Jihad Horror in Austria

Front Page Magazine, by Stephen Brown, July 19, 2017

It is not a club that anyone would willingly want to join, and Austria certainly didn’t apply for membership.

However the Danube state, which had been spared until now, recently joined the growing fraternity of European countries to experience a murderous jihad attack, whose depth of savagery and hatred has left the country deeply shaken.

The latest “victory” for the establishment of the worldwide caliphate took place June 30 in Linz, the country’s third largest city. Besides being Austria’s first such killings, the double murder stood out for its incredible cruelty, the victims’ age, and possible political motivation.

The jihadist-killer, a 54-year-old Tunisian immigrant identified only as Mohamed H., a resident of Austria since 1989, first slit the throat of Hildegard Sch., 85, and then stabbed and beat her husband, Siegfried, 87, to death in their home.

Before leaving, the “holy warrior” then burned the dead couple’s residence down over them. Firemen discovered the murder victims’ bodies when extinguishing the blaze.

“This man caused a bloodbath in the apartment – this was obviously a proxy war,” said the couple’s son, who was not identified.

After the killings, Mohamed H. told police he considered drowning himself in the Danube but decided to give himself up instead. He then went to the police station where he said he waited his turn to report the double murder.

Mohamed H. gained entrance to the old couple’s home because he regularly delivered groceries there from his wife’s vegetable store.

The Tunisian was so well known to the elderly Austrians, and relations so friendly, that the couple had given Mohamed’s daughter, and only child, $225 as a high school graduation present.

But on the day of their deaths, the couple’s friendly deliveryman arrived not only with their groceries, but also with “a belt, a wooden stick, a knife, as well as a can of gas” hidden under his apron. Police called the murders “carefully planned.”

Tragically, what the elderly couple did not know was that behind Mohamed M.’s familiar, amiable smile now lurked a   jihadist killer who had sworn loyalty to the Islamic State (IS) and its leader, al-Baghdadi. The Tunisian had “praised… diverse IS horrors” on social media, exhibiting a radicalization trend “right up to the last entry,” although there is no evidence he ever fought for the terrorist entity.

One newspaper report states residents in his neighborhood remember him wearing a head covering, kaftan and beard before he went back to Tunisia in 2014, where, authorities believe, he was radicalized. He returned in 2015, clean-shaven and wearing Western clothes but noticeably more “difficult and aggressive.”

Several reasons have been offered as to why Mohamed M. chose the elderly couple as his target in Europe’s latest jihad attack.

One is that the murderer believed the elderly pair, besides being defenseless, were supporters of the anti-migrant Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), which had almost won the last federal election.

“The police say in the past years he settled more and more into the role of victim,” the newspaper, Kronen Zeitung, stated. “As a Muslim and foreigner, he felt discriminated against and blamed the FPO.”

The couple’s son believes he may also have been a target for the Tunisian’s homicidal rage. Although he never personally knew his parents’ murderer, he is a lawyer for the FPO, which currently rules Upper Austria, the province containing Linz.

“He had asked my mother whether I could come for a talk with him in my parents’ apartment,” said the son. “Obviously, he definitely wanted me there.”

The head of Upper Austria’s FPO government, Manfred Heimbuchner, believes the murders were political and that the son was certainly a target.

“This deals with a politically motivated murder…,” said Heimbuchner. “One must imagine. The criminal murdered the couple because they had at home a photo of their son with me. That is just insanity!”

Heimbuchner also confirmed the murdered couple did not have a close relationship with party; and the son was not a party follower.

One report suggested Mohamed H.’s targeting alleged FPO supporters may have had more prosaic reason than immigration policies. In 2012, a FPO party representative had reported the Tunisian to police for cruelty to animals. He was later convicted on the charge.

But while political motivations may, or may not, have formed in whole or in part the reasons for Mohamed H.’s murders, they do not account for his actions’ sheer savagery. To understand this, one has to understand how Islam’s” holy warriors” view the conduct of jihad itself, whose precepts Mohamed H., as a sworn jihadist, would have been following.

These are probably best summed by Pakistani Brigadier General S. K.. Malik in his book, The Quranic Concept of War, whose forward was written by a Pakistani former chief of army staff and president of Pakistan, General Zia-Ul-Haq.

“The Koranic military strategy,” Malik writes, “thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy…In war, our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul…”

Mohamed H’s slaughter of the helpless, old couple follows this strategy perfectly. It shook Austria to its very core.

Many Austrians, such as one provincial parliamentarian for Upper Austria, are bewildered as to “why a man we took into our country 30 years ago develops a hatred of this kind for our society and sympathy for the IS.”

Journalist Ani Cyrus, a former Iranian Muslim, may have answered this in her recent video, “Non-Devout Muslims and the Threat They Pose” (see video here). In it, she blames the Koran for apparently “friendly Muslims that seem to be your lovely, caring neighbor” becoming heartless killers.

“The toolbox of the Koran is giving you enough tools that when it is convenient for them to use them, well, it’s party time!” said Cyrus. “You’re talking about a book that freely allows the followers of it to kill.”

Besides the bloody murders, what has also angered Austrians, as well as other people in Europe, is the behavior of their security authorities and politicians after the fact.

In what has become almost standard practice, the police immediately denied the slaughter in Linz had an “Islamic background” – until overwhelming evidence was soon produced showing otherwise.

Security authorities also said they did not know anything about Mohamed H. and his radicalization. That he was unknown to them.

Again, another false statement. An Austrian newspaper quickly found a neighbor who had reported the Tunisian as a possible “IS sleeper” two years earlier to a government office combating National Socialist (Nazi) activities. (A name change is perhaps in order here. The office’s title should also include Islamo-Fascism.)

Authorities then questioned Mohamed H., but classified him as “non-dangerous.” Police say this was due to “a clerical error.”

Fourteen suspected Islamic radicals were arrested in Vienna and Graz last January. At least one other Islamic attack was also foiled this year. And with an estimated 300 Austrians currently fighting for the IS with a right to return home, Austria will not be able to resign from its new club any time soon.

Trump Administration Still Doesn’t Have an Iran Policy

In this Dec. 29, 2016, photo released by the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), a long-range S-200 missile is fired in a military drill in the port city of Bushehr, Iran. (Amir Kholousi, ISNA via AP, File)

PJ Media, by Michael Ledeen, July 21, 2017:

The Trump administration, for once in harmony with Congress, is going to slap more sanctions on Iran. They stress this has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, but is rather in response to Tehran’s ongoing support of terrorism from the Middle East to Latin America. At the same time, the government is not (yet?) ready to sanction the Iranians for violating the terms of the deal.

The White House is still designing its overall Iran strategy, including the question of the nuclear deal. And, according to Adam Kredo, the hints all point in the direction of ultimately accusing the Iranians of violating it.

The White House must make a decision by Tuesday on whether it will recertify that Iran is in compliance with the deal. The administration is likely to again certify Iran as in compliance of the agreement, despite mounting evidence this not the case. Deliberations in the White House had not concluded as of late Monday morning, but officials signaled they were leaning towards certifying Iran as not in technical violation.

U.S. officials were hesitant to deem Iran in direct violation of the deal, but said Tehran “is in default on the spirit of that agreements,” according to senior administration officials who spoke on background.

In the event, the government finessed the “deal” and instead said Iran was not in violation of its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency(a generous reading). There was no “certification” even though you’ll have no trouble finding news stories that claim there was.

Bottom line: they’re stalling. We’re told that the official “review” will be finished in a month or two, and we’re also told that the president wants a tough policy. We shall see. So far, despite his image as a tough guy, Mr. Trump hasn’t been all that forceful when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic. Yes, there are sanctions aplenty, but economic pressure isn’t going to change the Tehran regime or its aggressive policies, and the “certification” policy will encourage the Iranians to believe that Trump is not going to threaten their rule.

Some in Congress have a really smart idea: instead of separate actions against the global enemy alliance, merge them into a single policy. This has the great benefit of moving us toward a global approach to what is, after all, a global war. So when they say, “let’s make North Korea part of our Russia-and-Iran sanctions,” they have the correct instinct. If only Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster were saying such things.  I’m not swayed by the claim that the new sanctions bill would effectively tie the president’s hands if he wanted to ease sanctions on Russia. Somehow presidents get their way in such matters. I’m more worried about finding a way to raise the strategic question—how to win the big war. I’m also worried that our foreign policy team may be excessively military, and insufficiently political/ideological to defeat the enemy alliance.

Which, inevitably, takes us to personnel. I’m a Marine dad, so Jim Mattis occupies a special place in the Ledeen family heart. But Mattis’ top assistants are politically well to the left, and I rather suspect that they weren’t great fans of Trump’s Warsaw speech, the one that spoke to our will to defend and advance Western civilization. So I worry: Does Mattis appreciate the power of American values? Or does he look at conflict in fairly narrow military terms?

The same goes for McMaster, who is said to have deleted the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” from Trump’s Warsaw speech, only to have the president put it back. McMaster is a friend and follower of David Petraeus, who is not the right guru for the current war. We don’t need new surges so much as new revolutions. The Iranian people are waiting for our embrace, as are the Venezuelans. They’re not getting it. Sooner or later, I think they will. I think it’s inescapable, and I think Trump will work that out.

But it had better be sooner, because I also think our enemies think they’re in the driver’s seat right now, and doubt it will last. To quote a deep strategic thinker, Faster Please!

Unimpressed Trump Sends Pentagon Back to the Drawing Board on Afghanistan


Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, July 20, 2017:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump, unimpressed by the Afghanistan war options presented to him during a White House meeting with his full national security team Wednesday, suggested they may have to go back to the drawing board to craft a strategy that does not mirror the failed ones employed by his predecessors, said an administration official.

The meeting came as the Pentagon briefed lawmakers about plans to increase the U.S. military footprint in the country.

Contrary to mainstream media claims that the president has taken a completely hands-offapproach to the 16-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, Trump presided over Wednesday’s meeting primarily aimed at discussing the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a Trump administration official familiar with the deliberations told Breitbart News on condition of anonymity.

President Trump indicated that he is not satisfied with the strategy as it currently stands.

The Pentagon and White House National Security Council (NSC) declined to provide specifics about the developing plan.

President Trump demanded that his team go back to square one if necessary and create a realistic plan that ensures Afghanistan is ultimately able to stand on its own as a country, said the administration official, noting that the meeting served as a sort of wake up call for those involved in developing the strategy.

It appears that besides the Pentagon, the NSC has at least some authority in setting the strategy.

Asked about the meeting, the Pentagon did not confirm nor deny that the President asked officials to go back to the drawing board.

“We’re not going to discuss White House meetings or direction,” said Adam Stump, a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spokesman, when Breitbart News asked whether or not it has been forced to start developing the Afghanistan war strategy from scratch and when it expects to present the plan to Trump.

The NSC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters last Friday a decision on the new plan would be unveiled around “mid-July” or “somewhere around there. We are driven by the maturity of the discussion, and where we’re at, we are not going to meet some timeline if we are not ready, but we are pretty close.”

Trump has granted the Pentagon the authority to decide how many additional troops to deploy to the war-ravaged country.

Currently, Mattis may increase that number of troops by between 3,000 and 5,000, from the 8,400 already there.

Mattis noted on Friday that the number of additional troops has not been “finalized yet,” adding that the Pentagon is waiting from input from the U.S. State Department.

Citing unnamed U.S. officials, CNN reports that as it currently stands, the strategy:

Encompasses a way ahead in Afghanistan, including the possibility of sending more troops, but also a look at new ideas for dealing with Pakistan, which the US believes is supporting or turning a blind eye to a number of terror groups operating inside the country.

The president made it clear he is not interested in any approach that resembles the strategies used by his predecessors and will not accept anything less than a dramatic overhaul, the official told Breitbart News.

Directly dealing with Pakistan’s support for terrorists fighting the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan would mark a significant departure from what America has done in the past.

Most of the 2,255 U.S. military fatalities and 20,245 injury incidents have taken place in provinces that border Pakistan.

The Pentagon spokesman defined what victory in Afghanistan means for the Trump administration, saying it utlimately involves a settlement with the Taliban and terrorists laying down their arms.

Stump told Breitbart News:

The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan remains centered on working with NATO allies, operational partners, and the international community to defeat the remnants of core al Qaeda and to defeat other violent extremist organizations and terrorist groups, such as ISIS-K [Islamic State], to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe-haven for groups to plan and execute attacks against the United States, U.S. persons overseas, or allies and partners; and continuing efforts to provide financial and advisory support to the Afghan Government and to enable a well-trained, equipped, and sustainable ANDSF [Afghan National Defense and Security Force] that provides security in Afghanistan.

The U.S. and Afghan Governments agree that the best way to ensure lasting peace and security in Afghanistan is through reconciliation and a political settlement with the Taliban. The United States supports an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation process and supports any process that includes violent extremist groups laying down their arms.

Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Washington Post (WaPo) reports that the current U.S.-Afghan war is framed around a four-year plan to degrade the Taliban this is unlikely to “yield significant results until its later stages.”

In recently issued reports, the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon have accused Pakistan of willingly serving as a safe-haven for the Taliban and its affiliates, including the deadly Haqqani Network.

The Taliban affirmed its relationship with al-Qaeda in December 2016.

Also see:

Willful Ignorance: House Rejects Rep. Franks’ Proposal to Study Islam

Tom Perez, left, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and deputy chairman Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., are interviewed in Statuary Hall before President Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in the Capitol, February 28, 2017. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, July 20, 2017:

By nine votes, 217 to 208, the House of Representatives on Friday voted down a proposal to identify “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that jihad terrorists use.

Twenty Republicans joined the solid Democratic bloc to vote down this measure, which Muslim Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) termed “wrongheaded” and fought hard to defeat. It’s hard to believe that there would be 217 votes against understanding the ideology that motivates and incites jihad violence, but that testifies to the power of the “Islamophobia” victimhood lobby today.

The measure would have directed the Defense Department to carry out:

… strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. Yet even though this specification that the Islamic doctrines to be studied were “unorthodox” allowed for support from those who hold that jihad terror is a twisting and hijacking of the religion of peace, that wasn’t good enough. According to Politico:

[The proposal received] heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims.

Ellison added:

If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion.

Yes, you are.

And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001.

No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?

The Muslim Brotherhood-linked Ellison also claimed that the measure was “abridging the free exercise of that religion.”

Yes, again — insofar as the free exercise of that religion involves bombs, AK-47s, machetes, and the like. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition. The Constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of a religion does not allow the adherents of that religion to commit violence in its name and in accord with its teachings. When they crafted the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers did not envision a religion that mandated warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers; nor did they intend to lace the Constitution or Bill of Rights with time bombs that would ultimately destroy the republic they were trying to create.

Nor does studying the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists restrict the practice of Islam by peaceful Muslims in any way.

If these peaceful Muslims are as appalled by jihad terrorism as Islamic groups in the U.S. profess to be, why wouldn’t they welcome an attempt to address this alleged misuse of their religion, and support this proposal? The sponsor of the measure, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), noted correctly:

Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism. … Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that. … We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody. But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.

His appeal was to no avail. Ellison would not number himself among the “heroic Muslims” who would “help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.” He said of Franks and his measure:

This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.

He didn’t offer any specifics about what the right way might be.

With Ellison leading the way, 217 members of the House of Representatives, including 20 Republicans, chose denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the beliefs, motives and goals of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.

ISIS Jihadist Credits Moderate Muslim Brotherhood as Inspiration

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, July 20, 2017:

While most of the attention was on Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood takeover, a similar takeover was being championed by the defenders of democracy in Tunisia. There the Jihadists of Ennahda were suddenly transformed into moderates despite views that were anything but. The classic example of this came with the transforming of Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi, its Jihadist leader into a moderate.

Despite a few minor hiccups.

Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the head of Tunisia’s controversial Islamist Ennahda Movement, is scheduled to head a lecture Tuesday afternoon Yale’s Law School, according to the school’s website.

Al-Ghannouchi’s upcoming appearance at the Ivy League school could become controversial given the sheik’s longtime support for radical terror groups and his past calls for Muslims to wage “unceasing war against the Americans.”

The sheik’s violent rhetoric, radical leanings, and endorsement of Hamas led him to be banned from entering the United States for a time.

Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, of Tunisia’s equally moderate Islamist Ennahda Movement, said, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”

This is what the left supported when it backed the Muslim Brotherhood. The results nearly led to a Benghazi massacre in Tunisia even before that attack took place.

And, predictably enough, as Patrick Poole reports, there were more practical consequences.

A 34-year-old Tunisian ISIS fighter captured by Kurdish forces in Raqaa recently spoke to reporter Jenan Moussa of Al-Aan TV. When asked why he had joined the terrorist organization, the fighter confessed that Ennahda — the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in Tunisia — had encouraged young fighters to join the jihad in Syria.

It’s not a coincidence, then, that Tunisia had the largest number of foreign fighters in Syria.

This deflates much of the U.S. think-tank and media establishment narrative that the Muslim Brotherhood serves as a “firewall” against jihadist groups

The Muslim Brotherhood serves as a feeder. It’s why so many MSA presidents ended up as terrorists or why Al Qaeda is currently being run by a Brotherhood splinter group. Jihad is a continuum. Like all forms of extremism, they’re gateway drugs to greater violence and ruthlessness.

Saudi-led bloc drops the list of 13 demands; now calls for six principles

Doha skyline

World Affairs Journal, July 19, 2017

The Peninsula / AP

UNITED NATIONS: Four Arab nations that are blockading Qatar have dropped their list of 13 demands to lift the siege.

Now the Saudi-led countries are urging Qatar to commit to six principles on combatting extremism and negotiate a plan to implement them.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain broke relations with Qatar in early June largely over their allegations that it supports extremist groups — a charge Qatar rejects. They initially made 13 demands, which Qatar said are “unrealistic and is not actionable”.

Saudi Arabia’s UN Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi told a briefing for a group of UN correspondents that the four nations are now committed to the six principles agreed to by their foreign ministers at a meeting in Cairo on July 5.

According to Al Jazeera the six principles are:

Commitment to combat extremism and terrorism in all their forms and to prevent their financing or providing havens.

Suspending all acts of provocation and speeches inciting hatred or violence.

Full compliance with the Riyadh Agreement of 2013 and the supplementary agreement and its implementation mechanisms of 2014 within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Adherence to all the outcomes of the Arab Islamic American Summit held in May 2017 in Riyadh.

Refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of states and from supporting illegal entities.

The responsibility of all states of the international community to confront all forms of extremism and terrorism as a threat to international peace and security.

Al-Mouallimi said both sides can talk about details of “the tactics” and “the tools” to implement them — “and that’s where we can have discussion and compromise.”

The list of first 13 demands handed to Qatar on 22 June included shutting down the Al Jazeera news network, closing a Turkish military base, cutting ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and downgrading relations with Iran.

Al-Mouallimi said closing Al-Jazeera might not be necessary.

“If we can achieve that (the principles) without closing down Al-Jazeera, that’s also fine. The important thing is the objective and the principle involved.”

UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy said all the countries involved have strong relations with the United States “and we believe that the Americans have a very constructive and a very important role to play in hopefully creating a peaceful resolution to this current crisis.”

“We hope to be able to resolve this internally and among ourselves with the assistance of strong mediation, whether it’s from the U.S. or the Kuwaitis,” she said.

Diplomats from the four countries who attended the briefing said there have been discussions about possible next steps.

UAE Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh said that “if Qatar is unwilling to accept core principles around what defines terrorism or extremism in our region, it will be very difficult” for it to remain in the Gulf Cooperation Council with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain.

“So it may be a parting of ways for a little while in order to work things out,” she said.

Also see:

Is HR McMaster talking trash about Pres. Trump behind his back?

Center for a New American Security Flickr

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, July 20, 2017:

Is National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster talking trash about President Trump behind his back?

An Associated Press report published Wednesday claims that the controversial adviser voiced “his disapproval” with the president — who he serves under — “to foreign officials during the lead-up to his trip to Germany.”

McMaster and other unnamed officials are reportedly in disagreement with President Trump’s approach with Russia, the AP explains. McMaster is reportedly part of a contingent of Cabinet members who prefer that the president takes a more hawkish approach to Russia.

Now, disagreement amongst a White House Cabinet over policy is nothing new. But a policy disagreement does not excuse the national security adviser from engaging in such a serious (alleged) breach of protocol.

It’s one thing to voice disagreement with the president over his Russia posture … to his face. It’s a whole other thing to do it behind his back to foreign officials who can use that information to potentially blackmail a top Cabinet official.

While there is no firm evidence to prove the allegations, other than the background commentary offered in the AP report, McMaster’s behavior in leading the National Security Council (NSC) has already raised red flags among Trump’s most loyal base of supporters.

Almost immediately upon entering Washington, D.C., McMaster sought to downplay the ideological links connecting the worldwide jihadist enemies of America. According to the New York Times, he considers the “radical Islamic terrorism” label unhelpful because he believes terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

McMaster is also a proponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which has become fiercely unpopular — not just in president Trump’s base of support, but in bipartisan circles. Earlier this week, he and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson pressured President Trump into reneging on his campaign promise to “rip up” the nuclear deal once and for all.

On the staffing front, McMaster has not addressed embedded Obama holdovers in the National Security Council, who remain the majority of staffers in the “deep state.” His failure in clamping down on leaks of classified information has forced the Senate Homeland Security Committee to step in and issue a comprehensive report highlighting the uncontrolled epidemic.

Instead of getting rid of the Obama holdovers, McMaster has instead promoted some to top positions in the NSC. Under McMaster, conservative supporters of the president who seek positive change at the NSC all too often find themselves out of a job or reassigned to another government agency.

It’s bad enough that H.R. McMaster is allegedly talking trash about his commander in chief boss behind his back. It’s worse that he continues to act as a saboteur to the president’s top agenda items.

Also see: