas McInerney—are advising Trump to use his full presidential powers to initiate some form of martial law regarding the stolen election. We needn’t rehearse the myriad ways the Left cheated, but let’s look briefly at two of them: in the wee hours, in the swing states, there were inexplicable huge bumps for Biden. When you see them in a graph, they look like hockey sticks – a sure sign of in-your-face fraud. Does that ring a bell? Ah yes…Al Gore’s infamous hockey stick graph to prove catastrophic global warming—another hoax, long since debunked. But I digress.
We now also know that vote-flipping software—probably the Hammer/Scorecard system—was accessed in real-time by hostile foreign powers including Iran and China. I repeat: we’re at war! So let’s take a look at what each of these Generals proposes.

Lincoln vs. Trump: Secession vs. Coup d’état

General Flynn compares President Trump’s situation to that of Abraham Lincoln during the run-up to the Civil War, and during the course of it as well.
He lists extra-Constitutional actions Lincoln took, as follows:

• Ordering “hundreds of Northern newspapers that spoke against him to be shut down and their owners and editors arrested.”
• Ordering the arrest of an Ohio congressman “for the crime of speaking out against him.”
• Signing an arrest warrant for the then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who ruled that Lincoln had illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
• Ordering the arrest of thousands of Maryland citizens “for the crime of ‘suspected Southern sympathies,”‘ some of whom were held in military prisons without trial for years.

Speaking of Lincoln, in his book The Real Lincoln, Thomas DiLorenzo makes a very compelling case that the South had the right to secede. Think about it—if they didn’t have that right, then neither did those pesky thirteen colonies that seceded from Great Britain! In both cases, the injured party was saddled with a growing economic burden, while being deprived of adequate representation. And while slavery, a moral dilemma from the start, became a pressing issue during the Civil War, the war was not fought over it, nor did the South secede over slavery. As the famous British novelist Charles Dickens remarked, the falling out between North and South was over “a fiscal quarrel.” That means a successful negotiation on tariffs, the primary issue that was strangling the South, could have prevented the war altogether. Alternatively, Lincoln and his party could have allowed the South to peacefully secede. This should be considered when we look at the draconian measures Lincoln took, and DiLorenzo doesn’t mince words in his critique of the revered President whom we’ve been told “saved the Union”.
Jefferson himself noted in the Declaration of Independence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The Southerners chose to institute a new government to promote their safety and happiness. They did not plan an assault on Washington D.C., or a coup d’état to overthrow the United States government. They merely wanted to go their own way in peace. Had King George permitted the colonists to do just that, there would have been no need for the Revolutionary War. Similarly, had President Lincoln simply wished his Southern compatriots well, there would have been no Civil War.
And this is why I’ve come to believe Lincoln’s autocratic actions had little or no legitimate basis, whereas, conversely, President Trump has every reason, right and duty to use the full powers of his office, including martial law and military tribunals if necessary, to combat the potent and dangerous ongoing coup d’état /Color Revolution before it extinguishes our Republic completely. And once lost, forever lost.

General Flynn’s Strategy

General Flynn’s petition calls for martial law, which I believe may be necessary for a short period; it also seeks a new election. While patriots would love to see a real election with Trump’s Electoral College numbers upwards of 400, I question the wisdom of redoing the election. Why? First, because Trump already won! All we need to do is to discount all suspect ballots—which all happen to be Biden ballots—and apply the vote-flipping algorithm in the other direction; that is, we just crunch the numbers adding Trump’s stolen percentages back and subtracting Sleepy Joe’s faux, extra-weighted votes. Of course we wouldn’t get to see the full glory of Trump’s win, since there’s no way to add in all the hundreds of thousands of Trump ballots they tore up, but it would certainly put POTUS well over the 270 needed to win the election.
My second reason is this: What might the globalist, NWO elites and their pals the Democrats, be doing in the run-up to this new election that they’d be sure to lose? Twiddling their thumbs? Or creating a massive false flag attack to further cripple the country and throw this second election into chaos?

General McInerney’s Strategy

This is why I prefer General McInerney’s plan. Here are some quotes from the General, “He [Trump] has got to declare a national emergency …He should also use the Insurrection Act because we have an insurrection right now in this country when you look at Antifa and BLM, plus other groups. He must suspend habeas corpus as President Lincoln did in 1861 and Franklin Roosevelt did in 1942 when World War II started.” He goes on to say, “The Democratic perpetrators of this, plus the Russians, Chinese and Iran, have not disguised this cyber warfare on America… And yet we have judges…saying that’s not enough. And so that’s why it’s so important that this national emergency be declared and the president start arresting these people right away; this is a national emergency. I would declare martial law.”
Remember the FBI’s predawn SWAT team raids of Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – two patriots whose crime was essentially helping Trump? Well how about predawn SWAT team raids on the key players in this insurrection? That would likely include the CEOs of Big Tech, Big Media, and many big players, all the way up to Obama and Soros – not forgetting Hillary, Brennan, et al., or Norm Eisen, the brains behind the Ukraine phone call hoax, and the “Transition Integrity Project” that actually war-gamed a coup against Trump should he win the election! And let’s be clear: the election fiasco is not just about vote cheating—it’s a brazen attempt to overthrow America’s government. Don’t think for a moment that we could endure four years of Kamala—I mean Biden—OK, I mean Kamala, plus her new VP (Michelle?), and then make America great again. There would be no America left. In fact, we’d find ourselves in an impoverished country stripped of our sovereignty, a mere cog in the New World Order machine. There’s no turning back from a worldwide dystopia under One World Government. Reread Orwell’s 1984—just mentally change the date to 2024.
This is why Donald Trump must be our War President—he must take on the enemies arrayed against us, and We the Patriots must support him. What makes most sense to me, would be his immediately replacing William Barr with a formidable attorney general—Sidney Powerhouse Powell, anyone? – who’d move forward with arrests, and perhaps even call for military tribunals for those who’ve clearly committed treason. President Trump must honor his oath, as I wholeheartedly believe he will, and we must honor our pledge of allegiance to our flag and the Republic for which it stands.
If not now, when?
© Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

Arguably, the most galling reaction to the targeted killing of Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, came from John Brennan, Director of the CIA under the Obama administration.
Startling evidence that members of the former Obama administration simply inhabit a parallel universe over Iran has been revealed in their reaction to the assassination last Friday of the mastermind of the Iranian nuclear weapons programme, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.—Melanie Phillips, The warped reaction to the Fakhrizadeh assassination, December 1, 2020.
It has been over a week since the lynchpin of the Iranian nuclear project, Mohsen Fakhridazeh was killed in what appears to be an immaculately planned and flawlessly executed strike by elusive and yet to be identified assailants. Nonetheless, analysis of what took place and speculation of what might take place as a result, are still at the focus of considerable media attention.

The prime suspect…?

While no state or organization has claimed responsibility/credit for the action, and despite the fact that a good number of interested parties had reason to approve of his sudden demise, suspicion fell chiefly on the secret intelligence service of Israel, the Mossad.
Depressingly—but not unexpectedly—international condemnation was both swift and widespread.
Thus, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, issued a disapproving statement, declaring: “…an Iranian government official and, according to reports, one of his bodyguards, were killed in a series of violent attacks. This is a criminal act and runs counter to the principle of respect for human rights the EU stands for.”
In similar critical vein, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab expressed concern over “the situation in Iran and the wider region [where]we do want to see de-escalation of tensions.” Although he admitted that “We’re still waiting to see the full facts…of what’s happened in Iran”, he nevertheless stressed the need to “stick to the rule of international humanitarian law which is very clear against targeting civilians.”
Significantly, as Ron Jontof-Hutter deftly points out, both Borrell and Raab seem either woefully misinformed or willfully misleading in describing Fakhrizadeh as a “civilian/official”. After all, it is widely known that he was a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not only an elite and highly privileged arm of Iran’s military, but also designated a terrorist organization by the US in April 2019.

Hostile & Hypocritical?

But perhaps the most alarming and annoying reaction came from John Brennan, who served as the Director of the CIA under the Obama administration (2013-17). In a series of tweets immediately after the attack, Brennan decried the killing of Fakhrizadeh in the strongest of terms.
Although professing not to know the identity of the assailants or whether “a foreign government” was behind “the murder of Fakhrizadeh”, he nevertheless began by deeming the attack as an “act of state sponsored terrorism” and “a flagrant violation of international law”, which was likely to “encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.”
He went on to characterize the action as “…a criminal act & highly reckless”, warning that: “It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict”.
When operating in foreign countries, secret intelligence forces are ipso facto in contravention of the law of the land in which they operate. Indeed, as part of their job description they may abduct, extort, illegally acquire classified information and yes, assassinate individuals deemed a grave threat to their homeland.
This is, of course, something that Brennan is well aware of—since he was, as the New York Times dubbed him: “the chief architect of a clandestine campaign of targeted killings”, and “the principal coordinator of a ‘kill list’… overseeing drone strikes by the military and the C.I.A.”—see here and here.

Good for the goose but not for the gander?

Indeed, the Brennan-orchestrated campaign spanned large swathes of the globe—including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, comprising around an estimated 14,000 strikes. Of course, unlike the targeted killing of Fakhrizadeh, which resulted in little to no collateral damage, the US drone strike caused significant civilian casualties—with estimates ranging from just under a 1000 to just over 2000 fatalities, including hundreds of children—and leaving thousands injured.
Indeed, according to one BBC report, local residents stated that they were more afraid of the US drones than they were of the terrorists, who the drones targeted—also see here. Indeed, Amnesty International designated the US extrajudicial killings as unlawful—some of which might even be considered war crimes. Moreover, as for the efficacy of the drone campaign, many see the collateral damage wrought on civilians as spurring recruitment to the very terrorist groups it was designed to curtail.
Indeed, Brennan has been harshly berated by human rights organizations—much along the lines that he himself castigated the strike against Fakhrizadeh; while his integrity in accounting for the results of the drone campaign, has been gravely impugned. For example, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism asserted that Brennan’s claims regarding civilian casualties “ do not appear to bear scrutiny”; while The Atlantic was even more brusque, alleging reproachfully: “Brennan has been willing to lie about those drone strikes to hide ugly realities”. It derisively designated his assertion that: “there had been zero collateral deaths from covert U.S. drone strikes in the previous year, an absurd claim that has been decisively debunked.”

“Extraordinary & galling…”

Following his previously cited derogatory tweets, Brennan tried to differentiate his drone campaign from the targeted killing of Fakhrizadeh. Accordingly, he tweeted: “These assassinations are far different than strikes against terrorist leaders & operatives of groups like al-Qaida & Islamic State, which are not sovereign states. As illegitimate combatants under international law, they can be targeted in order to stop deadly terrorist attacks.”
So, according to “Brennenesque logic”, while preemptively blowing away a “bad guy”(together with several unfortunate collateral bystanders), who was allegedly plotting to slay several hundred is completely justified; while eliminating a high ranking military figure (with zero collateral casualties),who was unquestionably planning the destruction of several million is a heinous “act of state sponsored terrorism” and “a flagrant violation of international law”.
It was with good reason that General (ret.) John “Jack” Keane, formerly Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, took exception to Brennan’s remarks.
In a Fox News interview, he remarked tersely: “…that’s pretty extraordinary. It takes a lot of gall to say something like that in the face of what Israel is dealing with, with Iran.”
He went on to clarify: “ I mean Iran is a threat to the United States. They’ve proven it. They’ve blown up our embassies they’ve killed our soldiers in Iraq. They’ve killed thousands of us in the [last] forty years. But they are not an existential threat… They are not challenging the survival of the United States. Nuclear weapons in their hands with ballistic missiles and the continuous and repeated threat to destroy the State of Israel. Iran is an existential threat to the survival of Israel…that is why their actions are so different than ours”.

“Arrogant & Dismissive…”

With some surprise and disapproval, Keane added: “I’m stunned that a former CIA director would not recognize this level of intensity and determination for what it really is–it is to protect the security of the Israeli people.”
Elsewhere, Keane robustly disputed Brennan’s earlier tweets: “I’ll take issue with … those statements… It’s the arrogance that comes out of America at times when we are so dismissive of what our allies are really dealing with…what they deal with every single day in terms of a threat. So here we have the Iranians, that for every single year for 40 years have stated that they want to destroy the State of Israel and they want nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them as the means. And they talk openly about it. But we’re just dismissing that. We’re not going to take it seriously. The Israelis shouldn’t be doing anything that could potentially lead to a “lethal reaction’. ”
So, it seems that it is not that Israel’s detractors do not recognize that states have a right to undertake actions that Israel has undertaken. It is just that that they feel that Israel should be denied that right!

If it walks like a duck… 

But surely if Jews as individuals or as a collective are denied the rights recognized for others, if individual Jews are denied the right to personal safety, and the Jewish collective is denied the right to provide itself security—is that not blatant Judeophobic discrimination?
If there is call for a unique and prejudicial standard to be applied to Jews alone—both as individuals and as a collective—then there is little choice but to conclude that what we are witnessing is not mere hypocrisy—but blatant anti-Semitism—little more than an expectation the Jews should in fact consent to die meekly.
It should be exposed as such—and treated accordingly.
©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.