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

 

Newbill Thoughts in Conspiracies Inbox


Tony Newbill’s theme in this post is the Dem fake news of Trump/Russia collusion to win the 2016 election as POTUS. Even though some of this info is old news, too many people listen to the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) as gospel truth.

 

There is some treason going on here. I pray criminal activities are revealed so the American people can learn that the Dems main goal is to eradicate the U.S. Constitution as we know and to continue Obama’s dream utopia of fundamentally transforming America.

 

The last post is off topic to the rest of Newbill’s emails. That post is a video of Alex Jones bring clarity to his Pizzagate disavowal which includes a warning that there are pedophilia rings, the Clintons have a connection and the American Left is doing its best to silence reporting either by outright censorship or by falsely impugning reputations of those exposing pedophilia. Take some time to watch the entire Alex Jones video.

 

JRH 4/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Newbill Thoughts in Conspiracies Inbox

 

Emails sent by Tony Newbill

Posted 4/3/17

 

Screw You James Comey – What’s Good For The Goose

Sent 3/5/2017 9:51 PM

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/05/screw-you-james-comey-whats-good-for-the-goose/

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is

 

According to the New York Times, FBI Director James Comey is reported to be requesting the President Trump Department of Justice to refute the possibility of the FBI having intercepted communications from Trump Tower in the latest “Wire Tapping” denial.

 

So lets [sic] give this request by Director Comey some context.

 

It was only a few weeks ago when the same FBI went to President Trump’s Chief of Staff and told Reince Priebus there was no truth to media reports, based on FBI leaks, of FBI evidence showing Trump campaign officials involved with Russian officials regarding the 2016 election.  It was all a complete nothingburger.

 

Details – On February 15th while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Reince for 5 minutes alone after the meeting.  At the one-on-one meeting McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.

 

Priebus asked McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly and get the media off his back about a ridiculously false narrative.  Asst. Director McCabe said he would check with his boss, FBI Director James Comey.  Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it.

 

Reince Preibus/McCabe dialogue 2-24-17

 

Reince Priebus was simply asking for the FBI to give truthful information about the false reports to the public.  The White House was asking Comey to deliver transparency.

 

Quote from the FBI to Priebus: “We’d love to help, but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story”.

 

Oh, but now, when there are “false wire-tapping reports” about Director Comey, now, N.O.W he wants the Trump administration, via the DOJ, to help him out and deny the FBI had any involvement in surveillance of Trump Tower, candidate Donald Trump or President-Elect Donald Trump.

 

Now, when it fits Comey’s preferred sensibility.  Now he wants a clear and transparent record.  The hypocrisy is thick with this guy.

 

 

Screw you James Comey!

 

My advice to President Trump and team would be for them to tell Director Comey to go READ ENTIRETY (Screw You James Comey – What’s Good For The Goose; By sundance; The Last Refuge; 3/5/17)

 

+++

The Trump Administration needs to watch its back!!!!!!!

Sent 3/7/2017 10:28 PM

 

Wikileaks: CIA hackers can pose as Russians—ring a bell?

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/wikileaks-cia-hackers-can-pose-as-russians-ring-a-bell/

 

(Part-2, here)

 

Let’s see. The CIA claims that Russian government hackers interfered in the US election, on the side of Trump.

 

But suppose CIA hackers fabricated an operation to make it look like a Russian hack? Too far-fetched?

 

Not anymore.

 

In conjunction with their new data-dump of CIA material, WikiLeaks issues this statement:

 

“The CIA’s Remote Devices Branch’s UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.”

 

Spy games.

 

A group within the CIA wanted to shift blame for Hillary Clinton’s defeat? How about pointing at the Russians? “Easy. We can use Russian hacking tools and fabricate a scenario. We can say we discovered ‘fingerprints’ that point to the Russian government.”

 

Here is what the CNN Wire Service reported on January 2, 2017:

 

“…even as President-elect Donald Trump and his aides cast doubt on the links between Russia and recent hacks against Democrats, US intelligence officials say that newly identified ‘digital fingerprints’ indicate Moscow was behind the intrusions.”

“One official told CNN the administration has traced the hack to the specific keyboards — which featured Cyrillic characters — that were used to construct the malware code, adding that the equipment leaves ‘digital fingerprints’ and, in the case of the recent hacks, those prints point to the Russian government.”

 

Really? We live in a world where spies and their cronies are constantly fixing reality to suit themselves.

 

So now all this bravado about discovering how the Russians hacked and stole the election blows up like a cream puff with a firecracker inside.

 

Who originally hacked/accessed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) email files and handed them to WikiLeaks for publication? That appeared to be an insider at the DNC. But the cover story—“the Russians did it”—floated by the CIA other US intelligence agencies now takes on a new hue.

 

The CIA has worked, over the years, to refine its ability to fake a hack-trace to all sorts of people, including the READ THE REST (Wikileaks: CIA hackers can pose as Russians—ring a bell? By Jon Rappoport; Jon Rappoport’s Blog; 3/7/17)

 

Trust CIA hackers who hack France’s election campaign?

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/trust-cia-hackers-who-hack-frances-election-campaign/

 

 

In my previous article, I mentioned how, according to the latest WikiLeaks CIA data dump, the CIA can fabricate, yes, fabricate the “fingerprints” of Russian government hackers and create the false impression that Russians hacked the US presidential campaign of 2016.

 

But there’s more.

 

Commenting on its CIA data dump, WikiLeaks also describes a wide-ranging CIA espionage plan to infiltrate the candidates running in the 2012 French presidential election. These are, of course, the same CIA thieves who assure us that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election campaign. CIA credibility? Zero. Who has time to try to sort out when the liars might not be lying?

 

WikiLeaks, Press Release, 16 February, 2017:

 

“All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human (‘HUMINT’) and electronic (‘SIGINT’) spies in the seven months leading up to France’s 2012 presidential election. The revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published today by WikiLeaks as context for its forth coming CIA Vault 7 series. Named specifically as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.”

“The CIA assessed that President Sarkozy’s party was not assured re-election. Specific tasking concerning his party included obtaining the ‘Strategic Election Plans’ of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP); schisms or alliances developing in the UMP elite; private UMP reactions to Sarkozy’s campaign stratagies [sic]; discussions within the UMP on any ‘perceived vulnerabilities to maintaining power’ after the election; efforts to change the party’s ideological mission; and discussions about Sarkozy’s support for the UMP and ‘the value he places on the continuation of the party’s dominance’. Specific instructions tasked CIA officers to discover Sarkozy’s private deliberations ‘on the other candidates’ as well as READ THE REST (Trust CIA hackers who hack France’s election campaign? By Jon Rappoport; Jon Rappoport’s Blog; 3/7/17)

 

+++

Have You Seen This?

Sent 3/19/2017 1:04 PM

 

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryKlayman/chariman-nunes-fbi-james-comey-montgomery-whitsleblower/2017/03/19/id/779551//

 

… In the case of President Donald Trump, …  the president’s claims that he was wiretapped, that is, illegally spied upon, by his predecessor’s administration, former President Barack Obama.

 

As I have written in this Newsmax blog and elsewhere particularly of late, my client, former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery, holds the keys to disproving the false claims of those representatives and senators on the House and Senate intelligence committees, reportedly as well as FBI Director James Comey, that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped.

 

Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama’s former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.

 

 

[Blog Editor: The next paragraph is the part of the Newsmax report Newbill focused on in the email.]

 

… Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia. There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration. He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.

 

This interview, conducted and videoed by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since. It would appear that the FBI’s investigation was buried by Comey, perhaps because the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance. In READ ENTIRETY (Nunes Must Ask FBI’s Comey About Montgomery Mass Surveillance Case; By Larry Klayman; Newsmax; 3/19/17 01:04 PM)

 

+++

What does Hillary Clinton, CrowdStrike, Ukraine Russian Conflict and Russian Hacking have to do with one another????

Sent 3/29/2017 1:14 PM

 

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

 

WASHINGTON —  An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.

 

The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.

 

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

 

 

While questions about CrowdStrike’s findings don’t disprove allegations of Russian involvement, they do add to skepticism voiced by some cybersecurity experts and commentators about the quality of their technical evidence.

 

 

Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency’s top cyber lawyer and served on an Obama White House cybersecurity commission in 2016. Chabinsky left CrowdStrike last year.

 

 

In a January post on LinkedIn, Carr called CrowdStrike’s evidence in the Ukraine “flimsy.” He told VOA in an interview that CrowdStrike mistakenly assumed that the X-Agent malware employed in the hacks was a reliable fingerprint for Russian actors.

 

“We now know that’s false,” he said, “and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia.” READ ENTIRETY (Think Tank: Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data; By Oleksiy Kuzmenko and Pete Cobus; VOA; Last Updated 3/23/17 11:17 AM)

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crowdstrike-needs-address-harm-causedukraine-jeffrey-carr

 

Crowdstrike’s Danger Close intelligence report is an analytic failure of epic proportions, but more importantly, it has harmed the morale of the people of Ukraine as well as cast doubt in the minds of the Ukrainian soldiers who relied upon the artillery app maligned by Crowdstrike.

 

In addition, Adam Meyers and Dmitri Alperovich chose to quote a pro-Russian military blogger’s exaggerated figures of an 80% loss rate of Ukraine’s D-30 artillery caused in part by a variant of the same malware used in the DNC hack.

 

The Ministry of Ukraine denies the allegations and states that the number of lost artillery is less than 80% and they lost no artillery due to READ THE REST (Crowdstrike Needs To Address The Harm It Caused Ukraine; By Jeffrey Carr; LinkedIn; 1/16/17)

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/20/fix-is-in-comey-praised-dnc-hired-cybersecurity-firm-even-after-botched-report/

 

Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), released a report tying “Russian hacking” to an incident that never happened, yet even after the report had been debunked, FBI Director James Comey still referred to Crowdstrike as a “highly respected private company” at a Senate hearing.

 

By issuing a still-unrestricted report about an incident that never happened and then tying it to the alleged Russian hacks that Democrats claim tipped the elections for Pres. Trump, the DNC-employed Crowdstrike’s credibility deserves to be called into question, however, despite excellent reporting by cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky, and Voice of America reporter Oleksiy Kuzmenko, the media has ignored the story and continued to cite Crowdstrike’s work… even after the Ukrainian Defense Ministry issued a statement on January 6th, 2017 refuting Crowdstrike’s claims.

 

Even more troubling than the media malfeasance about the discredited Crowdstrike report, in testimony in front of the Senate intelligence committee on January 10 – four days after the Ukrainian DOD denied Crowdstrike’s report — Director Comey admitted that the FBI had been denied access to the DNC servers and praised Crowdstrike, without mentioning that they worked for the DNC or that their recent report had been debunked.

 

 

If Henry’s statement to the Washington Post seems more political than technical, that’s because Crowdstrike was being utilized by their clients at the Democratic National Committee to put out a narrative about Russian hacking to use against the Trump campaign. As later confirmed by a laudatory piece in Esquire magazine, starting in June 2016 the DNC used Crowdstrike executives Alperovitch and Henry as part of an anti-Trump publicity plan related to allegations of Russian hacking:

 

 

The Democrats’ attempts to smear Donald Trump with allegations of Russian involvement failed to win them the election and by December the Obama administration was taking a number of steps to make the incoming president’s job as difficult as possible. On December 13th, the New York Times published a major piece pushing the narrative – without any new definitive technical evidence – that the Russians were READ ENTIRETY (Fix Is In: Comey Praised DNC-Hired Cybersecurity Firm Even After Botched Report; By LEE STRANAHAN; Breitbart; 3/20/17)

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/crowdstrike-denied-bid-to-block-security-report-in-legal-challenge-against-subversive-nss-labs/

 

CrowdStrike has failed in a bid to prevent the NSS Labs endpoint security report from going public at RSA after a court in Delaware refused to side with the firm’s arguments.

 

The CrowdStrike Falcon Host, which aims to combine “next-generation antivirus, endpoint detection and response and proactive features” to keep enterprise systems secure, is the product NSS Labs included in both public and private testing.

 

However, it is allegations of underhanded tactics and alleged poor testing methods which are at the heart of the matter — rather than the results themselves.

 

 

On February 13, the Federal Court denied CrowdStrike’s bid, allowing NSS Labs to go ahead and release the results of the endpoint tests.

 

 

The endpoint security report, available to subscribers, analyzed the security of 13 vendors which offer endpoint protection solutions.

 

The vendors included in the report were Carbon Black, CrowdStrike, ESET, Fortinet, Invincea, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, McAfee, SentinelOne, Sophos, Symantec, and Trend Micro.

 

Out of the 13, nine received a “Recommend” rating, one received “Security Recommended,” one was “Neutral” and two were in “Caution.”

 

 

While 11 products were granted an “above average” value, two were rated as having a “below average” value — one of which being CrowdStrike’s Falcon platform.

 

According to the subscription-only report, obtained by ZDNet, the Falcon Host received an overall security effectiveness rating of 73.2 percent and a score of 99 percent for evasion techniques tested. After what NSS Labs calls “initial tuning,” the company’s solution did not alert on false positives during testing.

 

As a result, the CrowdStrike Falcon Host received a “caution” rating, alongside Malwarebytes, which only gained an overall security effectiveness rating of READ ENTIRETY (CrowdStrike denied bid to block security report in legal challenge against ”subversive” NSS Labs; By Charlie Osborne for Zero Day; ZDNet; 2/15/17 12:24 GMT (04:24 PST))

 

+++

Why didn’t Hillary Clinton’s DNC let the FBI Look at the Servers …?

Sent 3/29/2017 12:06 PM

 

We need to start asking this question …. Why didn’t Hillary Clinton’s DNC let the FBI Look at the Servers that the DNC said were Hacked by Russians???????

 

As of today, many months after the election, no one has put forth any evidence that Russia hacked anything related to the election whatsoever. None. The closest thing anyone has even resembling evidence is the word of CrowdStrike, the company hired by the DNC to investigate their servers, after someone released emails showing that Democratic party officials had been working behind the scenes to discredit and disable the Bernie Sanders campaign.

 

There are several problems with the CrowdStrike angle however. The first problem, is that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the servers themselves. The FBI instead just took their word for it. The second problem is that CrowdStrike has a SIGNIFICANT conflict of interest in this situation. Google is a major stakeholder in CrowdStrike, and Eric Schmidt the Executive Chairman of Alphabet (the parent company of Google) was working directly on the Clinton campaign effort. He was providing tech assistance, he drew up her campaign plan, and he was even photographed wearing a “staff” badge in an exclusive area during election night.

 

https://twitter.com/less_tx/status/798954058128166912

 

Eric Schmidt wore “Staff” Badge at Clinton Election Night Party

 

This doesn’t pass the smell test, at all.

 

Furthermore, the anti-Russian angle peddled by CrowdStrike was premised on the “fact” that the malware used in the attack was of Russian origin. As any security expert will tell you, once malware is used in the wild, anyone can pick it up and use it (including other state actors).

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839117937042735104

 

CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ [Click Twitter link to view Umbrage Photo]  

 

To bolster their claim, CrowdStrike attempted to draw parallels to a supposed hack on Ukrainian artillery communications that used the same technique. That however, blew up in their face when both the Ukrainian military and the International Institute for Strategic Studies came forward to debunk their assessment.

 

Then there is the fact that Wikileaks has been very clear about the fact that their source was NOT Russian.

 

    “We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,”

 

The rabbit hole on this topic goes deeper, and clearly there is room for a lively debate, but it takes a willful act of intellectual dishonesty to treat it as a slam dunk case where the villain is clearly defined.

 

Anyone who has studied crowd psychology knows that one of the most important principles of ideological contagion is repetition. It doesn’t matter if something is true or false. If you repeat something enough times people will start believing it. Once an idea becomes an accepted belief, it takes on characteristics of religious orthodoxy. To question becomes heresy.

 

Read more here:

http://stormcloudsgathering.com/demonizing-russia-the-psychology-and-consequences-of-neo-mccarthyism/

 

This article is not intended to alter your position in regard to Donald Trump in any way. Whether you love him or hate him isn’t an issue of global importance, nor is his political survival relevant to this analysis. Some of the tactics being used in the push to take Trump down however, are.

 

THE STAKES

 

Before we dive into the quagmire that the topic of of Russia, Trump and the 2016 elections has become, it behoves [sic] us to anchor to the stakes: Russia is a nuclear power. The demonization of foreign nations is a precursor to war, and even a limited conflict between the United States and Russia would kill millions (if not billions) of people; rendering much of the planet uninhabitable for decades. Using U.S. Russian relations as a political football in this context is foolish and irresponsible.

 

THE TRUMP VARIABLE

 

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign made tying Trump to Russia a central pillar of their messaging strategy. This line of attack was predicated on comments made by Trump over the years expressing respect for Putin. …

 

 

Clinton used these and other statements to weave the narrative that Trump is “Putin’s puppet”. The mainstream media, and left-leaning blogosphere took that narrative and ran with it. Those who didn’t were labeled “fake news”, and attacked as collaborators. The goal was to capitalize on existing anti-Russian sentiment by attaching it to Trump and his supporters (and to pressure those on the fence distance themselves).

 

 

THE RUSSIAN HACKING ALLEGATIONS

 

 

Now playing loose and fast with the facts for political purposes is a mainstay of American partisanship, but when foreign policy gets thrown into the mix, and “leaders” start accusing a nuclear power of “an act of war” the facts matter.

 

As of today, many months after the election, no one has put forth any evidence that Russia hacked anything related to the election whatsoever. None. The closest thing anyone has even resembling evidence is the word of CrowdStrike, the company hired by the DNC to investigate their servers, after someone released emails showing that Democratic party officials had been working behind the scenes to discredit and disable the Bernie Sanders campaign.

 

There are several problems with the CrowdStrike angle however. The first problem, is that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the servers themselves. The FBI instead just took their word for it. The second problem is that CrowdStrike has a SIGNIFICANT conflict of interest in this situation. Google is a major stakeholder in CrowdStrike, and Eric Schmidt the Executive Chairman of Alphabet (the parent company of Google) was working directly on the Clinton campaign effort. He was providing tech assistance, he drew up her campaign plan, and he was even photographed wearing a “staff” badge in an exclusive area during election night.

 

 

THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES

 

The short term political utility of tying Trump to Russia has blinded many on the left to the long term effect such a strategy is bound to have. Consider for a moment the implications of an entire generation being raised in the United States right now marinating in news and commentary which frames Russia as enemy number #1 (or #2 depending on where Trump supposedly fits). The facts and specifics won’t matter to these formative minds. It all boils down to sentiment. This sentiment can (and likely will) be used in ways that those fomenting it never imagined.

 

A recent poll by Reuters found that a stunning 82% of Americans now view Russia as a threat. This is a ticking time bomb.

 

It is a strategic error to assume anti-Russian propaganda will always work in the favor of the political left. Remember the original Mccarthyism. Neocon Republicans like John Mccain [Blog Editor: I don’t agree with the author that McCain is a Neocon. Regardless of the propaganda Neocons are patriots that used to be Leftists. McCain is a downright GOP Establishment RINO] and Mike Pence [Blog Editor: VP Pence is hardly a Neocon. He has been a Conservative values Christian most of – if not all – his political career.] would like nothing more than a chance to clip Putin’s wings, and in the right context that’s exactly what they would attempt to do. By linking Russia to Trump (arguably one of the most hated political figures in American history) the left is unwittingly laying the psychological groundwork for war.

 

If and when the moment comes where a Republican president decides to escalate tensions with Moscow (by direct or proxy intervention), “progressives” will find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable dilemma: either they get carried along with their enemies in the wave of anti-Russian sentiment they helped create, or they try to reverse tack and play opposition.

 

Reversing tack wouldn’t be easy under any circumstances, but in the midst of a crisis it would be all but impossible, and such protests would be easily shot down with snippets of their own words. Hypocrisy is after all, a vulnerability in and of itself. READ ENTIRETY (DEMONIZING RUSSIA: THE PSYCHOLOGY AND CONSEQUENCES OF NEO-MCCARTHYISM; StormCloudsGathering.com; 3/28/17)

 

+++

Evelyn Farkas says ….

Sent 3/30/2017 1:07 AM

 

Evelyn Farkas says President Trump needs to tell the American People if he received a Bunch of Money from the Russians to bail him out of debt and if that’s possibly bribing leverage by the Russians and that is this at the heart of the Russian issue  … listen to her @ 2:40,  https://youtu.be/cVGp2FZmVA4?t=2m40s

 

VIDEO: Obama Aide Evelyn Farkas Squeals Live On MSNBC: ‘I Helped Spy On Trump For Obama'(VIDEO)!!!

 

Posted by GLOBAL News

Published on Mar 28, 2017

 

Obama aide rats on Obama: ‘I helped spy on Trump for Obama’. Evelyn Farkas, an Obama administration insider, has become the latest Democrat to roll over and squeal on her former comrades, telling MSNBC that she helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left office, and that Trump, not Russians, was the target of the illegal surveillance

 

+++

Blog Editor: A link was sent as a comment by Tony Newbill under another pseudonym he uses more often these days: Tommy Tunes. The thing is I don’t remember the comment other than it was a bit out of place for the post it was on. Perhaps Tony/Tommy removed the comment. Nevertheless, the comment pointed to an Alex Jones video of an episode of InfoWars devoted entirely to elitist pedophilia. In the 1:34:27 episode Jones clarifies his disavowal of Pizzagate but only as it pertains to the pizzerias themselves. The clarification is that Leftist pedophiles of the Dem Party/Crooked Hillary inclusion used those pizzerias as fundraising locations and that pedophilia conversations undoubtedly took place in the largely ignorant pizzerias. I placed this at the end because this entry has little to do with the theme of the rest of the post yet is so right-on that every should watch, listen and learn.

 

VIDEO: SPECIAL REPORT with Alex Jones – Saturday 4/1/17: This Needs To Go VIRAL

 

Posted by Ron Gibson

Published on Apr 1, 2017

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill (pseudonym)