I Don’t Like The Sound Of This At All

Theoretically we elect leaders that will protect our interests and the interests of our country. However, that does not seem to be the case if Joe Biden is declared the winner of the 2020 election.

Yesterday Breitbart reported the following:

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared in an article in Foreign Affairs on Monday that the “America First” foreign policy had damaged national security, and called on Joe Biden to “eliminate ‘America first’” from U.S. strategy.

Mattis resigned in December 2018, citing policy disagreements with the president, who had just ordered a troop drawdown in Syria. In his resignation letter, Mattis said that the U.S. needed to do more to show “respect” to American allies.

Does he mean that requiring the members of NATO to pay their fair share has damaged national security? Does he mean that bringing peace to a large part of the Middle East has damaged national security? Does he mean that moving to end the endless wars America has been involved in since 2001 has damaged national security? Or does he mean that his friends in the military-industrial complex have been hurt because the number of weapons and machines of war orders has gone down? Or does he mean that a number of his political allies have been hurt because President Trump leveled the playing field in trading with China?

This is some of what Secretary Mattis said in his article:

The United States today is undermining the foundations of an international order manifestly advantageous to U.S. interests, reflecting a basic ignorance of the extent to which both robust alliances and international institutions provide vital strategic depth. In practice, “America first” has meant “America alone.” That has damaged the country’s ability to address problems before they reach U.S. territory and has thus compounded the danger emergent threats pose.

In January, when President Joe Biden and his national security team begin to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, we hope they will quickly revise the national security strategy to eliminate “America first” from its contents, restoring in its place the commitment to cooperative security that has served the United States so well for decades. The best strategy for ensuring safety and prosperity is to buttress American military strength with enhanced civilian tools and a restored network of solid alliances—both necessary to achieving defense in depth. The pandemic should serve as a reminder of what grief ensues when we wait for problems to come to us.

The article also reports:

Mattis also says that while the greatest threat America faces today comes from China, the U.S. should seek greater peace, not confrontation. He calls for cooperation with China “in areas of overlapping interests, such as pandemic response, climate change, and nuclear security.”

These policies are directly in opposition to the well being of Americans. Hopefully they will never come to fruition.

All officials serving in America’s government should put America first–many of them swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution that is the foundation of America. Some of them need to be reminded of that oath.

Wait! What?

Assuming that Bob Woodward has written something that is true, there are some real questions about the actions of some of the people with important government positions.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported:

Mattis (General James Mattis) quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats (Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats), “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.”

That conversation was totally inappropriate and could easily be looked at as sedition.

The Conservative Treehouse points out a few things that add weight to the idea that there were people within the Trump administration working against the administration:

NOVEMBER 2019 – […] For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not just lay simply at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary, albeit difficult or perhaps challenging, obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman also resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.  In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances…

The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

Do you see the issue now?

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication/reality.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of, nor deconstruct the agenda toward, the removal of President Trump.

Mr. President, do I have your attention?

The actions of the people mentioned above should result in legal consequences. Where are Attorney General Barr and John Durham?