CRUCIFYING GENERAL FLYNN

HE FAILED TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE FORM--AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN

General Michael T. Flynn has had a distinguished US Army career, rising to the rank of Lt General. He served in the Army from 1981-2014. He was deployed for combat in Grenada, Haiti,  Iraq, and Afghanistan. He served as Trump's (short lived) National Security Advisor, and prior to that served President Obama as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Today, this patriot who has serve his country honorably and with distinction has had his good name smeared with no evidence or trial and is being characterized in the press as a modern day Benedict Arnold.  The truth is,  Flynn is the innocent lamb being sacrificed by the Democrats and some Republicans on the altar of Trump hatred in the unlikely and counterproductive  hopes of unearthing something—-anything—-to use against the  new President.  

It is clear that the accusations against  General Flynn by his anonymous accusers are simply internecine warfare and POLITICS.  They are fueled by the fruitless pursuit by the Democrats of the "Russian connection”. An idea fostered by the Dems to deflect blame from their shocking loss in the  2016 campaign and of the weak and ultimately unelectable candidate they presented to the nation. 

Flynn served honorably and well as Obama's Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  In that post the record shows that General Flynn consistently warned President Obama about the danger of undermining the Assad regime in Syria, and of the ties to Islamic terrorism the Obama Administration’s anti-Assad forces, supported with CIA cash, and weapons had.  President Obama did not want to be faced with the facts about Syria counter to his domestic and foreign policy agenda.  Flynn was accused by to the Obama Administration of "working against policy".  But the Defense "Intelligence " Agency is tasked with gathering intelligence to help formulate policy.  Not the other way around.  Obama,  our scholar President, should have known that, but like some of his less well endowed predecessors—i.e George Bush who used this system to press the nation into a disastrous war— preferred to formulate a policy then gather “intelligence” which supported his policy.  Flynn also wisely favored working “constructively" with Russia in Syria.  He also warned about the perfidious nature of the Turkish intervention in Syria and its negative consequences for the US position and for Syria.  He was proved correct on all of these presidential advisories. 

One story about Flynn which gets wide and “gleeful” circulation in the anti-Trump press was an assertion by Flynn that he had seen "photos" of handwritten signs in Arabic,  posted in our Southwest border region.  (Flynn’s posting in Iraq an Afghanistan as an intelligence officer would provide him with credibility to recognize such evidence) These signs were purportedly used to help direct Muslims entering the US illegally.  The  press jumped all over this story to disprove it.  They found a compliant Border Patrol Agent who claimed he had never “seen any signs delineating smuggling routes”..and he assured them there were “none in Arabic”.  But no  one in the press bothered to ascertain just where this agent was posted in the Southwest.  Or did he even know what Arabic script looked like?  In the parts of the southwest I am familiar with, the natives wouldn't  know what an Arab looked liked, no less being able to identify the florid design of Arab script as a sign post. 

The fact is that General Flynn was fired for telling the truth. Had President Obama taken Flynn's warnings more seriously, and formulated foreign policy around facts rather than around political and domestic politics, Syria would not be the basket case nation it is now,  and thousands upon thousands of Syrian lives might have been saved.

The present “investigation” into the affairs of General Flynn, which are known only through rumors, unsubstantiated assumptions, as well as leaks to the press via Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of the House Oversight Committee.  These all revolve around the possibility that the former General, after he retired from the Army,  “failed  to obtain required approval” before accepting funds from a foreign government.  The same Elijah Cummings and his Democrat colleagues who are so eager to pillory the General, completely ignored (and some helped obscure) the much more serious claims against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who with her husband accepted huge sums of money from numerous foreign sources —including the Russians .   After General Flynn retired from the Army, like  every other Admiral, General, colonel, and any second class factotum who held any position of authority in the government, Flynn went out into the market place to sell his “expertise”.  Though the actual dollar amounts mean little, they are insubstantial by DC and Wall Street standards.  What we do  know is that General Flynn accepted some $45,000 to attend and speak at a government affair in Moscow.  Just getting to Moscow and staying for a few days, would account for a good portion of those funds.  (A British Air, first class flight might cost one as much as $13,000.)  General Flynn was clearly not enriching himself with these sums.  Another fee, of about $22,000, was accepted by Flynn from another foreign country for a similar purpose.  This is chicken feed by DC standards. 

As an example of the “revolving door” for Washington DC experts…let’s take a look at a real virtuoso, our past President.  Out of office for a little more than three months, and our former President has hit the speaking circuit with zeal.  In the last few days Obama sold himself to some Wall Street Bank for the princely sum of $400,000.00 for an hour’s speech, and then a few days later did it again at another venue, for an additional $400 Gs.  He made a shameful $800,000 dollars for a few hours in front of two audiences.   Not to be classed as androcentric, he sent Michelle out there too, to scoff up more money on a similar gig.  And they were not even “broke” like Hillary and Bill when the original touchstone-money-grubbing couple of all time left the White House. 

That is the crux of the “crucifixion” and the so-called “charges” against General Flynn. He failed to sign a form.  So far as we know, the General did sign the appropriate forms before he accepted these paltry sums while he was a private citizen.  If he didn’t, was this omission(of a mere formality), of such to cast him as a “felon” or a “traitor”,  or a Benedict Arnold?  As the MSM seem to like to do?  

How many retired admirals, generals, and other have been in the same circumstances and of which we hear nothing?

This nation should be  ashamed—no mortified— by the way we have treated General Flynn and others like him who have devoted their lives and careers to their nation’s defense and well-being. 

DONATE $23 BUCKS EACH FOR OUR WALL

The Dems are dead set against it. Somehow they claim the wall is "racist".     The GOP is averse to any more debt. But they have sat on this idea for decades.   Speaker Ryan is not on board either.    But the wall is essential to getting immigration, drug running, and crime under control.   The wall is too important to let it slide----again.  It's a smalll percentage of the total budget, at less than 0.03%.  That is, it will cost $1.4 billlion to get the wall project started and moving toward completion.   Let's show the DC crowd we mean business.  Let's help MrTrump get us that wall.

 I'd say there were more than 60 million who voted for Mr. Trump.  The amount we are talking about is $1,400 million dollars  ($1.4 billion) divided by $60 million  Trump voters = $23 dollars apiece.   If each of these voters coughed up about $23, or the amount we spend on sweets or cigarettes each week...we could begin the construction of that wall.  

Call your Congressman or Congrresswoman...ask them where can we send our  $23 dollar "Wall Donation"?  

SHATTERED: HILLARY CORRUPTION, DEMOCRAT SHAME REVEALED IN NEW BOOK

The new book:”Shattered, Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” by Johnathan Allen and Amie Parnes (2017) documents the recent history of the Clinton campaign.  It should be a required read for all Americans.  In analyzing the inner workings of the failed 2016 Clinton campaign it underscores  both the weaknesses of our duopolistic American political party system, as well as the  strengths of the Constitutional strictures put in place by the Founders.  The book exposes the monumental greed, corruption and malfeasance manifested by a wealthy, politically-connected, elite, and powerful dynasty as it attempted to manipulate the election process—-as well the strengths of the underlying American political structures—the Constitutional strictures—which in the end, produced a result which more closely represents the will of the diverse people of this nation.  We should be both frightened and elated by the last 2016 election. 

The book “Shattered”, gleaned  from sources within the Clinton campaign, documents what many voter have known all along.  That as a nation, we have, since WWII, spawned a weakened political system fraught with bouts of “gridlock”,  and “Washingtonistis” where our representatives arrive in DC to largely ignore the nation and people they represent and focus solely on their own reelection.  This weakened center of power in Washington became the venue where a determined, unscrupulous, politically-connected and well-funded candidate could establish a massive, powerful and corrupt political machine, to railroad one-half of the political system into lock-step support.  A dangerous situation for the nation. 

One telling example revealed in this book: 

After the failed 2008 campaign, rebuffed and chastened candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Bill, instituted a system of loyalty scores in preparation for the 2016 campaign.  With the help and collusion of hangers on, “aides”, “staff” and officials they kept working for them--using money from the  Clinton Foundation slush fund, and/ or later from the the State Department they proceeded to implement  “loyalty scores” for members of Congress.  The scoring system was enumerated from 1-7 based on how loyal a Snator, or Congressmember was to Hillary.  Ratings  ranged from one—"most loyal to Hillary", to seven—"least loyal to Hillary".

The “sevens” in Congress were all targeted during the years of the Obama Administration for "removal from office" by the "Clinton Machine".  What an nerve, what chutzpah!  The powerful, popular ex-President Clinton was instrumental in effecting these removals,  This campaign against these  Congressmen and women, who may have been exemplary in every way but were possible competitors of Clinton or “disloyal to Hillary”.  These politicians faced the possibility of cuts to funding, smear campaigns,  and most fearful for a sitting politician support for  an opposition  candidates to challenge them in Democrat primaries, as well apulling support during elections.  This was  purportedly to “purify” the Democrat ranks prior to the election in 2016 so as to insure the nomination of Mrs. Clinton. The result was of course a less responsive and weakened Democrat field. 

The only person to have the impertinence to oppose this juggernaut Clinton machine candidate was an old back bench Senator from a tiny rural state, who was ignored by the Clinton "seven" team because he was a nobody and was not even a Democrat.  That was Bernie Sanders--who ran a shoe string campaign that blossomed into a real threat to Mrs. Clinton. Had he the "testiculos" "cojones"  to actually attack Mrs. Clinton, he may have succeeded and be sitting in the Oval Office today.  But his candidacy and his campaign was a farce.  He didn't want go for the jugular and talk about her "email controversy" and admitted at that point he was not a real candidate...only a straw dog for Mrs. Clinton to slay.

That is how far the Democrats fell during the Clinton ascendency.  

These corruptive efforts came close to overpowering our representative system in 2016.  The Clinton political machine surged forward toward its goal of electing a candidate driven only by personal and pecuniary ambitions who was unable to enunciate even a “reason for running” for president (other than: “it is my turn now!”).  In the end, these machinations of the Clintons and their supporters weakened and paralyzed one half of the nation’s duopoly political system and opened it up to being overpowered from the right. We should all be concerned that such circumstances are NOT repeated.  

The rise of the Trump phenomenon can be directly related back to the weaknesses of one-half of our two party system.    We need both parties fielding viable candidates with clearly established policies which address real issues of American citizenry so as to continue to make this system responsive to all the people of this nation.  

Looking back one senses that our system survived.  We can be elated on that score.  The Founders who where both distrustful of the majority and of the elites---found ways to insure that neither a tyrannical individual or the pitchfork wielding mob would easily hold sway.  Our system of "checks and balances" insures that we are often faced with gridlock, but at least we know that some tyrant will take over.  

BUILD THAT WALL! A NO BRAINER

BUILD THE WALL

The Democrats have no argument against this proposal.  Interestingly most of those top Democrats who are vehemently against it now, voted for a “border wall” during the Obama Administration.  What's wrong with the same idea now?   

Furthermore, the people have spoken.  Mr. Trump was elected to build that wall.  It is a NO BRAINER.  If we ARE a nation, we MUST  have control over our borders.  Anyone who tries to equate this with “racism” is just pulling your string.  

Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke eloquently today ((April 24, 2017) on the need to control entry along the southern border.  He noted that  completion of the “wall” will reduce expenditures for crime prevention, border control officers, and drug interdiction.  And he elucidated ways to pay for this feature as well, noting that over the long term it will actually reduce expenditures.  He is correct.  

Build the wall…it should have been done long ago!

STOP SABER RATTLING-STAY OUT OF SYRIA--USA FIRST

I read a report in the UK, Mirror on the G7 meeting which took place in Tuscany, Italy today (April 11, 2017). The report seems to underscore the conflict the new Trump Administration is having bringing its recent campaign rhetoric and the political and international reality into congruence.  The G7  is an organization of the major wealthy and advanced nations of the world.They represent opinion of an influential segment of the global population.    The members, the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the UK which represent nations which control more than two thirds of the net global wealth (@ $300 trillion dollars).  They meet annually to attempt to fine tune the world economy…presumably for their own profit and stability.  Our brand new Secretary of State Tillerson was present to represent the USA.   The Mirror (on line) reported that Mr Tillerson’s proposal to sanction Russia for their complicity in the recent reputed Khan Shikoun gassing of civilians in Syria was rejected by the member nations.  They apparently considered his proposal unhelpful for advancing the stability and profitability off the global economy. The UK, Canada, Germany Italy France Japan are said to have “rebuked Secretary of State Tillerson for proposing sanctions against Russia prior to any investigation of the Khan Shikoun event in Syria”.  I suspect that they would have been even less supportive of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Syrian airbase for the same reason.  There was no evidence of wrong doing. Mr Trump’s attack on a sovereign nation was an unwarranted act of war.  To add insult to injury, it was made prior to any evidence which would have supported such an attack  

The is still NO evidence that the Syrian Government used Sarin gas In Khan Shikoun in Idlib in 2017.  

The White House is continuing its blame game on Syria, boldly attempting to implicate Russia as well with the culpability for the so called “Sarin gas” attack on civilians. To this date they have not produced any hard evidence of such an attack or of Syrian culpability, no less that of Russia knowing about the attack. A purported radar track of a Syrian plane…supposedly flying over the area is of course meaningless.  The US intelligence community’s persistant claim that it “can not release the actual supportive data for their conclusions” because it would compromise their secret methods is a ploy that permits them to manipulate the press and public opinion with no evidence and impunity.  History is rife with their untruths.  Since there has been no unbiased investigation. There is no evidence. Mr. Trump’s actions are all based on TV film footage and still photographs. 

There are many inconsistencies and questions about this story.   There is no evidence that the attack or release of gas was in fact Sarin gas—yet the White House and the media continually use that term.  Sarin gas is difficult to generate and store.  If it was Sarin gas it would be more likely that some established state—not a rebel group—would use it.  The evidence for that gas remains lacking, however.   Fore example: The number of people affected, (60-100) are too few for an aerial attack which would have affected a wide zone and perhaps thousands of individuals. In addition, the fact that many victims were photographed seeming to suffer only mild breathing difficulty.  In several videos these victims are seen to recover and walk off.  Fiinally, photographs and video often showed the aid workers treating victims by flushing water over their bodies and then handling them and  their clothing with bare hands.  They having no ill effects. All this points to some gas other than Sarin.  

A possibility is some other gas such as Chlorine, or Bromine gas which might have been easily generated by crude methods in  rebel munitions workshops .  The case is not closed. The evidence is not clear.  

Important too is the timing and motive of the attack.   It seems highly unlikely that such an attack would be launched by the Syrian regime,  which is in fact winning the war.  There was no clear  motive for Assad or his supporters to initiate a gas attack. What would they gain?   The timing is suspect as well.  The event occurred only days before a planned peace conference in Brussels.  The rebels and other outside players ( the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the USA) all of whom support  the anti Assad forces, would all have had the ability and the motive to use a gas attack to sway world opinion and undermine and weaken the Syrian government bargaining position just before entering into the peace process.  As I indicated in an earlier blog the Assad regime simply had no motive to use gas.  What is needed is a formal investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  

Let’s hope that Mr. Trump cools down the rhetoric, gets control of loose cannons (like Niki Haley, UN Ambassador) in his cabinet which seem to be leading him rather than the other way around, and refresh his memory of how and why he was elected over the other GOP hopefuls. 

 What were those reasons?  Mr. Trump’s GOP and (later) Democrat competitors did not call for an “America First” policy.  They were all in favor of  regime change, nation building and endless global war.  The people rejected them.   The voters know that these policies fritter away tax dollars, focus national wealth on militarism, waste material and human resources, and shunt national wealth abroad wealth which is desperately needed to “Make America Great Again”.  Let’s not forget what the election was about. 

MR TRUMP IGNORES VON CLAUSEWITZ WARNING ABOUT GENERALS

TRUMP FALLS INTO DANGEROUS TRAP (LIKE BUSH JUNIOR) OF DEFERRING TOO MUCH TO THE GENERALS. THEY DESTORYED HIS PRESIDENCY.  TRUMP BEWARE.


"WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS." VON CLAUSEWITZ



In two recent events, Mr Trump seems to have delegated duties and authority as  Commander in Chief to unknown regional military commanders.  There is a danger in that policy.  In the case of the bombing of eastern Afghanistan, with our most powerful non-nuclear weapon (MOAB), it appears that Mr. Trump was not even in the decision making loop.   Yet he permitted a regional commander to deploy a weapon that was designed to be used as a strategic weapon. That action in Afghanistan may have (unintended?) international consequences.  Some of which may be positive.  In this case perhaps there was no harm done and perhaps some good.  But in terms of general policy at the White House it is a mistake of massive proportions.



"Even when there is a necessity of the military power within the land , a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it." Samuel Adams 1768



There are too many examples of over eager generals taking too much authority on their own and ignoring the will of the responsible elected officials to recount here.  But perhaps one.   In the early 1950s the example of General Douglas McAurthur the "greates general of his era" and the ultimate strategist and tactician --a military genius--yet his focus only on the "battle before him and the defeat of his enemy" led him to ignore the geopolitics of his actions, and his defeat and forced resignation.  His single-minded focus on winning the battle in North Korea led to a dramatic loss of life when tens of thousands of Chinese troops poured over the Yalu River, which McAurhtur considered a near impassable barrier.  Mao Tes Tung "McAuthured" him with his surprise attack from an unexpected quarter. President Truman finally fired General McAuurthur and ended his career.    



 Mr. Trump must be reminded of the Von Clausewitz aphorism, loosely translated above...which  warns that the "generals' and the state have different objectives and they must be kept separate.  Because we admire our fighting men, particularly in times of war or danger to the state, does not mean that we should defer to their decision making.  One must keep in mind that they have a culture and expertise all to their own...separate and distinct from the civilian and the statesman. They are trained to use the crude weapons of war to settle disputes. They are trained to destroy an enemy designated by their civilian authority.  They live in a culture that brooks no questioning of authority...from below.  Their culture demands that they  take and follow orders. It does not to prepare them to make broad, national strategic decisions with long term consequences for the citizens of a democracy. (Oh you will remind me that there are exceptions--who can do it Eisenhower for one. ) Finally they are not elected officials, they do not represent the will of the people.  They have no mandate to govern.  They are only one ---the last resort---of means by which the decision makers--our representatives and the President--make manifest the policies of the state.  They have no authority to make policy.



For Mr Trump--even Mr. Trum who is a novice politician and with no military experience--for him--who has the imprimatur and the power of the election of 2016---to  defer to the general's will is to abdicate the power of the executive and the will of the people.

TRUMP MORPHS INTO 'ESTABLISHMENT' IN RECORD TIME?

All Presidents eventually “acclimatize” to the Washington culture of power, money and corruption and become part of the “establishment”.  Mr. Trump seems to have made the “transition” in warp speed. 

Trump has had a few unsettling days since sending off the shed-load of cruise missiles into Syria.  His flash turnaround on Syria and Russia after viewing  a few TV images and photographs has unsettled the “America First Crowd” in the Manchester Diner, here in Vermont.  The locals are worried that with the turnaround in foreign policy to a more aggressive “Bush-like stance”  Mr. Trump will have to shelve his promises to the working and middle classes in the hinterland of Vermont and the rust belt states that elected him to the job.  These working folks know that you can not get blood from a stone. An “establishment Trump” will be spending more tax payer’s trillions on adventures abroad and ME wars and that would mean an end to the promises Mr. Trump made about: America First, jobs, building the wall,  etc., etc.  Mr. Tump may be able to make these 180 degree flash turns in policy, but  the  rest of us, hide-bound by rationality and logic, need time to “catch up” —if they will want to or if that will ever be possible. 

Apparently there is a massive “reboot” going on in the Trump White House. The politicians  are morphing  Mr. Trump from a fresh faced establishment novice “outsider” into a hardened Washington pol. The “establishment” types, neo-cons, Bush hold-overs, scarred up old war hawks and the armchair variety have all got to the new President’s ear and sold him a bill of goods on Syria and Russia.   Has our President of the campaign evolved into a big fat ‘gator lyin’ in the sun” in the warm dank swamp water?  We can not be sure.  Unlike Mr. Trump we need evidence to alter our long-held and considered positions.

The issues, needs, policies and programs that launched Mr. Trump's popularity---and his election--are still with us.  Why would he abandon them?