I’m a Black American, and I Say Antifa Must Not Be Tolerated

Moving to a tiny town in the hills of West Virginia took me out of the loop for about a month; no TV or internet with horrible cell phone service and too much static on the radio to listen to Rush. Upon finally getting back online I learned that the airways have been dominated by a bunch of scumbag haters calling themselves Antifa.

I’m a black original member of the Tea Party movement, singer/songwriter of the “American Tea Party Anthem.” Outrageously, fake news media grants respect to Antifa which is boldly and arrogantly inciting hate and engaging in violence which fake news media falsely accused the Tea Party of doing. Fake news media’s insidious deception is the epitome of evil.

Antifa terrorists throw Molotov cocktails, urinate on police cars, burn our flag, destroy public property and physically assault anyone who disagrees with them. In my history of speaking and performing at over 500 Tea Party rallies, rally sites were left cleaner than we found them. Grandmothers typically brought cookies to share with our team. And yet, fake news media insultingly gives Antifa moral high ground over the Tea Party.

I probably sound like a broken record repeating myself. Time after time, fake news media has shown us that they have no intention of being honest, fair or balanced. Their sole purpose is to further their leftists’ homey’s anti-American and anti-Christian socialist/progressive agenda. Being blatantly hypocritical does not deter fake news media in the least. They will do or say whatever necessary to defeat us everyday Americans; remove Trump from office to block the implementation of his make America great again agenda. Given this truth, why on earth would anyone on our side attempt to work with or please fake news media? It is insane.

It is not surprising that despicable fake news media is secretly cheering on Antifa’s violence. Meanwhile, media slime-balls are aggressively selling their lie that white supremacists represent mainstream conservatives (cookie-baking Tea Party grandmothers at rallies with their grandkids who wave American flags while singing “God Bless America”). (Read more from “I’m a Black American, and I Say Antifa Must Not Be Tolerated” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Style and Substance in the Age of Trump

The mainstream media have warned of a Russian network of trolls and botnets laboring around the clock from websites and social media accounts to disrupt and distort American democracy. It’s jarring to see the Left preoccupied with Russian subversion after they spent most of the last three generations mocking us for seeing “a commie under every bed.”

Leftists defended Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss to the bitter end. They idolized Army lawyer Joseph N. Welch after he famously interrupted Sen. Joseph McCarthy on national television to denounce him and prevent further questioning about Communists in the Department of the Army. In fact, Otto Preminger later cast Welch in a Hollywood movie, and he was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe. (The Left takes care of its own.)

They played nice with Fidel Castro after he betrayed the democratic revolution in Cuba, and they hung Che Guevara posters in their dorm rooms. They greased the skids for Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. And eventually they thrust Barack Obama, who promised a geopolitical reset with Russia, into the White House.

But they are nothing if not agile. Their self-exculpation knows no limits. They have an excuse for everything, and in this case it is a variation of the Southern Strategy excuse: the Russians used to be bad guys in the good Party; then, after a perceived trauma, they migrated into the bad party. So now they’re racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic just like us Conservatives.

What are the current accusations against Russia? So far as I know, nobody has accused them of hacking into the vote-counting apparatus. The accusation is that they influenced U.S. public opinion improperly in two ways. First, by telling lies – fake news, in other words.

It seems odd for somebody to complain about fake news now if they relied on comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to inform them during the Bush and Obama administrations. They were perfectly satisfied with policy discourse that consisted of one-liners, exaggerations and cheap shots for years. Then they got a taste of their own medicine from Donald Trump, and began to shriek of their sober integrity. It’s a little late for that now.

Has public discourse been cheapened and coarsened? Of course. But Democrats started it and benefited from it. My former U.S. Senator Harry Reid was unrepentant about lying in 2012 that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in a decade. In a CNN interview, he shrugged off the documents that disproved his accusation: “Romney didn’t win, did he?” Reid later told the Washington Post “it’s one of the best things I’ve ever done.”

The Post reporter asked him if there was a line he wouldn’t cross in his partisan battles. “I don’t know what that line would be,” the Democrat replied. And neither do his comrades in the Democratic caucus.

What Liberals demand of conservatives is an asymmetrical civility, unilateral honor, with no implicit reciprocal obligation that Liberals will likewise restrain themselves. They routinely call conservatives racist, for example, for the slightest insensitivity or slip-up in racial etiquette. Yet they can spout the crudest racial slurs about Condoleezza Rice or Stacey Dash with impunity, safe from even the faintest censure by fellow Liberals.

One thing Republicans and Reagan Democrats liked about Trump was that he didn’t roll over for the self-serving, self-appointed arbiters of civility. It had simply become too corrupt. The demand for asymmetrical civility had become just another weapon in the arsenal of hyper-partisan, poorly raised Liberals.

We only get one nominee every four years. With Dole, McCain and Romney, we got gentlemen who had no stomach for the fight. They were just too comfortable losing to Democrats, too easily consoled. When I saw Bill Clinton on television hanging some kind of good citizen’s medal on Bob Dole at the White House, I felt betrayed. Trump made me wince, yes. But at last we had a nominee who would go down swinging. We needed a gut fighter, and we finally had one in this contentious New Yorker.

I do hope the president will work on being consistently truthful. You’re only as good as your most recent syllable. You may tell the most profound truths, you may be the most courageous truth-teller when the chips are down, but you can discredit all that with petty, impulsive or careless lies. Please don’t do that.

I’m against lies, which brings me to the second way the Russians are accused of improperly influencing U.S. public opinion: they told the truth. That is, they publicized emails that Clinton Democrats didn’t want voters to know about. The Russians deprived them of the freedom to lie, or to continue lying.

Hillary Clinton probably would have had no WikiLeaks problem if she had been conscientious about secure communications. Even if Russian hackers nevertheless penetrated her encryption, it would have been less embarrassing, less of a bombshell, if she had just dealt honestly with Congress. She has no sacrosanct privilege to lie to Congress, to destroy evidence under subpoena, or to deal slothfully with sensitive information.

Liberals have expressed no anger at the Russians for hacking into poorly secured emails. That’s just standard spycraft. We’re almost certainly doing it to the Russians, too. What outrages Liberals is that Russians gave American voters the same information Putin and his allied ayatollahs had access to. It was too good for Americans: information that proved Clinton Democrats’ sleaze and abuse of authority. Getting huffy with Trump and the Russians is mostly an attempt to change the subject.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Intergenerational Larceny: We Are All Thieves

What is it about Illinois? When I was learning my multiplication tables in a downstate elementary school there, we were proud of our governor, Otto Kerner Jr. He was descended from German-speaking Czechs, and a son-in-law of the assassinated Chicago mayor Anton Cermak. He was a two-star general in the National Guard, after commanding field artillery units in both the European and Pacific theaters in World War II.

He was so well respected that, after race riots in Los Angeles, Chicago and Newark, the president asked him to chair the 11-member National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. The committee’s report, seven months later, was on the front pages of big-city newspapers. All we knew was the called it the Kerner Report.

But by the time they were whacking algebra into me in an adjacent state, Kerner had fallen into disgrace. It had something to do with racetracks and bribery (which Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew also found irresistible around that same time). He ended up going to federal prison, where he may have seen some old acquaintances from his seven years as U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois.

Kerner wasn’t the first or the last Illinois governor to end up in prison. In fact, four of the past eight Illinois governors have gone to jail.

And it isn’t just governors. Former congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. recently served 30 months in federal prison. Disgraced House Speaker “Coach” Dennis Hastert became federal inmate number 47991-424 last year.

Former Chicago Cubs slugger Sammy Sosa never went to jail, but his disgrace compares with those who did. He was proven dirty, and his records deserve an asterisk.

But is Illinois unique, or is it typical? It might be overrepresented, but there’s undeniably a lot of cheating elsewhere in this country.

No account of cheating would be complete without a shout-out to Texan Lance Armstrong. He was a philanthropist and a cancer survivor. One would expect an intolerance of anything false or shallow. But his thirst for recognition was insatiable – he would take it by fraud, he would take it by browbeating, but he would not deny himself applause.

Years ago, when my son was a serious weightlifter, I bought him “The Kennelly Method,” by Ryan Kennelly of Washington state. It was a slim volume by the bench press world-record holder. Ryan was a soft-spoken but articulate young guy who had invented some lifting accessories and was generous with his advice on other lifters’ websites and YouTube channels. I thought he might be an inspirational role model for my son.

Then local police searched Ryan’s apartment and seized 84 vials of steroids. If that were me, I think I would have been chastened, and gotten out of the steroid business. But three years later, a federal grand jury indicted him for possession of lab equipment for the manufacture of steroids, possession of steroids, and intent to deliver steroids. Cheating, it seems, is addictive.

How else to explain the reckless self-destruction of Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia? Did McDonnell actually need to cadge a fur coat for his wife? Surely he could afford to clothe his own wife. Cunningham was plucked from the private sector in Southern California to stand for office. He could have made a much larger income, if he chose, by staying out of government, or by leaving it. Why did he enter public service, then take bribes?

These publicly disgraced people deserve the penalties they suffered. I would oppose any leniency. But I don’t think they are fundamentally different from the rest of us. The basic human impulse for larceny is, if not universal, at least pervasive.

That’s why the Earned Income Credit is so popular. It’s why we claim a right to sign up for health insurance after we become unhealthy, guaranteed against rejection for pre-existing conditions, or we run up enormous uninsured medical expenses, then take bankruptcy. It’s why we want richer people (than us) to pay our taxes for us.

And it’s why we Baby Boomers borrow every nickel out of our Social Security trust fund to pay for government programs, leaving bales of IOUs instead of cash, then insist that younger workers pay those IOUs back to us, out of their future earnings.

Intergenerational larceny will have very grave consequences. Grievous debt will deprive our grandchildren of their capacity for self-government. They will build fewer needed schools, roads and hospitals because they’ll be paying off our self-indulgence. Their military will be hamstrung. Classroom sizes will swell. Infrastructure will slowly disintegrate.

Are too many politicians and professional athletes corrupt? Yes, one would be too many. But we’re corrupt, too. Shame on us if we don’t protect and endow future generations instead of pillaging them.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State of the Union: A Dictatorship of Lawyers Is Still a Dictatorship

In the waning days of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev, giddy foreign journalists asked a Soviet official whether his country was headed for Western-style democracy. He replied that the Soviets didn’t want to exchange the dictatorship of the proletariat for a dictatorship of the lawyers.

At the time, I thought it was an insolent retort from a grumpy Communist who resented the question. Since then, I’ve come to see its wisdom. My country, founded by freedom-loving men and women, sometimes resembles a dictatorship of, by and for the lawyers.

I’m not a lawyer-hater. Thank God we have conscientious lawyers to represent us and advise us. I’m not against voting some of them into office as legislators. They’ve made wretched presidents in my lifetime, but my top choice in the recent presidential primaries was a well-known lawyer.

I believe in the rule of law, just not in the rule of lawyers. My main problem with lawyers comes after they are appointed to be federal judges. I don’t envy them. It’s obviously a difficult job. We need to insulate them from reprisals and improper pressure, but we don’t want to create monarchs. That’s kind of a touchy subject for real Americans.

Start with the idea of lifetime tenure. Who else but a federal judge has lifetime tenure without gerrymandering? Just royalty and nobility, which the Constitution supposedly outlaws in America.

Maybe I’m expecting too much of judges who are, after all, just human. But when we give them such extraordinary and dangerous powers over us, I guess we hope for an incorruptible priesthood of steely integrity and buddha-like indifference to material or political ambition.

Alas, we got off on the wrong foot in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, a bit of Supreme Court jiu-jitsu that established “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ever since then, federal judges have reserved the right to overturn legislation that they deem

inconsistent with the Constitution. This might have been a happy turn of events had the judges confined themselves to the letter of the Constitution, or to the original intent of its framers.

But federal judges have treated the Constitution as a sort of wild card. The late Justice William Douglas spoke of its “penumbra and emanations,” creating a jurisprudence that is hard to distinguish from hallucination.

Eventually, Supreme Court decisions would cite a Constitutional right to privacy (found nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution) to justify Roe v. Wade, open season on unborn human babies. Federal judges would overturn state ballot initiative results, because voters were motivated by “animus” against homosexuals. The Supreme Court would order the states to extend the rights and privileges of marriage to Sodomites. And federal judges would dictate immigration policy over the objections of an elected president.

This is not a friendly difference of opinion. It’s a judicial coup d’etat.

But arrogance is not the only source of judicial corruption. Sometimes it’s timid deference to a menacing, dictatorial president.

When Franklin Roosevelt attempted to dilute the Supreme Court with six of his own judges, the Court’s decisions promptly veered left. After President Obama (a lawyer) disrespected the Supreme Court in a State of the Union speech, and after Sen. Patrick Leahy (a lawyer) signaled that Chief Justice John Roberts would be discredited if he opposed Obamacare, Roberts (a lawyer) switched sides and affirmed the Constitutionality of the coercive “individual mandate.”

We’re not going to change human nature. Lawyers will have their frailties, just like us. But we owe our grandchildren a free country, not a dictatorship.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I Rewrote the New York Times’ Report on Sen. Bob Menendez’s Corruption Trial as If He Was a Republican

You probably already know that yesterday’s New York Times report on the trial of Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was buried on page A15.

You probably also know that the original version of the story omitted Menendez’s party affiliation.

After a brief uproar, the Times finally added the Senator’s party to the story.

I took the liberty of rewriting the story originally authored by Nick Corasaniti — if that is his real name. I just pretended that Menendez was a Republican, in which case this story would have been on page A1, above the fold…

NEWARK — The Republican senator and key ally of troubled president Donald Trump paused in a corridor of the federal courthouse here last month to scream back at brave #Resistance protesters.

Spittle flecks flew from his mouth as the Senator, his face beet red, began resembling nothing less than Satan himself. His security guards absorbed a peaceful beating from the courageous Antifa members who had assembled to protest his all-too-typical Republican corruption. The GOP senator then disappeared through the double wooden doors to the courtroom

The curious moment highlighted the unusual predicament facing Mr. Menendez (R-NJ), a senior senator, and powerful ally of Donald Trump, whose presidency is still clouded by investigations of Russian collusion during the campaign.

For the first time in 36 years, a sitting United States Senator — a Republican — is facing a federal bribery trial, one that comes as a bitterly divided Congress reconvenes amid the unrelenting controversy, turbulence, skulduggery, and alleged corruption of the Trump administration.

Since his indictment more than two years ago, Mr. Menendez, a Republican, has steadfastly denied his obvious guilt. As recently as last week, during a hysterically embarrassing interview, Menendez obviously and falsely claimed he will “be exonerated.”

The GOP senator is charged with 12 corruption-related counts, including six counts of bribery and three counts of services fraud.

Indeed, the defense for the Trump ally is unlikely to dispute some of the facts; that Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, bestowed on the senator lavish gifts of private flights, luxury accommodations and free vacations – all which Mr. Menendez initially failed to disclose — and he made more than $700,000 in direct and indirect political contributions to Mr. Menendez.

The legal case revolves around the ludicrous contention that those gifts were permissible as gifts a friend could give to another, or whether they were part of a longstanding bribery arrangement where Mr. Menendez would intervene to protect the financial and personal interests of Dr. Melgen in return for his gifts and donations.

Given that Menendez is a Republican, his guilt seems obvious, according to several anonymous sources.

Mendendez’s likely conviction poses problems for the narrow Republican majority. Their agenda, already stymied by the brilliant tactics of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, is certain to be further compromised given the heavy odds that Menendez will soon be serving time.

Despite numerous calls to the White House, President Trump and his laughable “spokespersons” could not be reached for comment at press time.

[CONTINUED ON PAGE A2]

(For more from the author of “I Rewrote the New York Times’ Report on Sen. Bob Menendez’s Corruption Trial as If He Was a Republican” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ex-Muslim: Welfare Contributes to Islamism

A former Muslim who is warning America that Islamists are establishing “no-go zones,” neighborhoods run by Islamic Shariah law, says social-welfare programs contribute to the problem.

Such “help” facilitates a “huge swathe of people not doing anything,” he explained in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America.

“All day every day [there are] men hanging on street corners, in the cafes, outside smoking, drinking tea, chatting, going back and forth between the mosque and the café,” said author Raheem Kassam, who has just released “No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You.”

He explains such no-go zones already are a problem across Europe, and he sees the beginnings of the same troubles in America.

He said the radicals are being forced by the socialist programs in Europe into the circumstances that cause them to “live lives devoid of work, and joy and freedom.” (Read more from “Ex-Muslim: Welfare Contributes to Islamism” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mitch McConnell Is the New Nancy Pelosi

In the elections of 2010, grassroots Americans flipped the House from Democratic to Republican based largely on the anger against Nancy Pelosi, who was then the Speaker of the House.

Shortly after the elections, the New York Times asked, “Is Pelosi America’s most unpopular politician?”

It turns out she was, and she was used as a foil for years by grassroots and establishment Republicans in campaigns to crystallize the problems of the nation.

Yet for years, the Democrat Party chose to keep her at the helm of the leadership of the Democratic arm of the House. This year, some Democrats tried to remove her from leadership, and she famously said that she was “worth the trouble.”

The tactic of using Pelosi as a specter of danger during campaigns was extremely successful. Pelosi, in 2013, became the most popular name in congressional leadership, Democrat and Republican alike, but that popularity was largely negative in nature. She became a household name because she was so awful. She was safe in her San Francisco district, but despite that fact, it was her name recognition that destroyed her party’s command.

The nation in 2010 could not remove the president, whom they had finally seen as the destroyer he really was. We tried but could not remove Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with Republican Sharron Angle, due to shenanigans by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. So with the president locked in for at least two more years and the Senate majority leader locked in for 6 more, it was the unremovable Pelosi who took the brunt of the nation’s ire and would for years to come.

Now that the Republicans lead the House, the Senate, and the White House, the lowest-polling leader is Mitch McConnell. Though Pelosi was terribly unfavored, she was not as unfavored in her own party as Mitch McConnell is now.

Just as Pelosi was used during past elections to make the nation think of what kind of future we would have if any of her Democrats remained in office, the nation needs to use Mitch McConnell as the specter Pelosi was and still is to make the nation think of what is standing in the way of the people who want action on the conservative aspects of Trump’s agenda.

Mitch isn’t going anywhere, though many politically inexperienced supporters of the president have suggested he be removed. But though Mitch’s name should be used in the primaries as a weapon, it is his second job that should be the real target.

Recently, the president put McConnell in his Twitter crosshairs, but then relented and made nice when both McConnell’s people and the White House issued statements that they would continue to work together. They intend to work together on agenda items like tax reform, which, if experience is any indication, will be nothing like the promises Trump’s team made during his campaign. They also will work together on infrastructure, which is estimated to add to the deficit significantly. And they both want the debt ceiling raised, as if the nation needs one more boulder on the backs of working Americans. The Senate majority leader’s first job is to continue the legacy of the previous Senate because he’s the epitome of the establishment.

But McConnell’s second job, a job he takes just as seriously as the first, is to elect carbon copies of himself so that they will vote the way he tells them to.

Some Trump supporters are gleeful that Trump was seen before the Phoenix rally with possible challengers to Senator Jeff Flake. But today, those supporters are hoping Sheriff Joe Arpaio will challenge Flake. Since Flake is a McConnell lackey, I suppose the grassroots of Arizona will have to decide who can best oust Flake.

But Trump has put his weight behind Luther Strange of Alabama, another McConnell lackey. So it isn’t wise for Trump supporters to campaign for whoever Trump wants them to, because seemingly Trump himself doesn’t understand that his agenda will never be put into action until the McConnell army is stopped.

If McConnell’s carbon copies win, Trump’s presidency may well end in 2020, with very little done but the continuation of Pelosi’s agenda.

After all the work the people have done to pull the nation away from the fire since 2010, allowing McConnell to continue to elect proxies to call the shots will seriously damage Trump’s agenda, the people’s agenda, and the future of the nation.

Any Republicans running for Senate ought to be asked point-blank if they will go along with McConnell. If they answer yes, they’re done. If they equivocate, they’re done. If they answer no, and provide the right reasons why, they should be carried on the shoulders of the grassroots to victory.

Those who answer improperly will know why: It’s because of Mitch McConnell. (For more from the author of “Mitch McConnell Is the New Nancy Pelosi” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster: A Legend or a Lie?

[Explicit language]

Fresh on the heels of a successful offensive in Mosul, Iraq, the Iraqi military is now poised to retake Tal Afar, long a hotbed of ISIS and other insurgent activity. Before we pulled out of Iraq, Tal Afar, like Fallujah, had been the focal point of multiple large-scale, costly offensives to eject entrenched insurgents. In 2005, then-Colonel H.R. McMaster led the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) in the largest of these offensives, Operation Restoring Rights. His reputation as a brilliant military strategist rests largely on the results of that one battle. Given the widespread support for McMaster in the media and Washington establishment, it is ironic that current reporting largely fails to mention this battle or McMaster’s central role in it.

McMaster’s widely-hyped strategic acumen has been called into question by high-level military sources with personal knowledge of his conduct in the field. These sources spoke with me on condition of anonymity.

McMaster rests his laurels on the counter-insurgency strategy he claims won the Battle of Tal Afar, Iraq. But sources say McMaster ignored counter-insurgency experts and that his reckless leadership killed between 70 and 85* Americans and almost lost the battle. The battle, the sources say, was won only through a valiant rescue mission during which most of those casualties occurred.*

Until today this information has been suppressed.

Today, National Security Advisor McMaster is facing sustained criticism for his seemingly relentless opposition to Trump policies, his purging of many competent, conservative Trump loyalists from the National Security Council staff, and “protecting and coddling” 40 Obama holdovers — almost one-sixth of the NSC staff — who are plainly out to sabotage the Trump agenda.

Yet he continues to enjoy President Trump’s support. Is President Trump reluctant to fire McMaster for fear of criticism? Has he decided that McMaster’s reputed military genius is worth the cost? Or has he been thoroughly misinformed about McMaster’s character and competence? Who is H.R. McMaster really?

Lieutenant General (three-star) Herbert Raymond McMaster is a career Army officer still on active duty. He came to the Trump administration as a quick replacement for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), who resigned over controversies regarding his contacts with Russian officials. Whatever Flynn may have done wrong, his true sin was bucking the D.C. establishment, including many military leaders. And as frequently happens in Washington, when a strong conservative political appointee faces widespread (often manufactured) controversy, the knee-jerk reaction is to find a replacement the establishment likes. McMaster fits the bill.

On the surface, he appears to have the right resume. He has been awarded the Silver Star, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit and other medals, although John Kerry and many others have proved there are ways to get these medals without earning them. Most of this acclaim comes out of his service at the Battle of 73 Easting (1991), where in 23 minutes, McMaster’s nine M1A1 Abrams tanks and 12 Bradley Fighting Vehicles destroyed 30 Iraqi tanks and 14 armored vehicles. McMaster has been given credit for quick thinking and aggressive action, but his unit faced off against obsolete Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks operated by troops with inferior training. His unit was part of a larger operation that experienced similar success, ultimately destroying 85 tanks, 40 personnel carriers, and over 30 other vehicles. As George Dvorsky observes: “the [Republican Guard] didn’t have a chance.”

As the author of the 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam, McMaster enjoys a reputation as something of a maverick, a fact which perhaps found favor in the unorthodox Trump administration. The book has been described as “the seminal work on military’s responsibility during Vietnam to confront their civilian bosses when strategy was not working.”

But, as noted above, McMaster’s reputation rests largely on the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy applied at Tal Afar. It was later hailed by President George W. Bush, who said it, “gives me confidence in our strategy because in this city we see the outlines of the Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting for…” For once, the media agreed with Bush, published glowing reports on McMaster’s feats. Mother Jones and the Washington Post called him the “Hero of Tal Afar.” The left-leaning Slate.com calls him “the Army’s smartest officer.”

Now leftists are coming out of the woodwork to defend McMaster against his conservative critics. Newsweek accuses the “alt-right” of attempting to smear McMaster, while genuine slime merchants like Media Matters for America are smearing his critics. He is even being defended by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the propaganda arm of the Palestinian terrorist group HAMAS.

Okay, wait a minute.

When reflexively anti-American, anti-military outlets like Mother Jones, Slate and the Washington Post offer fawning praise for a Republican military commander, the reasons underlying those plaudits deserve further investigation. When anti-American, anti-military, George Soros-funded, extreme leftist smear operations like Media Matters go to war to defend a Trump political appointee, it casts a shadow on everything about the man. When the anti-American, terrorism-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR defends an American general, the alarm bells drown out all other sound. And officers who have witnessed his “leadership” in the unforgiving crucible of combat are now sounding the alarm.

It is not unusual in Army practice that studies and reports often gloss over leadership failures by simply not mentioning the leaders who failed. This seems to be the case in an official military report prepared for the U.S. Army’s Combat Studies Institute concerning the conduct of 3rd ACR in Operation Restoring Rights, according to Brave Rifles at the Battle of Tal Afar.[1] The 3rd ACR, also known as the “Brave Rifles,” is comprised of three ground squadrons, the 1st, 2nd and 4th, and a support squadron. Most of the fighting during this operation was conducted by the 2nd Squadron. Its commander, Lt. Col. Christopher M. Hickey, was the man on the ground leading the engaged combat forces.

Virtually all of the action described centers on decisions made by Hickey. McMaster barely gets a mention. The Washington Post‘s account of the battle puts McMaster in the middle of it, though the embedded reporter, Jon Finer, says he didn’t see McMaster until “the operation was winding down.” Brave Rifles does not describe where McMaster was at all, only that he responded to Hickey’s request for more troops by appealing to Task Force Freedom and Multinational Corps–Iraq (pp. 131-132). He likely oversaw the offensive from 3rd ACR’s operations base, FOB Sykes, 7.5 miles south of town (p. 130). Given that he had overall command of the regiment, that is probably where he should have been, except that he seemed to want people to believe he was in the heat of battle. He wasn’t.

The report is not especially critical of Hickey, but if the operation was an unqualified success, McMaster’s role presumably would have been highlighted. McMaster’s Tal Afar COIN strategy is also credited with inspiring Iraq’s 2007 “surge” operation. Yet Brave Rifles makes no such claim.

The report describes a halt in the advance to evacuate civilians that occurred little more than one day into the fight. In a “Frontline” video interview, [2] McMaster claims the pause was “about three days,” but according to Brave Rifles, it took a full week (p. 142). Officers on the ground during that battle claim that in fact the 2nd Squadron was surrounded and in danger of being annihilated. One Special Forces operative described it as a “goat fuck” (p. 142). A 1,150-strong Special Operations Group joined with other units to launch a rescue mission that would clear a path to McMaster’s beleaguered forces.

The following is an account of that effort provided for this article by the commander of the Special Operations Group. He is a highly decorated retired Special Forces flag officer with decades of service under his belt. His bona fides have been confirmed by other top-level military sources. All have requested anonymity. Given the D.C. establishment’s demonstrated hostility to whistleblowers, you can’t blame them.

Here is his story:

Mine was one of three units sent to rescue McMaster from Tal Afar. McMaster replaced most of the operations people upon assuming command with his admirers — most of whom had limited combat experience at best. The majority never had a troop command, even in peacetime. As an apprentice of David Petraeus, McMaster was recommended to command the 3rd ACR not because of his ability/experience to command a large armored formation but simply so he could get his ticket punched on the way to flag rank.

The strategy called for assault, clear and hold, but McMaster simply ordered the squadron to advance without securing positions taken. This allowed insurgents to come in behind his assault force and it was soon surrounded. It came to be known among the troops as “Little Stalingrad” because of McMaster’s arrogance and disregard of advice from COIN experts. McMaster was thoroughly briefed that Tal Afar was an insurgent stronghold but ignored this intelligence and attempted to take the city by coup de main (surprise attack) using a blitzkrieg strategy like Von Paulus used in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Use of armor in urban warfare is fraught with danger if not carefully coordinated with infantry and combat support. The insurgent force, commanded by former Iraqi officers, allowed McMaster’s column to enter the city, then sprung the trap. As with Von Paulus, McMaster soon found his tanks and tracks hopelessly bogged down in the streets and narrow alleys of Tal Afar.

The insurgents used the city like a giant maze. M1A2s (Abrams main battle tank) have vulnerabilities the insurgents used to their advantage. The Abrams was designed with no escape hatch underneath. The insurgents dropped Molotov cocktails on the tanks from tops of buildings. With the tank on fire, the crew had to exit thru the top of the tank, where they could be fired upon as they climbed out.

The M1A2 is also vulnerable to RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades]. Tal Afar had been ringed with sand berms to make it difficult for insurgents to get away. However, to enter the city, the tanks had to drive over the berms. The M1A2 underbelly is not adequately armored. As the tanks came over the berms, insurgents shot at their undersides with RPGs. The insurgents learned these tactics from the experience of jihadis who fought the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s. McMaster apparently didn’t.

McMaster attempted to paint a rosy picture of the assault but it soon became apparent to others his unit was in trouble. McMaster estimated the assault would take one-and-a-half days to complete, but by that time the 2nd Squadron was trapped. The official record claims that they halted the assault to allow civilians to evacuate. The truth is that they had become surrounded and couldn’t move.

My SF unit, just off another operation, was ordered to re-deploy and fight our way in to open a supply route into the city to replenish ammo and supplies and Medevac the wounded. Earlier attempts to drop supplies by helicopter met intense fire and risked supplies falling into enemy hands. It took us three days to battle our way to them. I lost 40 men KIA [killed in action] in one day and a total of 50 lost from my unit alone during the pause, with many more wounded.

The operation which was supposed to last 2 days, turned into an 18-day battle, with the 3rd ACR being decimated. Many soldiers died later in field hospitals overloaded with wounded. Many civilians were not evacuated until after the forces engaged, and they too suffered many dead and wounded.

This fiasco was covered up by McMaster’s good friend, mentor and fellow West Pointer, David Petraeus, who worried that revealing the depth of McMaster’s mistakes would reflect badly on him as well.

McMaster is a political officer who took credit for the hard work and sacrifice of others. He advanced his own career and burnished his myth with the help of David Petraeus and John McCain. A deeper research into Army records including casualties and vehicle losses will paint an accurate picture of the debacle, not mythical accounts.

The truth about Tal Afar is that a major cover up has allowed an unqualified officer to occupy one of the most critical positions in our national security apparatus.

According to the Brave Rifles report, 2nd Squadron lost 8 men and 12 soldiers from other units who joined them in the fight and 38 friendly Iraqi soldiers and 6 Iraqi policemen also perished.** (p. 147). According to the Special Forces officer, however, losses actually included:

Approximately 250 killed in action, including 70 to 85 American troops* and approximately 165 to 180 friendly Iraqi forces

1 HH47 Chinook helicopter

4 Blackhawk helicopters

4 M1A2 Abrams Tanks

30 Bradley Fighting Vehicles

Heavy losses of 5-ton trucks and fuel tankers

McMaster’s reputation for arrogance and incompetence filtered down to the rank and file as well.

Mathew Bocian served in the U.S. Army as a cavalry scout with 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry (Stryker). He deployed to Mosul and Tal Afar in 2004 and to Baghdad for The Surge in 2007. He has written a book about it, The Ghosts of Tal Afar. Bocian’s unit was in Tal Afar when McMaster’s 3rd ACR showed up. He had this to say about McMaster’s leadership:

[T]he regiment’s senior leadership thought they were hot-shit, and would teach us a thing or two. I was in a Squadron-wide officer call when good old H.R himself told the room not to worry – the real cav[alry] was here, and they brought the “big guns”. We deterred Hajj [the insurgents] by going into town every day – yes, even Al Sarai [the insurgent stronghold] because if you didn’t, Hajj took more and more control of the town; they were trying to drive a wedge between U.S. Forces and the Iraqi populous [sic]

3rd ACR’s idea of deterrence was to park a few tanks up at the castle and occasionally shoot main gun rounds over Al Sarai and into the empty desert. Yeah. That worked for all of about an hour until the Hajj (who are pretty fucking smart) got wise to the scheme and weren’t afraid of the sound. All that did was keep the residents in their homes so the only folks who went out were the bad dudes.

Not long after we returned to Mosul to take part of the Brigade’s new offensive to seal off all of Mosul, 3rd ACR launched an offensive of their own. They had opted to “assess” the situation for a week and had neglected certain parts of Tal’Afar – including Al Sarai. They lost a tank, a Bradley and an M-88 recovery vehicle in that initial push – and taking heavy fire and multiple casualties, were repelled by the Hajj, who had entrenched themselves in the area given plenty of time to prepare.

I don’t know how many soldiers 3rd ACR lost, or had wounded in Tal’Afar, but I look back in disgrace and wonder if their leadership had listened and were less cocky, if their losses could have been fewer.

Other sources I interviewed say that McMaster has very few admirers in the general officer corps and was considered to be just another typical “political general.”

He has not been given any battle commands since he was promoted to general. They say he would never have made general rank without the help of David Petraeus. He was passed over twice for promotion to flag rank, and didn’t get his first star until Army Secretary Peter Geren, a former Democratic congressman from Texas, took the unprecedented step of pulling General Petraeus from a combat command and appointing him to chair the Army’s promotion board, which Geren also hand-picked. Petraeus, of whom it has been said, “throughout his military career had worn his ambition like a strong aftershave,” saw to McMaster’s star. Then-Army Chief of Staff General George Casey concluded, “If McMaster weren’t such a smart-ass, he would have been promoted a long time ago.”

General officers require Senate confirmation both for appointment and advancement. McMaster’s Senate champion was and still is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain advocated replacing Flynn with McMaster. McCain described McMaster as “a man of genuine intellect, character and ability.”

To obtain his fourth star, McMaster must please his Senate overlords and their allies in the military — i.e. the establishment. This virtually guarantees a NSC advisor beholden to the swamp. In a recent interview with Breitbart News, Erik Prince, founder of the military contractor Blackwater, said:

[T]he danger of appointing a serving general, a three-star general that wants to be a four-star general, means that that general will always go with his service. If it’s a long-retired guy that’s not worried about a promotion, I think it’s easier to give objective advice. That’s the danger of having a serving officer as the national security director.

It is worth noting that Trump had consulted Prince extensively regarding Afghanistan strategy and Prince had been invited to join him at Camp David deliberations, but McMaster allegedly took him off the list at the last minute.

It seems the height of irony that Iraqi forces are now entering Tal Afar again, this time with Iran-backed militias — responsible for killing many Americans in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Meanwhile, the “Hero of Tal Afar” counsels President Trump to certify Iran in compliance with a nuclear deal composed in secret that was never signed and never consented to by the Senate. On the home front he resists efforts to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, emboldening groups like CAIR, that have joined with other subversive groups in their efforts to destabilize our nation.

My source concludes: “With McMaster now as National Security Advisor, maybe some aspiring young Army officer will write a sequel to McMaster’s book and call it, LtGen McMaster: Dereliction of Duty II. We can only hope General Mattis and General Kelly, along with a very distinguished group on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, give our President competent and honest military advice and guidance, not tainted by ‘what’s in it for me’ from a man who is a legend only in his own mind.”

_____________________________________________

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook.

*The Special Forces flag officer who served as the primary source for this article acknowledged after the article was initially published that he had previously provided incorrect casualty figures from the Battle of Tal Afar. The resulting errors in this article have been corrected and where they have been corrected there now appears an asterisk (*).

**The Iraqi casualties from the Brave Rifles report were not stated in the original article but in light of the flag officer’s now-corrected information, we have included those figures.

WARNING: The Race War Is Being Engineered

[Editor’s note: Restoring Liberty does NOT agree with everything below. However, the author raises a number of legitimate concerns. We’ve suggested repeatedly that the supposed racial divisions and antifa riots are contrived, hyped by the MSM and likely fomented by powerful factions that hope to profit from the resulting chaos]. The corporate deadstream media continues to stoke the flames of an alleged brewing race war. Is there any truth to this tale or are we witnessing something much more nefarious?

There is a division brewing. At least, that’s what the “mainstream” media would have you believe. If you have been plugged into the deadstream corporate media (TV, Internet, magazines, etc.) over the last year, you would likely have spent at least some of your time being afraid of the following:

– ISIS
– Russia
– ISIS
– North Korea

Now you can add white supremacists and anti-fascists to the list of things that should keep you up at night. This is not to say that any of these topics are completely irrelevant. What I am getting at is the fact that the corporate media (which is owned by a handful of corporations) have the power to influence your thinking and, as a result, keep you afraid or angry. The media (and the people behind it) are working together to create conflict. To stir the pot. To stoke the flames. In reality, for the average American these issues truly represent a small slice of the issues which are of immediate threat to their freedoms and livelihood.

While I believe all people should oppose low-level, primitive thinking such as racism and bigotry, we should be hesitant to let these stories and pundits play on our fears and push us into violent action. Also, we should remain skeptical and be aware there are infiltrators and provocateurs involved with promoting these fears. That is what I would like to focus on today. We must consider the possibility that the threat of both white supremacists and violent left-wing activists is being blown out of proportion to manipulate the public’s emotional state. A second possibility: These incidents of violence are being provoked by a State agency in order to create further conflict and justification of police state measures in response to this faux race war.

As I first wrote in December 2016, the purpose of a Donald Trump’s presidency is to radically divide the American people. He has not only emboldened conservatives who grew tired of mainstream politics and neoconservatism, but his actions and words have lit a fire under the extreme right wing of American politics. This extreme, or “Alt”-Right includes white nationalists, white supremacists, anti-Semites, former anarcho-capitalists and libertarians, and others who do not quite fit in with mainstream (or even independent) politics. Of course, not all Donald Trump supporters are racist bigots and not all those who choose to identify as Alt-Right should be considered racist bigots. Still, there is no denying that Trump’s policies and speeches have given the bigots a glimmer of hope that their ideas might become mainstream.

In reaction to the rise of racist factions of the Alt-Right, we are seeing the growth of the American AntiFascist Action (Antifa) movement. Despite the reports from the corporate media, this tactic has historical roots. Since at least the 1930s, anti-fascists and anti-racists took the streets of Europe to fight actual fascists. In America 2017, the Antifa activities have tended to focus on pro-Donald Trump rallies, freedom of speech rallies, and the growing American Alt-Right.

The purpose of this piece is not to argue that white supremacists do not pose a danger or that Antifa has not used violence. The purpose is to punch holes in the idea that these conflicts over race and identity are 100% organic. To be fair, there have been previous reports warning about the dangers of white supremacists. Specifically, in a joint intelligence bulletin, issued May 10 and obtained by Foreign Policy, the DHS and the FBI said white supremacist groups had carried out more violent attacks than any other domestic extremist group over the past 16 years. The report also said the agencies expected more attacks. There’s also a 2006 bulletin warning law enforcement about infiltration by white supremacists. Unfortunately, organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center often lump these legitimate dangers together with warnings about peaceful “anti-government” activists and organizers.

The white supremacists are not the only group striking fear into the heart of some Americans. An online petition calling on the White House to designate Antifa a terror group has been signed over 300,000 times. “It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety,” the petition reads. Unless we are to assume that all 305,000 signatures were done by their white supremacist nemeses, it would seem Antifa’s tactics are opposed by a few hundred thousand Americans.

These two groups — the right-wing racists and the left-wing anti-fascists who fight them – -are quickly becoming the focal point of the latest drama in middle America. The corporate media has done a hell of a job running round-the-clock news coverage of these white supremacists and Antifa. Not only do these groups represent a small minority of Americans, but, as I wrote in my last piece, there is a great danger in the FBI (or other government agency) infiltrating Alt-Right, white supremacist groups and anti-fascist groups for the purpose of causing or encouraging violence.

“There is a real danger of masking up while in the moments of conflict , not only from law enforcement , but also the possibility of hidden white nationalist who infiltrate to cause disruption or to make antifa conflicts worse,” scott crow, former Antifa organizer and author of the upcoming Setting Sights: Histories and Reflections on Community Armed Self Defense, told Activist Post. “We have seen it online with fake antifa sites calling for fake violence.”

The desire to protect one’s identity is understandable, but it also opens the door to infiltrators who only desire to initiate chaos and violence without any purpose or message. Police masquerading as black bloc activists have been exposed at the 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, and at protests in 2007 in Quebec, and police posed as activists to infiltrate the Occupy movement.

“There is always a cost benefit analysis that needs to be assessed before any strategy or tactic is used,” crow warned. “These questions have to be answered by those participating in the streets at any given time, and sometimes its absolutely necessary and infiltration does happen.”

We must also consider the infiltration of the right-wing groups, especially the more extreme racist and supremacist groups. While there were Internet rumors of Crowds on Demand organizing paid protesters for the Charlottesville march, those allegations are not factual. There was another story from the website True Pundit which claims that anonymous FBI sources confirmed that federal confidential informants were responsible for the violence at the Charlottesville march. Unfortunately, anonymous government sources are not credible. We do not have to imagine the entire rally to be fake to understand the danger of provocateurs. As the Alt-Right and their supporters begin to don masks and helmets it is likely that police or private actors will infiltrate for their own purposes.

Believe it or not, there is actually a historical precedent for provocateurs playing a role in riots and protests directly related to racism. By studying the Central Intelligence Agency’s role in promoting riots and racial division in Guyana one might gain insight into how the CIA (or other state agency) could operate domestically. (For more from the author of “WARNING: The Race War Is Being Engineered” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time to Reverse Republican-Protected Abortion With the Life at Conception Act

The Roe v. Wade decision struck down dozens of state abortion laws when I was a college freshman. It was a 7-2 decision that prevailed only with the help of three Republicans appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, including Chief Justice Warren Burger. Otherwise the Texas abortion statute would have been upheld by a 5-4 prolife decision, and the other states would have been allowed to make their own abortion laws instead of obeying the Supreme Court’s abortion law.

Roe’s guardians against reversal over the ensuing decades were two Justices (Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor) appointed by Ronald Reagan and one (David Souter) appointed by George H.W. Bush. Pro-abortion Democrats on the Court never broke a sweat.

I would have been thrilled to see the Constitution amended to protect unborn life, but it hasn’t happened in 44 years and that was more than 61 million dead babies ago. Are we willing to let another 61 million die before we end legalized baby-killing in America?

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun on behalf of his colleagues in the Court’s majority. And they didn’t. He wrote that “the judiciary, at this point [1973] in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

And yet they admitted elsewhere in the same decision that “if this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” That is the Amendment that forbids states to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Who can legally establish the personhood of unborn children, then, if not the Supreme Court? Well, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says Congress has the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this [14th Amendment] article.” Those provisions include, in Section 1, the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws to “any person.”

The United States Congress, therefore, by a simple majority of both chambers, may establish the personhood of an unborn child. It’s not necessary to amend the Constitution. It’s not necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s only necessary to take the Roe majority at its word, and establish the personhood of unborn children – legislatively – from conception. Then enforce the 14th Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection.

S. 231, the Life at Conception Act of 2017, was introduced in January by Sen. Rand Paul. It declares “that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.”

If you have a Senator – Republican or Democrat – who claims to be prolife but isn’t on the list of 11 co-sponsors (Google it), you might have a fake pro-lifer on your hands. This is the time of year when they’re going home and meeting the folks. Ask them if they’re fake. Maybe they’re not, in which case – what are they waiting for?

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Its Republican members include Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Jeff Flake of Arizona. None are co-sponsors of S. 231. What are their intentions?

Alexander Mooney (R-West Virginia) introduced an equivalent bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 681, “to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.” It declares that the right to life is vested in each human being.

H.R. 681 defines “human person” and “human being” as “each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.”

The House bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and from there to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is chairman of that subcommittee. Four other Republicans are members: Ron DeSantis of Florida, Trent Franks of Arizona, Karen Handel of Georgia and Louie Gohmert of Texas. King, Franks and Gohmert are listed as H.R. 681 co-sponsors. This is a solidly prolife subcommittee. When are we going to see some movement on H.R. 681?

I see my own Congressman’s name listed as an H.R. 681 co-sponsor. Now I wish he would have a talk with my two invisible prolife Senators.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.