An Intro to … Reassign McMaster


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © August 30, 2017

 

Yesterday I posted Justin Smith’s critique of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster entitled “A Bitter Struggle”. Justin’s theme is the obvious purge of Trump loyalists from the Trump National Security teams and the incomprehensible protection of Obama holdovers.

 

If you read Justin’s submission, and you should, you must have come away wondering: Why in the world would President Trump allow people supportive of Obama’s destructive to the USA agenda to remain when the President promised to drain the swamp?

 

After you read Ryan Mauro’s “25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster,” the question should be a question you cannot get out of your head.

 

I need to stipulate my position for clarity to show you where I stand. I’m a Conservative that subscribes to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda and to be honest, I have some of the Neocon tendencies that lead to American Exceptionalism in foreign policy but have abandoned the concept of nation building in the Muslim world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that Western Concepts of Liberty and Islamic culture are totally inimical to each other. Yet a strong America needs a strong-superior military to enforce American National Interests.

 

Also, years of a cursory study of Islam has not on has shown that American Constitutional Liberty and Islamic theopolitical ideology are incompatible, but as a Christian I can say Islam revered writings are deceptively as well as completely immersed in Antichrist ideology. I’m a Christian but every single Jew should be aware the Islamic revered writings even have more hate for Jews than for Christians.

 

AND pertaining to Israel, I am a Christian Zionist that believes the entirety of the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are to their descendants which today embodies the Jews. A term applied to all twelve tribes of the Hebrews that King David ruled as Israel. There NEVER has been a nation or national people called Palestinians.

 

Every single thing I mentioned – as you will soon discover – is something H.R. McMaster is diametrically opposed to!

 

JRH 8/30/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

 

By RYAN MAURO 

August 27, 2017 

Clarion Project

 

National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster is moving aggressively—and successfully—to maximize his power in the Trump Administration. President Trump is standing by his side as anti-Islamist writers and think-tanks like the Center for Security Policy call for his termination or reassignment.

 

McMaster’s ascent is a sudden change in the balance of power in the White House. President Trump was widely reported to be so disappointed with McMaster that Trump met with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to discuss replacing him. Trump and Bolton concluded it was not the right move.

 

Then, Secretary of Homeland Security General John Kelly became the new chief of staff. He told McMaster that he wanted him to stay. McMaster’s chief rivals, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, were then pressured into resigning.

 

The criticisms of McMaster are well-warranted and are not the fruits of overactive imaginations among bigoted “alt-right” smear-merchants, like Senator McCain characterizes them.

 

Here are 25 reasons that President Trump should fire National Security Adviser McMaster or, if he’s willing to, reassign him to a military position where he can excel on the battlefield as he did before.

 

  1. He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).

 

You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.

 

In 2014, McMaster said that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.” He went so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.”

 

In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”

 

In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”

 

A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”

 

In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”

 

Here’s the Clarion take:

 

VIDEO: The Politically Incorrect Raheel Raza

 

Posted by Clarion Project

Published on Mar 21, 2017

 

Raheel Raza says it like it is. If calling out radical Islam is politically incorrect then so be it. Raheel is bold enough to criticize and challenge radical Islam, are you?

 

  1. Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists

In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”

 

The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.

 

McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.

 

 

  1. Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

 

Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

  1. Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism

 

McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

 

McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.

 

This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S. policies.

 

The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.

 

  1. The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas

 

Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”

 

“The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.

 

He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.

 

Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.

 

The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”

 

If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.

 

There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.

 

  1. McMaster believes terrorism is caused by disenfranchisement and lack of education

 

In his endorsement of the book, McMaster said, “Terrorist organizations use a narrow and irreligious ideology to recruit undereducated and disenfranchised people to their cause.”

 

Remember when the Obama Administration’s State Department spokeswoman was mocked by the left and the right for suggesting that ISIS needs to be countered by reducing unemployment and poverty?

 

That same view is held by our current national security adviser.

 

  1. Preserving the Iran deal

 

McMaster is in favor of keeping the nuclear deal with Iran. His position resulted in the U.S. certifying that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the agreement. By claiming that Iran has been obedient, it bolsters the regime’s credibility and makes America look worse if we leave the deal later.

 

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz was on a conference call with McMaster before it was certified and explained to McMaster how Iran is violating the deal. When Fleitz asked why the administration would certify Iranian compliance despite evidence of non-compliance, McMaster failed to give a direct answer.

 

  1. Failure to understand the Israeli-Palestinian theater of the war with Islamism

 

The ideological war against Islamism requires us to debunk Islamist propaganda against our allies.

 

It is now known that McMaster declined to defend our best ally in the Middle East when questioned about Israel’s conduct in its 2014 war with Hamas.

 

Israel’s extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties in the war have been well-documented. When McMaster was asked whether he would agree that the Israeli military fought ethically, he gave an incoherent answer and then admitted, “that’s kind of a non-answer, sorry, to your first question.”

 

McMaster tried to stop Trump from visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem and, when he realized he couldn’t win that argument, pressured Trump not to go with any Israeli official. McMaster twice refused to answer whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, saying, “That’s a policy decision.”

 

The Conservative Review reported that McMaster refers to Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power,” according to three current and former officials from Trump’s inner circle.

 

Senior Middle East Annalyst [sic] Caroline Glick substantiates the accounts with her own sources who describe McMaster as “deeply hostile” to Israel.

 

According to these reports, McMaster has characterized Israeli security measures as “excuses” to oppress Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs. These sources also claim that he is not supportive of U.S. support for Israeli counter-terrorism efforts and shut down a joint initiative aimed at Hezbollah.

 

The initiative was led by Derek Harvey, who McMaster fired (more on that later).

 

McMaster is a big reason why there are increasing danger signs for Israel from parts of the Trump Administration. This has been recognized by the Zionist Organization of America, which is asking for McMaster’s reassignment.

 

9.Appointing Kris Bauman as top National Security Council adviser on Israel.

 

Kris Bauman was chosen in May as the top adviser on Israel for the National Security Council. Journalist Daniel Greenfield reviewed Bauman’s 2009 dissertation and found highly disturbing content.

 

As Clarion reported earlier this month, Bauman blamed Israel and the West for failing to see “Hamas’s signals of willingness to moderate” and turning Gaza “into an open-air prison.” He advocated a policy that includes “Hamas in a solution,” dismissing Hamas’ oft-stated pledge to destroy Israel and kill Jews until the end of time.

 

In his dissertation, Bauman cites The Israel Lobby, a book that purports to disclose how Israel secretly manipulates the U.S. institutions of power from behind-the-scenes. He says the “Israel Lobby” “is a force that must be reckoned with, but it is a force that can be reckoned with.”

 

Bauman clearly depicts Israel as the aggressor in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and, as Greenfield points out, equates Jewish settlers in the West Bank with Palestinian terrorists.

 

“It is true that one could make an analogous argument regarding Palestinian terrorism, but there is one major difference between the two. Israeli government control over settlement expansion is far greater than Palestinian Authority control over terrorism,” Bauman writes.

 

As to the failure of the “peace process,” he blames Israel as well as the West for its “overwhelmingly favored Israeli interests.” Prime Minister Netanyahu is blamed for “inciting Palestinian violence” and deliberately undermining the prospects for peace.

 

A consistent theme appears in Bauman’s thesis: Israel is the instigator of terrorism. To defeat terrorism, stop Israel. And now he is in a strong position in the National Security Council to try to make that happen.

 

  1. Insubordination and constant drama

 

McMaster goes beyond honestly expressing himself to the president and crosses into insubordination, undermining the president’s agenda and contributing to dysfunction.

 

A strong example of McMaster’s well-known temper and ego was published in May by a prominent author who recalled how McMaster “went a bit batshit” because of an article he wrote where 95% of the content celebrated McMaster’s remarkable success in Iraq.

 

The other five percent focused on his forces’ initial mistakes and “mediocre” performance before adapting to the situation. And that set McMaster off.  The author even quoted an expert who said McMaster’s success would become a “case study in classic counterinsurgency, the way it is supposed to be done.”

 

Even major supporters of McMaster who know him personally admit “he can be very intense.” The left-leaning Politico, which is more inclined to favor McMaster than his rivals, reports that his “temper is legendary” and he “frequently blows his top in high-level meetings.”

 

Politico described McMaster as an “increasingly volatile presence in the West Wing.” Three administration officials told the Daily Caller the same thing, with one describing the National Security Council as having a “poisonous environment.”

 

In addition to targeting Bannon and Gorka and anyone he sees as being in their camp, McMaster reportedly couldn’t even get along with Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who should be on his team. (The relationship is said to have improved, though.)

 

He also clashes with Secretary of Defense Mattis over military matters and Afghanistan. Mattis gave a dismissive response to these charges, however.

 

At his very first National Security Council meeting, McMaster immediately told those under him that President Trump is wrong to use the term “radical Islam” because the terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

 

Right away, he got to work building a coalition to wage internal battles.

 

When it came time for Trump’s Joint Address to Congress, McMaster fought tooth and nail to stop him from using the “radical Islam” terminology. He wrote and widely distributed throughout the government a memo criticizing the president.

 

Trump was very open that this would be his view. If McMaster couldn’t stand it, then he shouldn’t have accepted the appointment.

 

When President Trump and Chief Strategist Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers from the Obama Administration that may be leaking inappropriate information to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.

 

When President Trump said South Korea would have to help cover the cost of a missile defense system to defend them from North Korea, McMaster immediately told the South Koreans that Trump’s words weren’t actual policy. Trump was furious and screamed at him on the phone.

 

Trump is said to have confronted McMaster about the “general undermining of my policy.”

 

McMaster has worked hard to expand his fan club in the Trump Administration at the expense of those he disagrees with, particularly those closest to the president’s views.

 

The Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month, “A White House official said McMaster appears to be trying to clear out anyone from the NSC staff who is outspokenly pro-Trump and has been slow-rolling the president’s directives that he disagrees with.”

 

In his resignation letter, Dr. Gorka wrote to Trump, “Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months.”

 

As these internal battles have been waged, a steady stream of derogatory leaks have appeared in the media. Bannon has been blamed for anti-McMaster coverage at Breitbart, but McMaster somehow isn’t blamed for the leaks favorable to his side that appeared in the mainstream media. The pro-McMaster leaks substantiate why top generals saw him as a “publicity hound” in the military who advanced because of his closeness to General Petraeus.

 

  1. Pushing out Chief Strategist Steve Bannon

 

On issues related to Islamism, Bannon was an important voice to have in the White House. He was a main proponent of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and of waging an ideological war on Islamism.

 

Bannon understood the need to promote Muslim reform versus McMaster’s promotion of “non-Militant” Islamists. Shortly before his resignation on August 18, Bannon met with Dr. Daniel Pipes and Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum, one of the most effective anti-Islamist organizations and promoters of Muslim modernist reformers.

 

Bannon was McMaster’s top target. McMaster had forced out many officials that he felt were too close to Bannon, personally and politically, apparently attempting to monopolize power as much as possible. After resigning, Bannon said, “No administration in history has been so divided.”

 

Bannon disagreed with McMaster on the April 6 airstrike on a Syrian airbase and the new strategy for Afghanistan. Although there are serious merits to the airstrikes and the new strategy for Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential to have the views Bannon represents be a part of the decision-making process. A good teammate can disagree with a decision but still improve the option that is ultimately chosen.

 

  1. Pressuring Dr. Sebastian Gorka to resign

 

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to the president and author of Defeating Jihadresigned reportedly due to pressure from McMaster and Chief of Staff Kelly.

 

Gorka and Bannon were the main proponents of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

Gorka is best known as the man who flattens the media like a human bulldozer. These viral TV segments earned the adoration of President Trump, who personally intervened to stop plans by his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to move Gorka out of the White House and to a federal agency.

 

Trump’s satisfaction with Gorka and his success in handling the media should be considered important assets for an administration that struggles with messaging and perception. His book shows he is focused on a long-term plan for victory over Islamism.

 

Unfortunately for him, Chief of Staff Kelly disagreed with Trump and was reportedly “displeased” with Gorka’s popular television segments and McMaster saw him as part of the Team Bannon that he sought to conquer.

 

Gorka was also probably seen as too much of a political liability, as he had become the victim of one of the most vicious and meritless smear campaigns in recent memory.

 

However, Gorka’s media appearances, input and the ridiculousness of his enemies made him a political asset.

 

  1. Sidelining K.T. McFarland

 

Shortly after McMaster took his post, Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland was transferred out. McMaster had the leading role in making it happen.

 

She became the ambassador to Singapore; not exactly a position where her national security experience is being used to its full potential. Among her viewpoints is supporting designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

 

  1. Firing Ezra Cohen-Watnick

 

McMaster wanted to fire Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, right from the start. Watnick was initially saved by Bannon and Kushner.

 

Before joining the government, Cohen-Watnick organized an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event on his campus. He understands the issue of Islamist extremism and is passionate about it.

 

Watnick joined the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2010, became an intelligence officer and left in January 2017 for his senior National Security Council spot. He is believed to have entered the Defense Clandestine Service in 2012 and went to the CIA’s training facility known as “The Farm” in Virginia. He obviously had a strong background.

 

He was brought into the NSC by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and, therefore, was seen as an ally of the Bannon-Gorka team inside the administration.

 

We don’t know much about what Watnick advocated while in the National Security Council aside from expanding U.S. operations against Iranian-backed militias in Syria.

 

Watnick was accused of improperly sharing intelligence with Rep. Devin Nunes, but there is disagreement over whether he did anything wrong. However, we know McMaster wanted to get rid of him right from the beginning, so this was probably just a good opportunity for a power play.

 

  1. Trying to Hire Linda Weissgold

 

McMaster had already begun interviewing CIA official Linda Weissgold as Watnick’s replacement before Bannon and Kushner initially stopped him.

 

Under the Obama Administration, Weissgold was the director of the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis. That means she was responsible for the false talking points about the terrorist attack in Benghazi in September 2012.

 

  1. Firing Retired Col. Derek Harvey

 

Last month, McMaster fired President Trump’s top Middle East adviser from the National Security Council. The reason, as explained by one senior White House official, is that McMaster “wants his own guy.”

 

Harvey had an exemplary record and was thought to have a good relationship with McMaster, going back to when they served together under General Petraeus. He was described as one of Petraeus’ “most trusted intelligence advisors in Iraq” during the remarkably successful surge that turned the situation around.

 

Harvey was fired because of policy differences and McMaster’s desire to win the internal power struggle and cement his group over the National Security Council. McMaster and Harvey disagreed on “nearly every” area, particularly when it came to radical Islam and Iran. Harvey advocated working more closely with Israel, Egyptian President Sisi and Saudi Arabia.

 

Harvey had also put together a proposal for how the Trump Administration could scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. McMaster “blasted” his performance on Iran policy but according to a senior official who spoke to the left-wing Daily Beast, Harvey “was stuck in a Catch-22 situation” because lower-level staff dragged their feet in helping him.

 

According to the Weekly Standard—a publication that is certainly not in the Bannon/Trump camp—McMaster fired him because he didn’t like how close Harvey was to Bannon. Another detailed account said McMaster was also irked by his closeness to Kushner.

 

The most complete story says that McMaster directly told Harvey not to get too close to Bannon and Kushner. Shortly before he was fired, McMaster saw him leaving Bannon’s office. The sources say Harvey actually didn’t talk to Bannon too much, but McMaster had asked for information about Trump’s foreign policy priorities and that necessitated a meeting with Bannon.

 

McMaster saw Harvey at Bannon’s office on a Friday. When Monday came around, McMaster’s executive officer, Ylli Bajraktari (a Pentagon official from the Obama Administration) reminded Harvey it is not a “good idea” to talk to Bannon. He was fired four days later.

 

One other report states that Defense Secretary Mattis complained to McMaster about Harvey. The more exhaustive account based on sources close to Harvey dispute elements of that account.

 

  1. Replacing Harvey with Michael Bell

 

McMaster replaced Harvey with Michael Bell, who was the National Security Council’s director for Persian Gulf affairs.

 

Not surprisingly, Bell is on record for harshly criticizing then-Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka to the Washington Post. Bell claimed that Gorka was too biased on Islam-related issues, stopping just a few steps shy of hitting him with the “Islamophobe” label.

 

Clearly, McMaster was picking a team to go to war with the White House. There’s no other way to interpret this decision.

 

  1. Ousting of Adam Lovinger

 

In May, National Security Counil [sic] analyst Adam Lovinger had his security clearance revoked for unclear reasons that Lovinger described as “puzzling and baseless.” He was then fired.

 

Lovinger was at the council on loan from the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, where he had served as a strategic affairs analyst for 12 years. He was a known Trump supporter and was brought into the council by Flynn. Therefore, he would have been seen by McMaster as a Bannon ally.

 

Caroline Glick described Lovinger as a “seasoned strategic analyst” who clashed with McMaster because he favored India over Pakistan. He also opposed the nuclear deal with Iran and supported the use of terminology like “radical Islam.”

 

Lovinger confirmed that his conservative views on foreign policy had irked bureaucrats, and he believes his clearance was taken away for political reasons.

 

The Washington Free Beacon reported on May 1 that “security clearances granting access to state secrets have become increasingly politicized in a bid by opponents to block senior advisers to President Trump.”

 

Another example of this happening is Robin Townley, who held a top secret clearance and was picked by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn as the council’s senior director for Africa. The CIA declined to grant him the necessary security clearance for Sensitive Compartmented Information. A source close to Townley said it was a politically-motivated “hit job.

 

  1. Ousting Tera Dahl

 

Tera Dahl, the National Security Council’s deputy chief of staff, transferred out of the council in June. She will likely be working at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

 

Dahl was a writer for Breitbart and therefore seen as belonging to Bannon’s camp. She also co-founded a foreign policy think tank with Katharine Gorka, wife of now-former Deputy Assistant Sebastian Gorka (Katharine Gorka is currently an official adviser to the Department of Homeland Security’s policy office.)

 

Dahl was especially interested in Egypt. She is supportive of Egyptian President el-Sisi, arguing that his actions are helping to transition the country towards democracy and stability. She visited Egypt and believes he is getting unfair treatment by some Western media outlets and think-tanks who want to demonize him and exonerate his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.

 

The left-wing Buzzfeed described the change as a result of warring factions inside the White House over foreign policy. It explained, “The move frees up National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to install another staffer of his choosing in his drive to reshape the NSC to his liking.”

 

Dahl is said to have expressed interest in transferring because she was close to National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, whose tensions with McMaster have “created an uncomfortable working environment at the NSC.”

 

The council’s spokesperson Michael Anton claims “it was always her intent to move into a policy role once this task [at NSC] was completed.”

 

  1. Firing Rich Higgins

 

McMaster and/or his deputy, Ricky Waddell, fired the NSC’s director of strategic planning, Rich Higgins, on July 21.

 

Higgins has an extensive background of national security service and has a deep understanding of the Islamist ideology, its associated doctrines and how it interacts with political movements that Islamists find common cause with.

 

Higgins had a deep understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and how Islamists got political access and impacted policy under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He studied how political correctness had resulted in cleansing counter-terrorism training and national security policy documents from references to the ideological basis of the threat.

 

Higgins was pushing for the declassification of documents related to radical Islam and Iran and, more specifically, Presidential Study Directive 11. He had good reason to do so.

 

There were reports that the previous administration was not disclosing important documents, including ones from Bin Laden’s compounds that contradicted its narratives about the nature of the Al-Qaeda threat and the group’s relationship with Iran.

 

Presidential Study Directive 11 is reportedly an assessment of Islamist movements in 2010-2011 by the Obama Administration that resulted in a secret recommendation to align with “moderate” Islamists in handling the Arab Spring.

 

If this is indeed what happened, the directive’s declassification is of the utmost importance for understanding the Islamist threat, the fruits of this strategy and the dynamics of the region, not to mention historical documentation.

 

Alarmingly, according to a Gulf News report, the Presidential Study Directive 11 documents were obtained by the Al-Hewar Center in Washington, D.C. and show that the U.S. decided to back the “political Islamists” including the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Daniel Greenfield reported that the Al-Hawre Center is linked to a Muslim Brotherhood front named the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which has come under counter-terrorism investigation.

 

McMaster reportedly detonated” after coming across a seven-page memo that Higgins wrote which warned about a campaign by Islamists, Marxists, “bankers,” establishment Republicans and “globalists” to destroy the Trump presidency. The memo was given to Donald Trump Jr. and the president himself, who is said to have “gushed over it.”

 

Such a political memo would be inappropriate for the National Security Council. Its tone gives the impression of an author who sees all opposition to the Trump Administration as part of a seditious conspiracy. Its first reference is an interview between a member of the conspiratorial John Birch Society and a Soviet defector about “Jewish Marxist ideology.”

 

However, the memo was not intended for the NSC. It was a personal political analysis of how parties with various interests are trying to undermine the administration’s agenda.

 

According to Breitbart, Higgins used his personal computer to write the memo and did not use NSC time. He didn’t even use his NSC email to send it to anyone but himself. (He sent it from his personal email to his work email to print out.)

 

Another comprehensive Breitbart account says Higgins was fired on July 21 with several holdovers from the Obama Administration present and a Muslim woman with a hijab who worked as an equal employment officer. McMaster’s deputy, Ricky Waddell, told him it was his last day because “we’ve lost confidence in you.”

 

According to this account, McMaster was not responsible for the firing and hadn’t even read the memo. It was entirely the responsibility of Waddell. After the termination, parts of the memo were leaked to media outlets that would be most hostile to Higgins.

 

Regardless of whether Higgins’ firing was due to McMaster or Waddell, it was still done under McMaster’s leadership and was part of a broader push against perceived competitors.

President Trump was said to be “furious” at Higgins’ firing.

 

  1. CAIR Comes to McMaster’s Defense

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a deceptive Islamist bulldog that tears into any opponent by falsely branding them as an Islamophobic bigot. The Justice Department identified the organization as a Muslim Brotherhood “entity” set up to support Hamas and designated it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial.

 

CAIR slaps the “Islamophobe” label on practically everyone, obviously including almost every member of the Trump Administration. It has done so to Muslim adversaries, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic supporters of gun control measures to stop terrorists from obtaining firearms and White House Chief of Staff Kelly whose name was referenced in a letter thanking CAIR’s Florida branch.

 

But not McMaster.

 

When McMaster came under heavy criticism for his stances on Islamism-related issues, CAIR came to his defense. It branded his opponents as “Islamophobes” and “white supremacists.”

 

  1. Reports of a possible CAIR official on his staff

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali from presenting a paper on Islamist extremism to the National Security Council. There are unconfirmed reports that it was one of McMaster’s appointees who blocked Hirsi Ali. One account of the incident says she was also blocked from seeing President Trump.

 

Hirsi Ali is one of the most prominent women’s rights activists and anti-Islamist voices in the world. She is executive producer of the Clarion Project’s Honor Diaries documentary about the oppression of women in the Muslim world. She is a strong advocate for secular-democratic Muslim reformers.

 

The person who is said to have blocked her is Mustafa Javed Ali, who protested that she is an “Islamophobe.” According to one of the reports, a source said that Mustafa said “that the only way she could present the paper would be to have someone from CAIR come in to refute her work.”

 

Mustafa Javed Ali is reportedly a former “diversity outreach coordinator” for CAIR. However, there is no public confirmation to confirm this as his name does not appear on CAIR’s website.

 

  1. Holdovers

 

An analysis by the Daily Caller found that about 40 of the 250 National Security Council officials are holdovers from the Obama Administration. Presumably, these officials would be very hostile to the Trump Administration’s agenda. They should be the first suspects in the ongoing stream of leaks from the NSC.

 

National security expert Jed Babbin identified four NSC officials who previously reported directly to Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the Obama Administration official who boasted of creating an “echo chamber” in the media to promote the nuclear deal with Iran using “compadres” in the media to influence reporters who “literally know nothing.”

 

(Rhodes also has the distinct honor of being the only person to be called an “asshole” in the headline of a Foreign Policy article.)

 

In July, McMaster told NSC staffers, “There’s no such thing as a holdover.” He was professing confidence that those who worked in the Obama Administration would loyally serve President Trump.

 

Likewise, NSC spokesperson Michael Anton defended the holdovers as “stalwarts.”

 

As mentioned before, when Trump and Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers that may be leaking to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.

 

One former NSC staffer told the Daily Caller that McMaster has “protected and coddled them.”

 

Iran expert and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Ken Timmerman wrote a book titled Shadow Warriors in 2007 about how the Bush Administration was undermined by opponents within the governmental bureaucracies.

 

Timmerman’s observation should serve as a contemporary warning:

 

“George W. Bush never got the first rule of Washington: People are policy. He allowed his political enemies to run roughshod over his administration through a vast underground he never dismantled and never dominated.”

 

  1. McMaster was an 11-Year Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies

 

Breitbart discovered that McMaster was a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies from September 2006 until February 2017 when he became national security adviser. IISS was part of a campaign to promote the nuclear deal with Iran and gets funding from Islamist allies.

 

Its website shows that one of its top donors is the Open Society Foundation, formerly named the Open Society Institute, whose founder and chairman is left-wing partisan activist George Soros. The foundation donated between 100,000 and 500,000 euros (roughly $120,000-$600,000) to the IISS.

 

The Open Society Foundation is motivated by hyper-partisanship and works hard to defend American Islamists and slander opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood as bigots.

 

For example, it financed the Fear Inc. reports about the “Islamophobia Network” that is a powerful weapon in the Islamists’ and Regressive Left’s arsenal for character assassination and protecting groups like CAIR.

 

These reports were used to justify the removal of Islamism from counter-terrorism training.

 

IISS also has Ploughshares Fund as a major donor, giving between 25,000 and 100,000 euros (about $30,000-$119,000). The Plougshares Fund is also funded by Soros and his entities like Open Society.

 

When Ben Rhodes boasted about orchestrating the “echo chamber” to promote the nuclear deal with Iran, he specifically mentioned Ploughshares as his example of an outside group he utilized.

 

The president of Ploughshares, Joseph Cirincione, is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Plougshares specifically listed IISS, the group that McMaster belonged to, as the recipient of a grant for work on Iran issues in 2016.

 

Soros’ Open Society Foundation/Institute donated about $70,000 overall to selling the Iran deal, but other entities funded by Soros gave more. Ploughshares donated at least $800,000.

 

Ploughshares also donated over $400,000 to the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has long been accused of being a lobby for the Iranian regime. Ploughshares also awarded $70,000 to Princeton University to sponsor the work of former Iranian regime official Seyed Hossein Mousavian. The Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips writes, “This essentially amounted to subsidizing Iran’s propaganda efforts inside the United States.”

 

As Breitbart’s Aaron Klein shows, IISS was a loyal contributor to the Rhodes-Plougshares “echochamber.” It supported the deal and defended Iran against accusations of violations. It cast doubt on concerns that Iran and North Korea work on WMD together. And it criticized Trump’s attitude towards Iran.

 

IISS also receives funding from many companies that profited from the Iran deal like ExxonMobil. Its list of donors includes many governments, both allies and adversaries of the U.S.

Governmental donors of concern include Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Brunei, Kuwait, Russia and China.

 

  1. President Trump is frequently unhappy with McMaster’s performance.

 

As mentioned before, President Trump has confronted McMaster about his “general undermining of my policy” and was furious at him for telling South Korea to basically ignore Trump’s words.

 

Trump complains that McMaster talks too much at meetings and has described him as a “pain.” There have been multiple articles indicating that Trump might be on the cusp of firing McMaster.

 

“I am at a pain to find an issue that H.R. actually aligns with the president, except for the desire to actually win and beat ISIS. That’s the only one,” said one administration official.

 

A former senior NSC official said, “I know that the president isn’t a big fan of what McMaster’s doing. I don’t understand why he’s allowing a guy who is subverting his foreign policy at every turn to remain in place.”

 

Trump has reportedly said in private that he regrets choosing McMaster as national security adviser and went so far as to meet with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to float the possibility of him replacing McMaster. Bolton and Trump agreed that it was not the right move.

 

Conclusion

 

McMaster has put his life on the line for the country and ascended because of his impressive leadership during the worst days of the war in Iraq. He “basically was the first commander to get things right in Iraq.”

 

At the time, McMaster blasted the media for its downplaying of Iran’s role in murdering U.S. troops.

 

This led to many people’s (including this author’s) initial enthusiasm for him as national security adviser despite his statement in 2014 that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.”

 

Thinking it unfathomable that Trump would choose someone who is so fundamentally at odds with his national security vision, many chalked up the statement to a clumsy articulation of the U.S. position that ISIS shouldn’t be treated as the representative of the Muslim world.

 

But what was once unfathomable has become reality.

 

McMaster performed well as a military commander fighting an insurgency. If he is to continue serving the Trump Administration, then he should be reassigned to focus on taking his success in Iraq and repeating it in Afghanistan.

 

Also Read: 

 

Has Trump Kept His Word on Radical Islam?

 

The Nikki Haley Report Card

_______________

An Intro to … Reassign McMaster

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © August 30, 2017

_____________

25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

Copyright 2017 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

About Clarion Project

 

A Bitter Struggle


Justin Smith sent this submission to me a couple of days ago. Sorry about waiting so long Justin. In the midst of Sebastian Gorka’s recent resignation – whether voluntarily or purged – this submission exposes National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster as an Obamanite in sheep’s clothing.

 

McMaster Political Cartoon Found at CFP and is Illustrated by Bosch Fawstin (Illustrative blog comes with Google content warning probably due to anti-Islamist illustrations – boohoo)

 

JRH 8/29/17

Please Support NCCR

*************

A Bitter Struggle

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/27/2017 5:06 PM

 

America cannot afford one more week, one more day or one more minute with H.R. McMaster, as the White House National Security Advisor, when he has manipulated every major policy issue to move in a completely opposite direction, whether on Afghanistan,  Russia or North Korea and several other issues, from President Trump’s agenda and America’s best interests. While McMaster continues to follow a mix of Bush and Obama policy, he is in the process of purging every single Trump loyalist, who implicitly and thoroughly understands the current threats America faces, and he is actively placing America in harm’s way.

 

McMaster is targeting people, who were chosen to best implement President Trump’s policy, that he outlined during his campaign. Anyone advocating for firing Obama holdovers is on McMaster’s list to be replaced. Others can expect to be dismissed, if they oppose the Iranian Nuclear Deal or criticize Islam.

 

One of McMaster’s first orders, in February, was an explicit instruction to all staffers, who came in with President Trump. McMaster, a big leaker himself, has ordered them not to point out that Obama holdovers, such as senior Obama aide Ben Rhodes, were still in place and undermining President Trump and leaking damaging classified information to the press.

 

In light of McMaster’s refusal to do the President’s bidding, when Steve Bannon and Trump both pressed him to fire Obama holdovers, it is hard to understand how he still holds his job. He refused to fire any Obama holdovers on a list prepared by Derek Harvey, and he asserted that hiring and firing National Security Council staff was under his sole authority; however, over fifty percent of the NSC’s staff are Obama holdovers, who should have been terminated over six months ago.

 

Derek Harvey was a top Middle East advisor to President Trump and a former Defense Intelligence Agency colonel, who served in country in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades, either in uniform or the intelligence community. He wrote a paper months before 9/11, in which he stated that both Al Qaeda and the Taliban posed strategic threats to the United States. He also shared President Trump’s view that U.S. officials must declare our country is at war with the “radical jihadist agenda” and “militant Islam”, and he was fired by McMaster in March.

 

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a former Defense Intelligence Agency operations officer and an associate of former DIA Director Michael Flynn, drew McMaster’s ire, because he noted the CIA was politicized under President Obama, and he had provided proof of Obama surveillance of President Trump, by Obama personnel, to Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. He was saved once from termination, when Trump interceded and overrode McMaster’s decision to replace him with Linda Weissgold, who helped draft the Benghazi talking points which blamed a video protest for the Islamic terrorist attack, that murdered four Americans.

 

But soon, Cohen-Watnick was fired anyway, due to his “anti-Muslim fervor” and “hard-line views”. There’s no room in McMaster’s NSC for anyone telling the truth about Islamic terrorism.

 

In May, Adam Lovinger, a Trump loyalist and national security strategist on loan from the Pentagon, had his security clearance revoked, and he was fired and escorted from the White House. Lovinger, who is a seasoned strategic analyst, had done nothing wrong other than oppose McMaster, by supporting India, rightfully so, over Pakistan.

 

While President Trump has been fairly irate over his advisor’s inability to arrange the U.S. withdrawal from Obama’s Iranian Nuclear Deal, suffice it to say that McMaster supports the deal. McMaster also refuses to publish the side deals Obama made with Iran and hid from the American people, which largely led to Richard Higgins’ termination in July.

 

As Daniel Greenfield explains in several Front Page articles, Richard Higgins was a top NSC official, who advocated for the declassification of all documents pertaining to radical Islam and Iran, but he was specifically focused on declassifying Obama’s 2010 Presidential Study Directive 11, which outlined the Arab Spring [Winter] and provided a security assessment on a chaotic Middle East. This PSD-11 is seen by many former national security officials, such as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, as the evidence and blue-print of President Obama’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamofascist groups.

 

Pete Hoekstra, the former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has also called for the declassification of PSD-11. He links it to the rise of the Islamic State.

 

Higgins was fired, after he presented the argument that President Trump is under a sustained attack from subversive forces within and outside the government, who are using every and any tactic possible to defeat the President’s nationalist agenda. Janas Winter and Elias Groll posted Higgins memo on August 10th in Foreign Policy that read:

 

 “Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their vision to succeed, America, both as an idea and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed” … arguing further that this has led “Islamists [to] ally with cultural Marxists”, but over time, “Islamists will co-opt the movement in its entirety.” [Blog Editor: See entire PDF]

 

John Guandolo, a former FBI agent, has been heavily involved in the investigation of the domestic Islamic threat. He has worked tirelessly to bring awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism, through his organization Understanding the Threat. He now warns that McMaster’s termination of Higgins undermines our ability to fight Islamic terrorism, and McMaster is unfit to for duty, because heis standing in the enemy camp” and refusing to fire Obama holdovers who are clearly statists and Marxist, who are pushing an agenda that is counter to the facts and counter to the national security interests of the United States.

 

[Blog Editor: Here is the Guandolo interview Justin Smith references:

 

VIDEO: The Glazov Gang-McMaster’s Firing of Higgins: Crippling America in the Face of Jihad.

 

Blog Editor End]

McMaster also forced K.T. McFarland to leave her position as Deputy National Security Advisor, and she was replaced by Dina Habib-Powell. McFarland is one of the brightest minds and one of the most qualified and capable in the intelligence community. Habib-Powell, an Egyptian immigrant, has no national security experience and claims Uma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett for friends. McFarland was most likely replaced, because she had written “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization“.

 

One should also note, McMaster is deeply hostile to Israel and Trump, while President Trump and his loyalists are pro-Israel. McMaster consistently calls Israel “the occupying power”, according to senior officials. He also advances the false narrative that a country named “Palestine” existed prior to 1948.

 

Adding insult to injury, McMaster has also extended unfettered top-secret security clearance to the immoral, anti-American former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Despicably, McMaster went so far as to defend Susan ‘Benghazi’ Rice’s illegal unmasking of Trump and his private team of advisors, during the 2016 campaign.

 

McMaster fails to see that Islam is inherently violent throughout its core doctrines. He prefers the politically correct narrative that jihadists are perverting Islam. And whether it’s this issue or China, NATO, Russia, North Korea, Syria or Afghanistan, he countermands President Trump far too often for comfort. McMaster’s views are extremely dangerous for America and he must be fired.

 

America is witnessing a bitter struggle for the future of American foreign policy, and this policy must not align with Obama cronies and “deep state” operator’s status quo decisions. This policy must not be made by H.R. McMaster, who placed Israel-hating, pro-Hamas Kris Bauman on the Israel-Palestinian desk, and President Trump must immediately recall Stephen Bannon and Dr. Sebastian Gorka and all his other recently purged loyalists, if his policies are to be properly executed and successful regarding the most critical issues of the day. An American foreign policy without McMaster, his disruptive and duplicitous influence, is the only path Trump can choose to ensure a national security policy that actually keeps America safe.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

Source links are by Justin Smith primarily with added sources by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

State Department Hosts Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups


One of the things that sealed the deal for me to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 was his anti-Islamic terrorism and anti-Muslim immigration stand. I have recently become convinced that President Trump’s National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is removing pro-Trump people from the National Security Council (NSC). What’s up with that?

 

Now I am finding out President Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is schmoozing with radical Islamists that hate America and Israel. What’s up with that?

Here are the radical Muslim details from Freedom Outpost.

 

JRH 8/13/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

State Department Hosts Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups

 

By TIM BROWN 

AUGUST 12, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

While President Donald Trump is but one man, he was very vocal about Islam and speaking out against it, but it appears that those he chose to fill positions in his administration just don’t have the same mindset, and the latest to demonstrate this is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as he hosted designated terror organization and Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with other Muslims Brotherhood front groups at the State Department on Thursday.

 

Jordan Schachtel at Conservative Review that the meeting with State Department representatives to discuss the ongoing situation in Jerusalem was posted by the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

 

Schachtel writes:

 

The delegation was brought together by an umbrella conglomerate of Islamist outfits known as the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). They went to the State Dept. to discuss the “ongoing Al-Aqsa Mosque crisis and Israel’s denial of religious freedom in Jerusalem, which is holy to the three Abrahamic faiths,” the AMP website said.

 

In July, Palestinian terrorists stormed outside the Al-Aqsa mosque compound and assassinated two Israeli police officers, setting off a diplomatic firestorm that would result in Israel securing the facility with metal detectors (which would later be removed due to international pressure).

 

Represented at the meeting included a CAIR official and members of other suspected Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Islamic Circle of North America and the Islamic Shura Council of North America.

 

The delegation included Osama Abu Irshaid, a leader at AMP and an open supporter of Hamas. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson reported that he once served as the editor of “Al-Zaitounah” periodical, which Emerson describes as “pro-Hamas propaganda.”

 

Emerson has compared AMP as a whole to a “Hamas-support network” that mimics the Hamas-funding organizations that federal prosecutors shut down during the George W. Bush administration.

 

Islamic expert and author of numerous books on the subject, Robert Spencer wrote, “This is the kind of thing that should have ended with the inception of the ‘Drain the Swamp’ administration.”

 

“Unfortunately, Trump appointed too many people who did not share his vision, and so that vision is not being implemented, and Obama holdovers are still in charge,” he added.

 

All of these groups are known Muslim Brotherhood front groups who want Islam to dominate the world.

 

They have the same ideology as Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, does when he announced:

 

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

 

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, who was a part of the delegation to the State Department, once called for Islamic law to dominate the world, declaring: “Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

 

Additionally, what many fail to remember regarding the Palestinians is that the Palestine National Charter of 1964 states:

 

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and who have determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war (al-jihad) until complete and final victory has been attained.

 

In 1988, Hamas formed its own covenant in which it cites Imam Hassan al Banna:

 

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

 

Nothing in this has changed! Not one word.

 

Now, look, I’m not Zionist by any stretch of the imagination [Blog Editor: In full disclosure, I consider myself a Christian Zionist fully supporting the existence of Israel as God’s plan], but when you have people who have put in print that they seek the utter destruction of an entire state and its people, and on top of that, their fellow brothers in the “hood” (Muslim Brotherhood) are literally Hell bent on taking over the US and the West in the name of the false prophet Muhammed and Allah, then there is a serious issue there.

 

While Trump has backed the idea of doing what the United Arab Emirates did and designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, Tillerson has done everything he can, just like H. R. McMaster to whitewash Islam and engage in taqiyya on the behalf of Islamists by seeking to block such efforts.

 

“There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of governments,” he said, pointing out parliaments in Bahrain and Turkey as examples.

 

“Those elements… have done so by renouncing violence and terrorism,” he said.

 

“So in designating the Brotherhood in its totality as a terrorist organization… I think you can appreciate the complexities this enters into our relations with [governments in the region],” said Tillerson.

 

Nope, I can’t see the complexities, especially in light of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, which are to destroy the West and claim it in the name of Allah.

 

Tillerson is just demonstrating he is a stooge for Islam, just like others before him.

 

Welcoming these people who hold to these doctrines of demons into our places of government is not only a bad move, but in my opinion is dangerously close, if not over the line, to treason.

 

___________________

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Fired NSC Aide Reveals Political Warfare Operation Targeting Trump


Does anyone besides me think it odd that pro-Trump Conservatives are being fired as leakers and/or resistant to the Trump agenda to make America great again?

 

Under the management of National Security Advisor H.  R. McMaster, several pro-Trump National Security Council (NSC) staffers have been fired over conflicts with their NSC bosses who seem to suspiciously support Obama’s deficient policies. The Washington Free Beacon names Rich Higgins, Derek Harvey and Ezra Cohen-Watnick as fired.

 

The Free Beacon article below emphasizes the firing of Rich Higgins for his memo on a Marxist Deep State in the U.S. Government, Leftist MSM and Pro-Islamists working to undo President Trump’s election and agenda. Also, the Free Beacon alludes H.R. McMaster is a part of the problem in the Deep State Memo.

 

JRH 8/12/17

Please Support NCCR

*************

Fired NSC Aide Reveals Political Warfare Operation Targeting Trump

Higgins memo warns of Marxist, Deep State subversion

 

By Bill Gertz

August 11, 2017 4:37 pm

Washington Free Beacon

 

Gen. H. R. McMaster / Getty Images
 

A White House National Security Council official has charged that leftist opponents of President Trump are engaged in political warfare operations designed to subvert his presidency and drive him from office.

 

Rich Higgins, until recently director of strategic planning at the NSC, revealed the program in a seven-page memorandum produced in May that warns of a concerted information warfare campaign by the Marxist left, Islamists, and political leaders and government officials opposed to the populist president.

 

“The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the president,” Higgins states.

 

“This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle,” he said.

 

Higgins, an Army veteran and former Pentagon official who specialized in irregular warfare and who was dismissed last month for writing the memo, said the attacks should not be confused with normal partisan political attacks or adversarial media attention.

 

The former aide criticized the White House for failing to counter the activities and said the political warfare attacks threaten the Trump presidency.

 

“The White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat,” he said. “If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.”

 

Higgins was fired by Deputy National Security Adviser Ricky Waddell July 21 after the memo came to Waddell’s attention as part of an internal search for leaks from the staff.

 

Higgins’s firing, along with that of two other NSC conservatives, Derek Harvey and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, has set off political infighting and charges from conservatives that National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster is opposing Trump’s populist policies in favor of maintaining the policies of the former Obama administration.

 

Harvey, a retired Army colonel, recently complained to McMaster about the large number of officials who were kept on at the NSC from the Obama administration. He was told by McMaster that he has a “leadership problem,” according to people close to the matter.

 

Cohen-Watnick was senior director for intelligence programs at the NSC and ran afoul of McMaster because of his conservative views.

 

A White House official said McMaster appears to be trying to clear out anyone from the NSC staff who is outspokenly pro-Trump and has been slow-rolling the president’s directives that he disagrees with.

 

According to White House sources, Trump is said to be unhappy with McMaster and has considered dispatching him to Afghanistan.

 

A possible replacement is said to be CIA director Mike Pompeo, who is regarded as more of a Trump loyalist.

 

An NSC spokesman declined to comment.

 

Foreign Policy first published the memo on Thursday and quoted sources as saying Trump read it and “gushed over it.”

 

Higgins urged in the memo that immediate action be taken to counter what he described as a campaign of subversion reflecting “cultural Marxist” narratives used by political leftists who are aligned with Islamist groups.

 

“In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the ‘politically correct’ enforcement narratives they’ve meticulously laid in over the past few decades,” Higgins said. “In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.”

 

During the presidential campaign, Trump was able to break through the leftist narratives and as a result the political left regards him as “an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative.”

 

“For this cabal, Trump must be destroyed,” he said. “Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president. Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions.”

 

The opponents also include officials within the permanent government apparatus, also called the Deep State.

 

Other opponents are supporting the Marxist subversion, including those within government, along with “globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.”

 

“Globalists and lslamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed,” Higgins said.

 

The political warfare campaign seeks to exploit differences in society based on sexism, racism and xenophobia narratives. The program is implemented by mainstream media, and the academic community is the main driver promoting the imposition of cultural Marxism and derivatives of it.

 

Islamists, supporters of political Islam in the United States, also are working with leftists who they regard as having the best chance of reducing Western civilization to the benefit of Islamic supremacists. The Islamists are seeking to divide American society against itself as a way of undermining stability.

 

“This is the intended outcome of hostile information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American society,” he said.

 

Higgins also said a complicating factor in the political warfare program is that “many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process.”

 

The political warfare follows the insurgency methods used by Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong. “In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power,” he said. “Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the ‘counter-state’ and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement.”

 

In the Marxist strategy and tactics, political correctness is being used to foster intolerance of political movements of the right and toleration of leftist movements.

 

The attack narratives being used are pervasive and can be seen in social media, television, and the 24-hour news cycle in all media, as well as within the foreign policy establishment. “They inform the entertainment industry from late night monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes,” Higgins said. “The effort required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum and ongoing.”

 

Information attacks against the president are carried out through overt publicity and covert propaganda and infiltration and subversion means.

 

The current campaign against Trump is seeking to delegitimize the president, his administration, and the vision of America he promoted as a candidate.

 

Key major opposition themes are that Trump is illegitimate, corrupt, and dishonest. Secondary political attacks include the notion that Russia hacked the election, Trump obstructed justice and is hiding Russian collusion, and that he is a “puppet” of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

 

“Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump,” Higgins said.

 

“When people in the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump administration’s opponents, they are immediately said to be ‘working for the Russians’ or ‘supporting Russian propaganda.'”

 

Additionally Americans who support the president are deemed “deplorable” and “racist.”

 

“Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead [sic] to his election,” Higgins said.

 

Higgins concluded the memo by noting that defending the president is a defense of the United States. “In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is President Trump.

 

“Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic. The administration has been maneuvered into a constant backpedal by relentless political warfare attacks structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses. The president can either drive or be driven by events; it’s time for him to drive them.”

 

Bill Gertz   Email Bill | Full Bio 
Bill Gertz is the senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon.

 

About Free Beacon

 

©2017 All Rights Reserved

 

+++

Blog Editor: Thanks to the Free Republic, here is an easy to read version Rich Higgins’ Deep State Memo about inner-government subterfuge to take out President Donald Trump. The FP link by the above Free Beacon article has a good summary but its Memo is one of those embedded deals.

 

BTW: I have noticed in a Google search that every Mainstream Media outlet condemns the Higgins Memo as crazy Right-Wing lunacy giving credence to the firing of the Pro-Trump NSC staffers being fired. I gotta tell ya though. I question nearly every condemnation coming from the Leftist MSM. And you should too.

 

The Complete Richard Higgins Memo
Circulating | May 2017 | Richard Higgins

Posted on 8/10/2017, 10:17:47 PM by BRK

Here is the entire memo…

POTUS & POLITICAL WARFARE

 

Free Republic

 

BACKGROUND.  The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then de legitimize and ultimately remove the President. Possibly confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat. If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.

 

This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken. At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives. Because the hard left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local (ANTI FA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels (OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must [be] given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate at the narrative level as well. In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the “politically correct” enforcement narratives they’ve meticulously laid in over the past few decades. In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.

 

INTRODUCTION. Responding to relentless personal assaults on his character, candidate Trump identified the players and the strategy:

 

The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.” – President Trump, Oct 2016

 

Culturally conditioned to limit responses to such attacks as yet another round in the on-going drone from diversity and multicultural malcontents, these broadsides are discounted as political correctness run amuck. However, political correctness is a weapon against reason and critical thinking. This weapon functions as the enforcement mechanism of diversity narratives that seek to implement cultural Marxism. Candidate Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign not only cut through the Marxist narrative, he did so in ways that were viscerally comprehensible to a voting bloc that then made candidate Trump the president; making that bloc self-aware in the process. President Trump is either the candidate he ran as, or he is nothing.

 

Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction. For this cabal, Trump must be destroyed. Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president. Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those engaged in the effort, especially those from within the “deep state” or permanent government apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.

 

  • DISCUSSION.

 

The Opposition. While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is limited to Marxists as conventionally understood. Having become the dominant cultural meme, some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including “deep state” actors, globalists, bankers, lslamists, and establishment Republicans. Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and is slipping away. Globalists and lslamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed. Atomization of society must also occur at the individual level; with attacks directed against all levels of group and personal identity. Hence the sexism, racism and xenophobia memes. As a Judea-Christian culture, forced inclusion of post-modern notions of tolerance is designed to induce nihilistic contradictions that reduce all thought, all faith, all loyalties to meaninglessness. Group rights based on sex or ethnicity are a direct assault on the very idea of individual human rights and natural law around which the Constitution was framed. “Transgender acceptance” memes attack at the most basic level by denying a person the right to declare the biological fact of one’s sex. When a population has 2 + 2 = 5 imposed on it, there are many that benefit:

 

  • Mainstream Media-The principle mechanism for implementing narratives.

 

  • The Academy– Academia has served as a principle counter-state node for some time and remains a key conduit for creating future adherents to cultural Marxist narratives and their derivative worldview.

 

  • The Deep State– The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state beholden to no one, certainly not the American people. With no rule of law considerations outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel advocated, god bestriding the earth.

 

  • Global Corporatists & Bankers – Exploitation of populations, unfettered by national protections and notions of personal morality and piety.

 

  • Democratic Leadership– The democratic leadership has been a counter-state enabler that executes, sustains, and protects cultural Marxist programs of action and facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.

 

  • Republican Leadership– More afraid of being accused of being called a racist, sexist, homophobe or lslamophobe than of failing to enforce their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution,” the Republican Establishment accepts and enforces cultural Marxist memes within its own sphere of operations. In doing so, knowingly or not, it becomes an agent of that. These “conservatives” become increasingly indistinguishable from their democratic counterparts save that they misrepresent themselves to their constituents. Lacking the discernment to recognize their situation, they will work with globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests and will likewise service the deep state. These establishment Republicans are the hard left’s designated defeat mechanism in the destruction of the old regime as well as the American ideal. 1 Because candidate Trump publicly exposed them for their duplicitous activities, they are at risk as long as Trump can turn on them and are, therefore, bitter foes. Candidate Trump’s success remains an ongoing existential threat to establishment Republicans.

 

________________

 

1 For more information on how influence operations of the former Soviet Union targeted leading conservative groups and individuals in order to bring them into line with cultural Marxist narratives. See Link here:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZhqeLRIMo

 

  • lslamists – Islamists ally with cultural Marxist because, as far back as the 1980s, they properly assessed that the hard left has a strong chance of reducing Western civilization to its benefit. Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points, Islamists deploy these narratives to strategically blind and then control US decision makers. This is by design and purposeful. “By their own hands!” has been the declared strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1991. This strategy seeks to divide American society against itself with the forced imposition of Islamist objectives on one half of American society by the other half. Once a society has been effectively atomized, the population will have lost its faith in the old order, detest those who reduced it, and divide along the lines of narrative adherence. This is the intended outcome of hostile information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American society.

 

Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed. While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump’s insofar as he holds to the vision that made him president.

 

Political Warfare Attacks -A Primer. As used here, “political warfare” does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model2. Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency. Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power. In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.

 

Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives.

 

Cultural Marxism – A Primer. While the attacks on President Trump arise out of political warfare considerations based on non-kinetic lines of effort (as discussed below), they operate in a battle-space prepared, informed and conditioned by cultural Marxist drivers. In practical terms, the political warfare assault on President Trump cannot be separated from the cultural Marxist narratives that drive them. From an operational preparation of the environment perspective, President Trump is operating in a battle-space that reflects the left’s vision.

 

__________________________

 

2 This discussion relies on Thomas A. Marks’ treatment of the Maoist model as discussed in Maoist People’s War in Post-Vietnam Asia (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, 2007), 1-14. Hereafter “Thomas A. Marks, Maoist People’s War.”

 

As used in this discussion, cultural Marxism relates to programs and activities that arise out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.

 

That post-modern (diversity/multiculturalism) narratives seeks to implement cultural Marxist objectives can be demonstrated by reference to founding Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse’s repurposing of the term tolerance. In a 1965 ~ Marcuse defined tolerance as intolerance; said it can be implemented through undemocratic means to stop chauvinism (xenophobia), racism, discrimination; and should be extended to the left while denied to the right:

 

  • “The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”

 

  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” (8-9)

 

  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.” (12)

 

It is through such post-modern constructs that interoperable narratives are established among various left-wing groups as well as between them and Islamist groups at all levels. For example, from the 2001 Conference of Foreign Ministers at Bamako, Mali, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) declared its commitment to fight racism and xenophobia and then declared lslamophobia a “contemporary form of racism”:

 

  • In this context, the World Conference urges all states … take all necessary measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance particularly against Islam

 

  • Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which display an increasing trend, in their most subtle and contemporary forms, constitute a violation of human rights. 3. Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of lslamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very alarming.

 

That the OIC made these claims as part of its planned inputs to the United Nation’s “Third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” further demonstrates the coordinated and interoperable nature of these narratives at international levels in international forums.

 

As cultural Marxist narratives intensify, they are to be further operationalized in the form of hate speech narratives. Hate speech narratives are non-random, coordinated, and fully interoperable escalations of cultural Marxist memes. Key international players include the European Union, the UN, and the OSCE, the OIC and the International Muslim Brotherhood. Hate speech memes are structured, coordinated, and implemented through these same international forums. They involve close coordination with media and social media and include the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narratives. David Shipler’s book Freedom of Speech provides a road map for how hate speech narratives are to be structured, deployed and enforced.

 

Battlespace. These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media, and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies and within the foreign policy establishment. They inform the entertainment industry from late night monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes. The effort required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum and ongoing. Regarding the president, attacks have become a relentless 24/7 effort.

 

While there is certainly a Marxist agenda and even lslamist motivations that must be seriously addressed in their own right, these motivations alone seem inadequate to explain the scope and magnitude of the effort directed against the president. The economic drivers behind the Marxist and Islamist ideologues are enormously influential and seek to leverage these ideological movements for their own self interests. While beyond the actual scope of this document, the benefactors of these political movements include; Urban Real Estate who depend greatly on immigrant tenants, International Banking who seeks to maintain US debtor status so as to control the application of American power, and elements of the business sector that depend upon immigrant labor or government infrastructure. The overall objective of these economic forces is the forced urbanization of the populace, thereby necessitating a larger, more powerful government. In summary, this is a form of population control by certain business cartels in league with cultural Marxists/corporatists/lslamists who will leverage Islamic terrorism threats to justify the creation of a police state.

 

Adversary Campaign Plan. Political Warfare has been described as “propaganda in battledress.”The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort:

 

  • The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY. Publicity is the straightforward projection of a case that builds a picture in the audience’s mind designed to garner support. It is facts without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an impression and sets conditions. It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to additional inputs.

 

  • There are two covert lines of effort: PROPOGANDAand INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION.

 

o Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to secure a definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort.

 

o Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order to inform, target, coordinate, and amplify the effects of the publicity and propaganda. Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the morale of friendly elements.

 

______________________

 

3 “Political Warfare Executive – The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare,” His Britannic Majesty’s Government, London, 1942, 5.

o Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for the purpose of extending counterstate influence and control. The endgame is concealed and may involve illicit activities.

o Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties to the counter-state. As the counter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency of the new regime.

 

The Meta Narrative. Meta narratives seeks to delegitimize President Trump, his administration, and the vision of America he projected as a candidate. With cultural Marxist memes serving as the backdrop, President Trump is to be relentlessly characterized as unfit through the use of supporting narratives acting to move unwitting populations to belief in the meta narrative. Hence:

 

  • “President Trump is illegitimate”

 

  • “President Trump is corrupt”

 

  • “President Trump is dishonest”

 

Note that the twitter accounts and mainstream media personalities pushing this narrative have seen their audience numbers rise greatly in the past 6 months. This is a direct result of the supporting and backdrop narratives channeling individuals to this meta-narrative.

 

Supporting Narratives. Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant. It is important to recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their purpose. Over time, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will result in a Trump fatigue. From a political warfare perspective, President Trump’s inability to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader. The current list of supporting narratives include:

 

  • “Russia hacked the election”       – illegitimate

 

  • “Obstruction of Justice”                – corrupt

 

  • “Hiding Collusion”                            – dishonest

 

  • “Putin Puppet”                                 – treasonous

 

Backdrop Narratives. The backdrop to the meta and supporting narratives are cultural Marxist memes designed to sustain a general sense of loathing of President Trump and the America that elected him.

 

Hence:

 

  • “[meta] President Trump is illegitimate, [supporting] he was elected because of Russian hacking, [backdrop] and besides, he a racist, sexist xenophobe.”

 

Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump. When people in the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump Administration’s opponents, they are immediately said to be “working for the Russians” or “supporting Russian propaganda.” Individual Americans who support the President are deemed “deplorable” and “racist.”

 

End State. Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.

 

CONCLUSION.

 

The recent turn of events give rise to the observation that the defense of President Trump is the defense of America. In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is President Trump. Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic. The administration has been maneuvered into a constant backpedal by relentless political warfare attacks structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses. The president can either drive or be driven by events; it’s time for him to drive them.

 

Dear FRiends, We need your help to keep FR on the air. If you have not already done so, please make your donation today. Thank you very much for your loyal support!

 

Donate with our new secure link: https://freerepublic.com/donate/

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC – PO Box 9771 – Fresno, CA 93794

 

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794