In Response to a Troubling Open Letter


March 7, 2016 – – San Francisco, CA – Referencing your, Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders :

This is exactly the kind of sanctimonious stunt we have unfortunately come to expect from the inside-the-beltway, insular, self-anointed “conservative" foreign policy establishment whose advice has directly led the United States and Western Civilization to this perilous and bleak point in history.

Looking back only as far as September 11, 2001 it should be self-evident to all that the counsel of the "biggest brains" in the room has proven disastrous.

Islamism is far more entrenched and threatening now than it was even 10 years ago, roughly the time period in which MPAC and its cohorts were allowed to carve out control of U.S. counter-terrorism policy.

The sole super power - and its low performing toady allies, instead of forcefully moving against the enemy, used the crisis as an excuse to move with remarkable speed towards the formation of a police state, with the national intelligence apparatus - ignoring the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution [among others] - directly monitoring innocent American citizens [or getting the information from the United States’ SIGINT data gathering partners in Europe, Australia or New Zealand, per the old ECHELON protocols] absent the slightest evidence of criminality, let alone suspicion of ties to terrorism.

Predictably, having refused to target actual and/or suspected bad guys, the people on both sides of the Atlantic have been hit with deadly effect at least three times in just the last few months by the disciples of Allah.

Upon your advice, we have made the most fundamentally evil bargain imaginable, trading personal liberty for decreased security and increased governmental control. So bad is the logic upon which this process rests that by comparison Faust’s deal with Satan looks positively inviting.

The nascent surveillance state has greatly aided the jihadists in doing what they couldn't imagine to have accomplished on their own, stoking a self-hating, fearful culture locked down and turned inward on itself because of specious arguments involving a ridiculous interpretation of civil rights, one which had its genesis within the Muslim Brotherhoods, "Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America," a document with which all of the signatories are familiar, but apparently have not taken to heart.

Such thinking on the part of the “security professionals” has tremendously strengthened the unholy alliance between the Islamists and the progressive/Marxist left, again something the enemies of liberty and freedom could not have even dreamt of a short time ago.

In order to avoid being called racists, bigots or Islamophobes, much of the civilized world has refused to take the most basic and reasonable measures that any sane society would have been expected to have employed with an eye towards increased security. Chief among them being concentrating law enforcement efforts on targeting likely suspect groups [young Arabic Muslim males displaying particular behavioral patterns] as do the Israelis. You can call it profiling or the pejorative of the day, but that simply reflects the degree to which those who signed on to this venomous document have become comfortable with the tenets of progressivism/cultural Marxism.

In wider focus, banning immigration into the United States from Muslim countries and suspicious individuals with a similar demographic from the non-Muslim world [especially Europe] should be uncontroversial as well as thoroughly defensible legally. But even this simple measure is almost unanimously rejected by the national security wonks as being too radical or worse, rejected out of hand upon the nonsensical argument that it is unconstitutional, as if the entirety of the world's population must be afforded the same protections and rights as are native born American citizens.

Additionally we fail to understand the lack of seriousness with whiich the "foreign policy/national security" insiiders approach the issue of enforceable borders, without whiich nation states cannot exist. This is a fact which has been recognized internationally since at least the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Why building a wall at the Southern border is in any way problematic or should prove to be a cause for bedwetting is mystifying.

Given the above [an abbreviated manifest] it should be plainly obvious that the edict like advice of the intelligentsia has placed us at far greater risk than would have been the case if these folks' ideas had simply been ignored and the nation pursued a genuine war footing.

The condescension represented by this poison pen letter has assumed legendary proportions.

Michael Mukasey’s veiled threat, that the Armed Forces of the United States should disobey direct orders from the U.S. Commander in Chief is the personification of disloyalty, a disgusting display of arrogance. How dare he suggest that enhanced interrogations - rougher treatment than water boarding - in a time of war against really bad people are anything but patriotic. Ditto his wrong-headed insistence that this war must be fought absent collateral damage, especially given the savage nature of an enemy which purposely hides among women and children.

Apparently under the Mukasey doctrine, leveling Raqqa, Syria [ISIS’ command and control center] to the ground leaving no living thing breathing should necessarily land the CIC in Nuremberg.

Gentlemen and women, what you are doing is trying - in the most underhanded way [with an eye towards preserving your 501c3 IRS status] – to subvert the process whereby American citizens choose their leaders. If you disagree with the policies of particular candidates it is by all means within your right to act accordingly but presenting yourselves as the puffed-up embodiment of some kind of nascent priesthood carrying the holy grail of truth is frankly disgusting.

Over the last 8 years all of you have witnessed the most criminal administration in the history of the United States, that of Barack Hussein Obama, shred the Constitution, and provide aid and comfort to our enemies. He has even invited the Muslim Brotherhood into his administration as advisors.

Yet to my knowledge none of you have donned sack cloth and ashes and chained yourselves to the White House fence in protest, which would be a commendable response.

Suggestion, stick to writing scholarly articles that have at worst a slowly corrosive effect and please cease and desist from this vicious attempt to deny the American public - during a pre-revolutionary period of immense cultural upheaval - the possibility of righting the wrongs for which you as a body are more than partially responsible.

If you care to understand the causitive factors which have led to the rise of a fire-and-brimstone populist reformer such as Mr. Trump you need only look into the mirror.

End notes/clarifications/addendum:

Regarding “torture,” the reference upon which Mr. Trump’s critics have seized is as follows - and the candidate further clarified the matter a day after the debate [on 3.4.16] stating that he was not advocating that as CIC he would command U.S. troops to commit illegalities.

[BRET] BAIER: “Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than water boarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.

So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.…

BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?” [source, Jennifer Rubin, Trump’s fascistic order would put troops in peril , WashPost]

To which Trump replied affirmatively.

For the pantywaist set who are now in such high dudgeon over the suggestion by a political candidate that a “gloves off” approach to saving the West from those who are waging a cowardly terrorist war [sacralized by the thoroughly and irredeemably evil ideology embodied in the Shari’a, which IS Islam] we suggest you sit down and shut up long enough for us to review the facts regarding how the United States, and what was its true ally at the time, Great Britain, won World War II.

For those deficient in modern American history, World War II [1939-1945] was the most devastating conflagration in history [70-85+ million deaths]. It took place 75 years ago and the Allied victory saved the planet from the maniacal brutality of Nazi fascism.

Needless to say the level of violence was beyond comprehension.

Allied leaders, conscious of the unprecedented threat posed by Nazism [allied with that of the Soviet Communists, pre Operation Barbarossa] knew they were fighting for survival of civilization and hence conducted the war in the only way possible, essentially matching the enemy’s brutality, while scrupulously avoiding the commission of genuine war crimes such as the Holocaust and the nightmare vivisection practiced by the Imperial Japanese.


1. Over a two year period [1942-1944] the United States carried out devastating incendiary bombing raids against Tokyo, a main locus of Japan’s manufacturing infrastructure, which of course included strictly military targets, not to mention a huge civilian population.

What seems to have been conveniently forgotten by America’s new hand-wringing class is that the majority of the damage was of an ancillary/collateral nature, burning to death, with napalm [jellied gasoline] probably at least 100,000 innocent non-combatants and rendering homeless probably upwards of 1 million more.

2. The fighting in the South Pacific campaign, in which my father participated and hence have some personal knowledge, was particularly nasty. American troops who were unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Japanese were heard screaming into the night by their comrades as they were tortured to death. In response, American soldiers responded in kind for a short period of time.

Not surprisingly much the Japanese depravity abruptly ended, they wanted no part of what they were willing to dish out applied to them.

In short, they got the message and if we may be so bold, allow us to suggest that action was eminently within the bounds of Judeo/Christian moral principles.

Though of course the generalized horror of war continued as our troops continued to island hop towards the homeland of the Imperial Japanese, the war crime aspect in this theater was markedly diminished.

3. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan with nuclear weapons killing upwards of 130,000 non-combatants, though the total death toll will never be known due to the lingering effects of radiation.

Question for Mr. Mukasey, et al.

Were these war crimes? And if so, what explains the absence of American military prosecutions at Nuremberg?

Would these failed experts have attacked Franklin Roosevelt in a manner similar to the way they have savaged the leading GOP candidate if the situation had been reversed and FDR had been forced on national television to answer such idiotic questions as how far would you go to save our way of life?

My guess is that of course they would have demurred.

And therein lies the lunacy of political hit pieces thinly camouflaged as concerned, heartfelt “open letters” in times of all out war where the edifice of Western Civilization is under existential threat.

Add to this the fact that our enemy is generally of an irregular nature. They do not fight as uniform wearing members of an identifiable national entity [despite claims of an Islamic caliphate].

No these are simply bloodthirsty savages who delight in inflicting pain and as such do NOT even fall under the protection of the Geneva Accords. Though the august signers of the above referenced open letter see it differently we place far more trust in the logic put forth by such stellar legal intellects as professor John Yoo [Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ] who was forced out of the GW Bush administration by the same nervous Nellie brain trust:

“The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda’s intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.” [source, John Yoo, Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights]

©2016 LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.