President Trump on Guarding the Southern Border

On a Rock Star #ParasiteRodeoClown

The anti-Trump controversy of the week seems to be alleged insensitivity of President Trump when he called a Gold Star spouse of a Special Force soldier killed in Niger.  

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL 24th) claims to have listened to the call and insists that Mr. Trump was cruel when he told the widow of Sgt. Johnson that "he knew what he was volunteering for". 

Trump Administration Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly (USMC, ret.) spoke with authority before the White House Press Corps to share how Mr. Trump echoed his words about expressing the bravery of the fallen soldier, and that it was extraordinary for the Commander-in-Chief to make such a phone call.  When Rep. Wilson learned that the White House had focused its attention on her allegations, Wilson laughed and claimed that she was a Rock Star.  When later questioned about Gen. Kelly's characterization of her being an "empty barrel that makes the most noise",  the flamboyant Florida Congresswoman claimed that he used a racist term.

It is not surprising that Frederica Wilson is all in on Trump hatred.  She reflects the Congressional Black Caucus' predisposition to call everything they oppose racist and actively invoke Impeachment of the 45th President.  Since Rep. Wilson was on the air within ten minutes of this phone call, Bill O'Reilly opined that the alleged indignation was a set up. 

What is notable is how former 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman came out with such sharp elbows towards Gen. Kelly in defense of Frederica Wilson.  

Cynics might wonder if some of "The Resistance" is shifting away from the Russian narrative because of the Clinton connections to the Uranium One scandal.  If so, it is an odd choice to champion a Rock Star Parasite Rodeo Clown.  No wonder why politically active conservative entertainer James Woods calls Frederica Wilson God's gift to Republicans.

Trump Gunning to Increase America's Nuclear Stockpile

NBC News is reporting about a July 20th meeting between President Trump and Pentagon officials in which he  expressed an interest in greatly increasing America's nuclear stockpile.  This exhortation was prompted by a slide which showed that America's nuclear arsenal was at its peak in the late 1960s, which Mr. Trump approved.  

Rather than interpret this approval as a desire for a ten fold increase from today's nuclear levels, military officials appreciated it as the Commander-in-Chief wanting to increase America's military strength. This is consistent with Mr. Trump's pre-inaugural predilection to increase and expand America's nuclear capabilities. 

But the episode revived questions about President Trump's familiarity with America's nuclear triad. 

At one of the early Republican primary debates in late 2015, Hugh Hewitt questioned Mr. Trump's knowledge about the nuclear triad. Candidate Trump fumbled through the answer but insisted that while it is key to be careful about nukes, he would be well informed once in office and would concentrate on American strength not climate change and global warming.

This impetus to increase America's nuclear arsenal comes in the midst of a prospective conflict with a nascent rogue nuclear North Korea as well as the prospect of finding Iran being declared out of compliance with the Obama Iran Nuclear Deal. 

Several concerns come from this National Security leak.  Allegedly, after this July meeting, Secretary of State Tillerson was heard to call President Trump a "moron".  Aside from the insult, this episode illustrates how far Rex Tillerson is out of step with the West Wing.  It is reasonable to believe that once the crisis with North Korea cools down, Tillerson will no longer be at Foggy Bottom. There has been serious talk of a Trump Cabinet shuffle which CIA Director Mike Pompeo would move over to the State Department. 

Some arms control experts vex that increasing America's nuclear stockpile would spur an arms race with the Russia Federation as well as the Peoples' Republic of China.   Moreover, increases would challenge America's international treaty obligations.

As news about President Trump gunning to increase America's nuclear stockpile leaked out, Trump National Security Adviser Lt. General H.R.  McMaster stated: 

"But in recent years, in particular, the problem with leaks has become a real challenge to national security and so I think what is very important is that everyone who is involved in these sort of policy discussions understand the sacred trust that is placed in them, and they realize that speaking to the media about government deliberations is treasonous when it involves national security." 

Those are bold words, meant to quell an alluvia of embarrassing leaks meant to damage the Trump Administration. But Lt. Gen. McMaster upped the ante by intimating treason.  The question is whether the Trump Justice Department will be all talk and no action.  Attorney General Sessions has allegedly demurred from seeking prosecutions of Democrats concerning  Hillary Clinton's repeated mishandling of classified emails. Treason is a much more serious charge and more challenging to prosecute. 

Solipcism, Strategery or Stupidity? : Steve Bannon on the North Korea Threat

After several weeks of increasing tension over the prospect of resumed hostilities between the United States and North Korea, Kim Jong Un's regime backed down when their erstwhile ally China indicated it would participate in the severe new UN sanctions which included coal.  Chinese pressure on Pyongyang was a triumph for President Donald Trump's puglistic posturing.  Nevertheless, Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, gave an unfiltered interview which undercut this foreign policy achievement.

Bannon's wide ranging interview with the liberal American Prospect magazine admitted that America did not have good military options if hostilities broke out with the DPRK, because of North Korea's array of conventional missiles pointed at Seoul, which is only 35 miles away from the Demilitarized Zone. This may be true but it is an admission against interest from a high ranking Trump Administration official.  Such a statement could well be misconstrued by Kim Jong Un as a signal that the US might not back the "fire and fury" rhetoric and stoke further provocations from Pyongyang.  If Bannon's brief reflects the Trump White House perspective, it validates DPRK dominance with conventional missiles and encourages further ICBM and nuclear pursuits.

Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur

One of the factors which sparked the Korean War (1950-53) was that South Korea was easy pickings.  The United States withdrew most of its post World War II peacekeeping forces from the Korean peninsula in June 1949, leaving only a small advisory group.  Compounding this perception of weakness South of the 38th parallel occurred in March 1949 when US Pacific Commander General Douglas Mac Arthur's articulated the American defense perimeter in the Far East.  Mac Arthur's sphere of US interests in the Far East  did not include China nor Korea. This weltanschauung was echoed by Truman Secretary of State Dean Acheson during a National Press Club speech in January 1950.  These subtle signals on US intentions towards Korea gave the green light for the Soviet backed North Korean Communist regime of Kim Il-Sung to launch an invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950.

Current North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un (the grandson of Kim Il-Sung) seemingly backed away from nuclear brinksmanship when the Trump Administration talked tough, had overwhelming conventional and strategic forced arrayed against the DPRK and it mustered together a convincing coalition, including China, against Pyongyang's provocations. Bannon's blurting out that the US did not have good military options because of the targeting of Seoul could well be seen as a green light for more aggressive actions by the DPRK.

One wonders why Steve Bannon would make this woeful quotation. Was it a solipicism, strategery or stupidity.  From a conventional military perspective, Bannon's analysis is correct. Hostilities with North Korea could result in catastrophic casualties in Seoul  That is why war would be a last resort.  No one needs a philosopher king's right hand to perceive that.



Why did Bannon give such a wide ranging interview with a liberal magazine like American Prospect?  There are rumblings that he thought things were "off-the-record".  Really? In a media environment which spends 92% of nightly news air time reporting anti-Trump news, will an insider interview be cast more sympathetically?  How did that work for "The Mooch", a.k.a. short time Trump Communication Chief Anthony Scaramucci. Before joining the Trump Train, Bannon took over Breitbart News and proudly made it into a polemic platform.  He should know better about today's media environment.




Maybe it was strategery (sic)?  Bannon has been quoted as saying that he did not expect to last more than eight months in the Trump White House. This interview might have been an attempt to make it a self fulfilling prophecy.  It is dubious that an anti-establishment populist like Bannon would intentionally sabotage himself just to be right, he may have seen writing on the wall, and this interview could allow him to leave on his own terms and advance his ideological cause.

What might be overlooked from Bannon's American Prospect interview was an attempt to undercut  the National Security Council Chair Gary Cohen's approach to work with the People's Republic of  China.  The North Korean's backed down after China stepped in and voiced a willingness to apply severe sanctions against the DPRK.  The Chinese might not be willing to remove a thorn from America's political side if there is a trade war.  

In 2013, Bannon revealed that he was a Leninist who wanted to destroy the political landscape which took down the political establishment and the press to reset it towards American economic nationalism  It seems Bannon's preferred method is a trade war rather than a shooting war with a proto-nuclear nation like North Korea.

h/t: American Prospect

Ambassador John Bolton on North Korean Diplomacy

General James "Mad Dog" Mattis on Gays in the Military

Sarah Palin on Praying for Those in Harm's Way

Mike Pence on the Military

Trump Shoots Mouth Off at "Not Strong" Soldiers with PTSD

Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) has been trying to make a great play to win the military and veterans vote, as so many of them are against Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY).  Trump has emphasized rebuilding our military and solving Veterans Administration hospitals continued patient care problem for veterans.

With this in mind, Trump spoke before the Retired American Warriors PAC gathering in Herndon, Virginia, Mr. Trump was tossed a verbal softball by a questioner about a prospective Trump Administration's attention to Tramatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which afflicts many veterans returning from today's battlefield. Trump's answer to this puff ball question was such a foul ball that it evokes the military acronym FUBAR.




Suggesting that soldiers suffering from PTSD due to combat experiences  are not strong is pain ignorant and insulting, despite the dulcet tones and fleeting promises contained his Mr. Trump's response.

Perhaps such boorish buffoonery should not be surprsing from Mr. Trump, as he made great hay about insulting Senator John McCain (R-AZ) being a "loser" because he was interred in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW for five years. And this ignorance may arise from the Donald because the closest to combat Trump came was surviving his "personal Vietnam" by avoiding STDs in the 1980s.

After shooting his mouth off about PTSD soldiers, it is a question of whether Mr. Trump politically shot himself in the foot with his insulting answer.   If veterans and their families want a President who will actively rebuild America's military capability as well as support the interests of veterans, it is dubious that they would vote for Mrs Clinton, Mr "What is Aleppo" Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson (L-NM) or Green Party candidate Jill Stein (Green-MA). There is Independent Presidential candidate Evan McMullin (I-UT), who  advocates more conservative political perspectives,  has made the ballot (or qualified for write in status) in 34 states, but has not made much of an impact in national polls.

It is a good bet if active military men and women could publicly participate in politics, they might well affix this on their bumpers.

Colin Powell Lauds Black Military Legacy

The Pentagon is FUBAR for LGBTQQ? Policy Revision

Ted Cruz on Special Forces

James Woods on US Navy Detainees in Iran

Winston Churchill on Peacekeepers

Marcus Luttrell on Stateside Rules of Engagement

General Ray Odierno on the Unarmed Stateside Military

In the aftermath of the Chattanooga shooting (which the Obama Administration is loathe to call a terror attack), US Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno justified the continuation of a 1992 Department of Defense directive prohibiting most stateside military personnel from carrying arms while on duty.


Odierno's opinions on maintaining the current regulations seem political to justify that current Commander-in-Chief's policies to check soldiers, sailors, Air Force and Marines while denying that there really is a war by radical Islamists which have come to America's shores. The safety concerns  seem specious as these armed forces are trusted with weapons while on duty abroad.

In response to the Chattanooga terror attack, the Pentagon ordered military recruiters to make modest security measures like closing their shades and they were told not to wear their uniforms in public.  It is pathetic that concerned civilians feel compelled to stand guard near military recruiting centers as the service personnel can not legally carry firearms.

The DoD Regulation 5210.56 occurred during the Pentagon's drawdown from Cold War readiness.  After the attack of military recruiters in Little Rock in 2009 and Chattanooga in 2015 along with the Fort Hood shooting in 2009 (which the Obama Administration "workplace violence") and the 2014 Fort Hood shooting, it is time to change the policy to protect our troops and eliminate sitting duck targets in no gun zones.  

Senator Ted Cruz on the New Military Mission in Iraq

A Bit About the Military Veteran Excluded from Macy's Sales Job for Supposed Combat Mindset

Kayla Danielle Reyes-Abina , a 21 year old military veteran who had deployed in Afghanistan, recently had a remarkable rejection for a sales position at Macy's in Fresno, California. The former army specialist who served in the National Guard posted her frustration on Instagram after her February 20th interview. Ms. Reyes-Abina believes that the Fresno hiring manager had a dramatic attitude change after learning that she had been deployed in overseas combat zones.

 

 Although Ms. Reyes-Abina had prior retail experience working at Target, but the Macy’s hiring manager targeted her military experience. The interviewer is said to have implied that since Reyes-Abina has been to war, she had a “different mindset” which would be unwelcomed on the sales floor. The interviewer intimated: “Once a customer’s in your face, you wouldn’t know how to do it. You wouldn’t know how to react.

 Ms. Reyes-Abina recalled the hiring manager saying: 'Well I've been here 15 years, I know you wouldn't be able to do good here” The 15 year Macy’s veteran suggested that Reyes-Abina would be a better fit in “loss prevention” (i.e. security guard). Reyes-Abina left the interview wondering if her military experience did her a disservice when applying for civilian jobs.

 [***]

The 1% of our population who have served in America’s armed forces are highly motivated and disciplined.  Most joined knowing that they would likely deploy in two active combat zones.  Veterans are  45% more likely to be entrepreneurs but all are trained to be dependable and follow instructions.  In addition, those who have served in Afgahanistan and Iraq are accustomed with interacting with “customers” who are not always friendly and have different directed interests.

While there is an online petition on behalf of Ms. Reyes-Abina, it hinges on “discrimination”, which may not be illegal, unless it pertains to race, sex, creed (and sexual orientation in some jurisdictions).  But if the facts in this case are true, Macy’s should be ashamed for their bias and reconsider their practices.  

 SEE MORE at DCBarroco.com 

Egregious Obama Administration Priorities

Remember who fights to keep our freedom.  Consider who is slated to vet our healthcare under the distressing disguise of a "tax".

Now who do you want to buy a cup of hot coffee and who ought to be exiled to Gilligan's Island?

On Religious Freedom in the Armed Services

Is the so called Military Freedom Religious Foundation encouraging the freedom of faith in the foxhole or is it a stalking horse for secular chaos in the armed services?