89 Former Defense Officials Condemn Trump

It has become increasingly clear that Donald Trump views himself as a monarch or similar type of autocrat who is above the law and who views personal loyalty to him as far more important than the U.S. Constitution or defending the constitutional rights of American citizens.  It is only about him and he has threatened to use members of the U.S. military against citizens - much like was done in former Soviet block nations in the past (Trump might be wise to remember what happened to Romanian strongman Nicolae Ceausescu to whom the UK's Boris Johnson has compared Trump).  In response, 89 former Defense Department officials - including a number of former Secretaries of Defense - in an op-ed in the Washington Post have condemned Trump's actions and called for the U.S. military to never be used against American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.  Here are column highlights:

President Trump continues to use inflammatory language as many Americans protest the unlawful death of George Floyd and the unjust treatment of black Americans by our justice system. As the protests have grown, so has the intensity of [Trump’s] the president’s rhetoric. He has gone so far as to make a shocking promise: to send active-duty members of the U.S. military to “dominate” protesters in cities throughout the country — with or without the consent of local mayors or state governors.

On Monday, [Trump] the president previewed his approach on the streets of Washington. . . . . As part of the show of force that Trump demanded, military helicopters made low-level passes over peaceful protesters — a military tactic sometimes used to disperse enemy combatants — scattering debris and broken glass among the crowd. He also had a force, including members of the National Guard and federal officers, that used flash-bang grenades, pepper spray and, according to eyewitness accounts, rubber bullets to drive lawful protesters, as well as members of the media and clergy, away from the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church. All so he could hold a politically motivated photo op there with members of his team, including, inappropriately, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Looting and violence are unacceptable acts, and perpetrators should be arrested and duly tried under the law. But as Monday’s actions near the White House demonstrated, those committing such acts are largely on the margins of the vast majority of predominantly peaceful protests.

As former leaders in the Defense Department — civilian and military, Republican, Democrat and independent — we all took an oath upon assuming office “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” as did the president and all members of the military, a fact that Gen. Milley pointed out in a recent memorandum to members of the armed forces. We are alarmed at how the president is betraying this oath by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.

Beyond being unnecessary, using our military to quell protests across the country would also be unwise. This is not the mission our armed forces signed up for: They signed up to fight our nation’s enemies and to secure — not infringe upon — the rights and freedoms of their fellow Americans. In addition, putting our servicemen and women in the middle of politically charged domestic unrest risks undermining the apolitical nature of the military that is so essential to our democracy. It also risks diminishing Americans’ trust in our military — and thus America’s security — for years to come.

[W]e call on [Trump] the president to immediately end his plans to send active-duty military personnel into cities as agents of law enforcement, or to employ them or any another military or police forces in ways that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.

The members of our military are always ready to serve in our nation’s defense. But they must never be used to violate the rights of those they are sworn to protect.

Mullen and Mattis Slam Trump - Call Him a Threat to the Constitution

Photo: Christie Hemm Klok.

First, former Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and now General James Mattis, former Defense Secretary, each in columns reported in The Atlantic (scroll down at the link above for Mattis' full statement) have condemned Donald Trump's actions against peaceful protesters and, in the case of Mattis out and out called him a threat to the Constitution. Both fear Trump's efforts to politicize the military and to turn them into his own version of Hitler's brown shirts.  Moreover, both are appalled by Trump's contempt for peaceful protest and the constitutional right to assembly.  While they never flat out state it, both suggest Trump wants to be a dictator.  First, these excerpted statements of  General Mattis:

I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

Strong language.  Mike Mullen is not any kinder to Trump and his enablers and sycophants.  Here are excerpts:

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate [Trump’s] the president's visit outside St. John's Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump's leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

There was little good in the stunt.

While no one should ever condone the violence, vandalism, and looting that has exploded across our city streets, neither should anyone lose sight of the larger and deeper concerns about institutional racism that have ignited this rage.

As a white man, I cannot claim perfect understanding of the fear and anger that African Americans feel today. But as someone who has been around for a while, I know enough—and I’ve seen enough—to understand that those feelings are real and that they are all too painfully founded.

We must, as citizens, address head-on the issue of police brutality and sustained injustices against the African American community. We must, as citizens, support and defend the right—indeed, the solemn obligation—to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.

And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard.

I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion. They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops.

I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.

Even in the midst of the carnage we are witnessing, we must endeavor to see American cities and towns as our homes and our neighborhoods. They are not “battle spaces” to be dominated, and must never become so.

We must ensure that African Americans—indeed, all Americans—are given the same rights under the Constitution, the same justice under the law, and the same consideration we give to members of our own family. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.

Too many foreign and domestic policy choices have become militarized; too many military missions have become politicized.

Trump and His Congressional Enablers Must be Removed

Reportedly Donald Trump wants to use a 213 year old law to use military troops against American citizens protesting the continue problem of police officers murdering black males. Please understand, that I in no way condone rioters and looters who in my view undermine the cause that protesters seek to have addressed, But using the American military against citizens is like something out of Putin's Russia or Castro's Cuba.  Alarm bells should be sounding loudly and citizens who support civil liberties and the U.S. Constitution should be screaming for Trump's removal from office by any means necessary.  Trump - faced with growing public disapproval and a horrendously failed response to the Covid-19 pandemic is desperate and this threat could well be the sign that he is out to overthrow the government viewing himself as a dictator.  Whether or not the military leadership and rank and file troops would fire on civilians is one to which we can only hope the answer is "No."  A column in the Washington Post by a former Republican looks at Trump's willingness to use military force against civilians:  Here are column highlights:

President Trump somehow imagined it was a good idea to unleash law enforcement on peaceful demonstrators before the 7 p.m. curfew Monday night as he stepped into the Rose Garden to give a knockoff version of Richard M. Nixon’s “law and order” message.

[Trump] The president who called NFL protesters peacefully taking a knee “sons of bitches,” lied when he declared that he is a friend of peaceful demonstrators. The police firing rubber bullets and launching tear gas at protesters in Lafayette Square in front of the White House said otherwise. Then, as if the scene was not evidence enough of his desire to raise the level of violence, he pledged to deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil, against U.S. civilians, if governors did not heed his incendiary advice to fill the streets with National Guard troops

It was later revealed that Trump instigated the assault on protesters specifically to make a gesture of walking to St. John’s church.

Nothing could be more representative of the dangerous narcissism of a president in over his head, resorting to threats of violence against a country he ostensibly is supposed to lead. The deliberate instigation of violence for his own photo op tells Americans how deeply twisted and deformed his character is.

Moreover, any attempt to use the military against civilians in this fashion would almost certainly be illegal and unconstitutional. Even under the Insurrection Act, federal troops would have to be invited into the states to suppress an actual rebellion. For Trump, the threat of force, however unrealistic, is his go-to move when his manliness is called into question — as it was when he fled to the bunker at the White House over the weekend.

If anyone in America had any doubt as to his intentions — to foment violence, to increase racial animosity, to glorify himself at the expense of the national good — Monday’s events should silence them. Democrats and any Republicans with a modicum of decency should denounce the stunt, call for a full review of the incident and conduct congressional oversight. We hope a strong bipartisan assembly of elected officials joins the protesters at the White House, and that one or more civil rights groups will file suit for use of excessive force and deprivation of the peaceful protesters’ rights of assembly and free speech. You are either for Trump or for democracy at this point.

It does not take much imagination to conclude Trump is attempting to escalate violence around the country so he can deploy the military. This is the conduct of a tin-pot dictator — someone resorting to violent suppression of our most closely cherished rights.

More than ever, we should all recognize that, as former vice president Joe Biden put it, this is an election about the soul of our country and the survival of peaceful self-governance.

Trump's malfeasance and threat to constitutional government as noted in the previous column has a conservative stalwart like George Will calling for his removal in another column in the Washington Post.  Here are excerpts:

This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous. Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.

Presidents, exploiting modern communications technologies and abetted today by journalists preening as the “resistance” — like members of the French Resistance 1940-1944, minus the bravery — can set the tone of American society, which is regrettably soft wax on which presidents leave their marks. [Trump's] The president’s provocations — his coarsening of public discourse that lowers the threshold for acting out by people as mentally crippled as he — do not excuse the violent few. They must be punished. He must be removed.

Social causation is difficult to demonstrate, particularly between one person’s words and other persons’ deeds. However: The person voters hired in 2016 to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them “please don’t be too nice” when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.

The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony and sporadic anarchy has had many causes much larger than the small man who is the great exacerbator of them. Most of the causes predate his presidency, and most will survive its January terminus. The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear “magically,” as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting.

In life’s unforgiving arithmetic, we are the sum of our choices. Congressional Republicans have made theirs for more than 1,200 days. We cannot know all the measures necessary to restore the nation’s domestic health and international standing, but we know the first step: Senate Republicans must be routed, as condign punishment for their Vichyite collaboration, leaving the Republican remnant to wonder: Was it sensible to sacrifice dignity, such as it ever was, and to shed principles, if convictions so easily jettisoned could be dignified as principles, for . . . what?

In 2016, the Republican Party gave its principal nomination to a vulgarian and then toiled to elect him. And to stock Congress with invertebrates whose unswerving abjectness has enabled his institutional vandalism, who have voiced no serious objections to his Niagara of lies, , , , ,
 Those who think our unhinged president’s recent mania about a murder two decades ago that never happened represents his moral nadir have missed the lesson of his life: There is no such thing as rock bottom. So, assume that the worst is yet to come. Which implicates national security: Abroad, anti-Americanism sleeps lightly when it sleeps at all, and it is wide-awake as decent people judge our nation’s health by the character of those to whom power is entrusted. Watching, too, are indecent people in Beijing and Moscow.

An

LGBT Discrimination Keeps Close Company with Racism

Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has faced flake from some in the black community for making the statement that being gay allows him to empathize with the discrimination suffered by members of the black community. To some, sadly, they seemingly believe that they alone have a monopoly on being the victims of discrimination. I disagree with this mindset and, as a gay man who lost his job for being gay and who is still the victim of bigotry by the "godly" far right Christian crowd and the 12th century "natural law" of the Roman Catholic Church, I disagree that one who is a member of a minority group targeted for discrimination cannot feel special empathy for other groups and individuals who likewise face discrimination and bigotry.  Columnist Colbert King makes this argument in a column in the Washington Post that draws parallel's between homophobia and racism.  Here are column excerpts:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has taken flak from some African Americans for suggesting that being gay helps him relate to the struggles of African Americans. Buttigieg, his critics say, is appropriating the black experience for his own selfish political agenda.

I’ll let them sort that out. But this I know: Being black causes me to feel empathy with the LGBTQ community and others who are victimized by bigotry.

Two situations cited in a column I wrote on discrimination nearly 30 years ago helped shape my feelings.

From the first: “Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun’s crew, they form a closely knit highly coordinated team.

“How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun’s crew should be of another race? How many would accept such conditions, if required to do so, without resentment and just as a matter of course?” 

These were not the musings of a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but the official statement of the chairman of the General Board of the Navy to the secretary of the Navy, Jan. 16, 1942. The subject: “Enlistment of men of colored race in other than messman branch.”

As to the question “how many white men would choose” associations with blacks, the General Board chairman said “the answer is ‘few, if any’ and . . . if the issue were forced, there would be a lowering of contentment, teamwork and discipline in the service.”

That view prevailed until July 26, 1948, when President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order that led to the end of racial segregation in the armed forces.

Then came this, 40 years after the Navy’s General Board spoke: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. . . . The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers . . . to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy.” — Defense Department Directive 1332.14, Jan. 28, 1982.

That pernicious Defense Department regulation against gays relied on the same stereotyping and myths that undergirded the military’s bias against African Americans.

The regulation was cited by U.S. District Judge Oliver Gasch in his Dec. 9, 1991, decision to uphold the Navy’s right to expel a gay midshipman from the U.S. Naval Academy.

The midshipman was within months of graduating in the top 10 percent of his class. He was on tap for a prestigious postgraduate assignment on a nuclear submarine. His talents as a singer enabled him to sing the national anthem before the Army-Navy game on nationwide TV during his senior year. He simply told a classmate he was gay. Once he said he was gay, he became unfit to associate with his classmates.

The Defense Department was judging men and women not on the basis of their ability to perform as sailors, soldiers or Marines or serve in the Air Force, but solely because of a distinction that should have been irrelevant: race in the first case, sexual orientation in the second.

Last year, President Trump imposed policies restricting Obama’s 2016 directive allowing transgender service members to serve openly.

Simply stated, LGBTQ discrimination keeps close company with racism.

So, yes, because I have been and am on the receiving end of racial prejudice, I can relate to others who fall victim to bigotry.

That may explain why I share, in a special way, the revulsion, pain and anger felt by many Jewish community members over the profane and viciously anti-Semitic seven-second Snapchat video recently recorded by two George Washington University students.

And why I recoil at the sight of torch-wielding white nationalists in Charlottesville marching and chanting “Jews will not replace us.” Change one word, and they are railing against me.

Yes, I can relate to the struggle of other groups. To feel otherwise is to be as callous as those who look the other way when blacks are in the bull’s eye.  Maybe that’s what Mayor Pete was trying to say.

Very well said.

America's Self-Destructive Pursuit of Global Dominance.

A carrier battle group.

One of the books that I am currently reading - I typically read several at a time and rotate what I read based on mood and available time - is "Mortal Republic" which traces the gradual fall of the Roman Republic into a autocracy under emperors.  Some of the political parallels to what is happening in America currently are chilling such as the refusal of some factions to compromise (mostly Republicans) and the increasing attacks on political and social policy opponents and efforts to stir hatred and even potential violence against political opponents.  The other stark parallel is America's pursuit of global dominance that directed disproportionate funding and resources to never ending wars. Yes, Rome brought back treasure from conquests (often shared only by the wealthy), but over time, the financial drain took a severe toll and pushed the common Roman to no longer feel that the empire offered them anything worthwhile to support.  A column in the New York Times looks at America's current financial mismanagement that neglects domestic spending and infrastructure while seeking to maintain a defacto modern day empire (note the amount of Middle East war costs and then think what $6 trillion invested in America's infrastructure and citizens could have done).  Here are highlights:

“We have got to put an end to endless war,” declared Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., during the Democratic presidential primary debate on Thursday. It was a surefire applause line: Many people consider “endless war” to be the central problem for American foreign policy.

But vowing to end America’s interminable military adventures doesn’t make it so. Four years ago, President Barack Obama denounced “the idea of endless war” even as he announced that ground troops would remain in Afghanistan. In his last year in office, the United States dropped an estimated 26,172 bombs on seven countries.

President Trump, despite criticizing Middle East wars, has intensified existing interventions and threatened to start new ones. He has abetted the Saudi-led war in Yemen, in defiance of Congress. He has put America perpetually on the brink with Iran. And he has lavished billions extra on a Pentagon that already outspends the world’s seven next largest militaries combined.

What would it mean to actually bring endless war to a close?

Like the demand to tame the 1 percent, or the insistence that black lives matter, ending endless war sounds commonsensical but its implications are transformational. It requires more than bringing ground troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe. Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do what they most resist: end America’s commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.

In theory, armed supremacy could foster peace. Facing overwhelming force, who would dare to defy American wishes? That was the hope of Pentagon planners in 1992; they reacted to the collapse of America’s Cold War adversary not by pulling back but by pursuing even greater military pre-eminence. But the quarter-century that followed showed the opposite to prevail in practice. Freed from one big enemy, the United States found many smaller enemies: It has launched far more military interventions since the Cold War than during the “twilight struggle” itself. Of all its interventions since 1946, roughly 80 percent have taken place after 1991.

The basic cause is America’s infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be. Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate deployment of force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy ones.

In the Middle East, endless war began when the United States first stationed troops permanently in the region after winning the Persian Gulf war in 1991. A circular logic took hold. The United States created its own dependence on allies that hosted and assisted American forces. It provoked states, terrorists and militias that opposed its presence. Among the results: The United States has bombed Iraq almost every year since 1991 and spent an estimated $6 trillion on post-9/11 wars.

An even deadlier phase may be dawning. Because the United States pursues armed dominance as a self-evident good, the establishment feels threatened by a rising China and an assertive Russia. . . . China’s rise invalidates primacy’s rationale of deterrence, and shows that other powers have ambitions of their own. Addressing the rise of China responsibly will require abandoning nostalgia for the pre-eminence that America enjoyed during the 1990s.

Despite Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that “our military dominance must be unquestioned” — even though no one believes he has a strategy to use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in itself.

In the 21st century, finally rid of colonial empires and Cold War antagonism, America has the opportunity to practice responsible statecraft, directed toward the promotion of peace. Responsible statecraft will oppose the war-making of others, but it will make sure, first and foremost, that America is not fueling violence.

On its own initiative, the United States can proudly bring home many of its soldiers currently serving in 800 bases ringing the globe, leaving small forces to protect commercial sea lanes. It can reorient its military, prioritizing deterrence and defense over power projection. It can stop the obscenity that America sends more weapons into the world than does any other country. It can reserve armed intervention, and warlike sanctions, for purposes that are essential, legal and rare.

Shrinking the military’s footprint will deprive presidents of the temptation to answer every problem with a violent solution. It will enable genuine engagement in the world, making diplomacy more effective, not less.

Hawks will retort that lowering America’s military profile will plunge the world into a hostile power’s arms. They are projecting, assuming that one rival will covet and attain the kind of armed domination that has served America poorly. Russia, with an economy the size of Italy’s, cannot rule Europe, whatever it desires. China bears watching but has so far focused its military on denying access to its coasts and mainland. It is a long way from undertaking a costly bid for primacy in East Asia, let alone the world.

In any case, local states are likely to step up if the American military pulls back. The world conjured by the Washington establishment is an empty space, a “power vacuum,” waiting passively to be led. The real world is full of people ready to safeguard their freedom. Today a world with less American militarism is likely to have less militarism in general.

After decades of unilateral actions, crowned by the aggressive invasion of Iraq, it is U.S. military power that threatens international law and order. Rules should strengthen through cooperation, not wither through imposition.

In truth, the largest obstacle to ending endless war is self-imposed. Long told that the United States is the world’s “indispensable nation,” the American people have been denied a choice and have almost stopped demanding one. A global superpower — waging endless war — is just “who we are.”

America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said in 1821. “She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

Two centuries later, in the age of Trump, endless war has come home. Cease this folly, and America can begin to take responsibility in the world and reclaim its civic peace.

John Quincy Adams was far more prescient than he perhaps ever realized.

US Government: Gay App Grindr is a National Security Risk

The intrusiveness of social media platforms allowed Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election and in the process mined all kinds of personal information about unwitting Americans.  Now, the gay chat/dating app Grindr is in the spotlight as concerns grow over the purchase of the app by a Chinese company and possible access to account holder information by the Chinese government.  A piece in Metro Weekly picks up on a story in Reuters that indicates the US government views the gay chat/dating app Grindr as a national security risk seemingly because of its use by so many members of the U.S. military and intelligence personnel.  Yes, here in Hampton Roads, there are LOTS of service members on Grindr.  Apparently the same holds true for intelligence personnel, all of whom can be geographically located with precision via Grindr.  Similarly, all of the personal information can be accessed.  Here are article highlights:

Gay dating app Grindr is to be sold by its Chinese owners because of a potential threat to national security.

That’s the news from Reuters, which reports that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has told Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd that its ownership of the app is a national security risk.

[S]peculation is rife about why Grindr is considered a security risk, though both Reuters and Engadget have speculated that the presence of U.S. military and intelligence personnel on the app could be to blame.That’s in part because the U.S. government is becoming increasingly interested in how app developers handle their users’ personal information, particularly private or sensitive data — such as the location of U.S. troops or an intelligence official using the app.

Misuse of data is a particularly sore spot for Grindr, which has been hit with a number of unflattering headlines over the past year, including the revelation that the app was sharing users’ HIV status with other companies.

Grindr, which is currently celebrating its tenth anniversary, admitted to sharing users’ HIV status with two outside companies for testing purposes, as well as the “last tested date” for those who are HIV-negative or on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

[T]he data being shared was so detailed — including users’ GPS data, phone ID, and email — that it could be used to identify specific users and their HIV status.

Another insight into Grindr’s data security policies came early last year when a D.C.-based developer created a website that allowed users to see who had previously blocked them on the app — information that is normally inaccessible.

The website, C*ckBlocked, tapped into Grindr’s own APIs to display the data after developer Trever Faden discovered that Grindr stored the list of who a user had both blocked and been blocked by in the app’s code.

Faden also revealed that he could use Grindr’s data to generate a map showing the breakdown of individual profiles by neighborhood, including information such as age, sexual position preference, and general location of users in that area.

With regards Grindr’s sale, Reuters reports that the app will be put up for auction, after Kunlun’s original plans to float Grindr for an initial public offering (IPO) were abandoned. Kunlun assumed control of Grindr in 2016, buying total control of the app in 2018.

Be it Facebook, Twitter, or now Grindr, apparently we have no secrets from those who want to spy on us.

The Trump/Pence Regime's Anti-Transgender Jihad

A transgender airman.

The Trump/Pence regime continues its jihad to write transgender individuals out of existence and to drive them out of the U.S. military.  Why? Because Trump's critical evangelical base hates them as does Mike Pence, a modern day Pharisee if there ever was one.  Transgender individuals - even more that gays - challenge the Christofascists' knowledge rejecting 12th century understanding of human sexuality and, most terrifying to them, suggests that the rubbish their churches peddle to them is simply untrue.  Nothing is more terrifying to an evangelical that (i) having to think for themselves, and (ii) realizing their entire sense of self and world view has been built on falsehoods.  Hence the almost irrational hatred for gays and other members of the LGBT community by the "godly folk" to whom Trump has consistently prostituted himself through anti-LGBT policies.   Meanwhile, the U.S. military for the most part has no problem with transgender service members who perform their jobs and other not the disruptive influence that the always lying Trump and Pence claim.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the reality of transgender troops.  Here are article highlights:

Transgender troops like Senior Airman Sterling Crutcher are seen as “an unreasonable burden” by the Trump administration. It says their presence hurts morale and the military’s ability to fight, and that they have no place in uniform.

That’s news to Airman Crutcher. He just got back from a deployment with his B-52 bomber squadron, and when he did, fellow airmen in his squadron, whom he counts among his best friends, threw a shower for him and his wife, Aimee, to celebrate their first child, born in February.

“At my level, it’s not an issue,” Airman Crutcher, 30, said about serving while transgender. “I can meet and exceed all the standards, and the people I work with, they like me. They have a lot of questions, but they don’t have a problem.”

This has been an uneasy time for transgender troops in the United States military, caught between a commander in chief who wants them out and court injunctions that, at least temporarily, said they could stay.

But dozens of transgender troops like Airman Crutcher said in interviews that they felt supported in the service. Their comrades and commanders have welcomed them, they said, and the military has often been more accepting than the homes and neighborhoods they left to enlist.

Nearly 1,000 troops officially deemed as transgender are currently serving in the American military, according to the Defense Department, and another 228 are in the process of enlisting. They are all over the globe in a wide spectrum of roles — infantry officers, armor platoon leaders, drill sergeants, intelligence specialists, Arabic linguists, nuclear reactor operators. A transgender instructor teaches leadership at the Naval Academy.

The Defense Department laid out its arguments for excluding transgender troops before the House Armed Services Committee late last month. James N. Stewart, a senior Pentagon official, testified that transgender troops were more prone to mental health issues than other troops, and that when they transition, medical treatments can make them nondeployable for months — factors that he said would make recruits ineligible to serve if they stemmed from other kinds of pre-existing health conditions.

Other troops and military leaders disagree. Five transgender troops who also testified at the hearing said that, aside from the uncertainty created by the change in policy, they had encountered few problems transitioning in uniform. Instances of harassment have been few, according to Sparta, an association of transgender troops.

And in testimony before the Senate last spring, the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all said they were not aware of any issues caused by having transgender troops serving openly.

Many transgender recruits come from socially conservative small towns or strict religious upbringings, and have spent their youth feeling like misfits. Some troops who were born anatomically male said in interviews that they enlisted with the initial hope that military service would drum feminine feelings out of them.

“I hoped it would straighten me out — I didn’t want my family to hate me,” said Aylanna Anderson, an Air Force staff sergeant who was raised Catholic in a tiny West Texas town and became an Eagle Scout. “I hoped I could leave what I saw as this dark part of me behind.”

To her surprise, after enlisting in 2012, Sergeant Anderson said, she found a culture that emphasized judging people by ability, not identity. She began to transition to female in 2017.

Airman Crutcher, who grew up in a Pentecostal household in rural Missouri, said he wrote a heartfelt letter to his family about his lifelong sense of being a boy in a girl’s body, but they refused to read it, asking him instead if he was on drugs.

By contrast, when he came out to his Air Force commander, he said the reaction was, “What do I need to do for you? I want to make sure you are supported.”

A few days back from a deployment to Guam with his bomber squadron, he was shopping for a crib with his pregnant wife when they got a text from his mother.

But it wasn’t his birth mother, who he says essentially disowned him after he told her in 2015 that he was transgender. It was his Air Force mother — Kim Thomas, the wife of a lieutenant colonel, who informally adopted him after meeting him during basic training. He now spends holidays with her family and calls her Mom.

A 2016 RAND Corporation study found that nearly one-fifth of transgender troops do not plan to transition medically. Those who do transition may, depending on gender and preference, undergo hormone therapy, breast removal and other procedures, like surgery to make facial features and voices more gender appropriate. All are covered by the military.

The cost and disruption associated with surgery is a chief complaint of critics, but the RAND study estimated that those factors would be negligible, with fewer than 200 active troops transitioning per year at a total cost of less than $10 million. In interviews, troops who have transitioned said they tried to time their surgical procedures for scheduled lulls in unit activity, and sometimes put them off because of deployments or demanding work assignments.

Capt. Alivia Stehlik is a transgender woman who graduated from West Point as a man in 2008, completed the Army’s punishing Ranger School and led an infantry platoon. She is now an Army physical therapist stationed at Fort Carson, Colo.

In an interview at her home, she said her transition should be seen as an asset, not a burden.  She volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan with an infantry brigade last spring after the unit’s regular physical therapist became pregnant. Captain Stehlik spent nearly a year hopping helicopters from base to base, treating sprains and other injuries with a medical bag in one hand and an M-4 rifle in the other. Six-foot-three and broad-shouldered, she said it would have been pretty obvious to the 1,700 soldiers she treated that she was transgender, but it was never a problem.

The real problem is the hate, bigotry, and willful embrace of evangelicals and "conservative" Christians which, rather than being coddled, needs to be eradicated from society.  Instead of banning transgender troops, ban the evangelicals and make them social outcasts.

Veterans Slam Trump for Border "Stunt"

Trump seeks to use the military  against refugees.

In an effort to energize his racist, white supremacist base, Donald Trump wants to send 5,000 U.S. military troops to the US/Mexico border - a move that is likely illegal since federal troops are banned from being used within the country.  Like everything else he does, Trump seemingly sees himself as above the law and above the Constitution.  The reaction from military veterans has not been positive with many no doubt fearful of the optics both at home and abroad of soldiers confronting women and children (especially if they fire on unarmed families) and also concerned about the illegality and cost of the move.  Sadly, evangelical Christians - who as noted have confirmed their racial animosity towards non-whites in a recent poll - are likely cheering and further perverting what being "Christian" is supposed to mean. If allowed, the move could create a dangerous precedent for using the military domestically against those Trump labels as "a threat to national security.).  Here are highlights from CNN:

With his decision to deploy more than 5,000 troops to the US-Mexico border, President Donald Trump has ordered more military personnel to the US southwest than he has serving in some of the world's most contentious combat zones.

[T]he mission -- dubbed Operation Faithful Patriot -- raises a slew of questions, with many veterans condemning it as a political stunt by a President eager to fire up his political base just days away from the midterm elections. "Donald Trump thinks unarmed people who are fleeing horrors and are still 1,000 miles away are a national security threat a week before election day?" said Will Fischer, a former Marine who now works for the VoteVets, a progressive veteran's organization.

"I don't think so," Fischer said. "It's a political ploy to blow upon the embers of racism and nativism, and he is using the military again as a political prop to advance his own agenda" 

Fischer and other veterans point to the unknown cost to taxpayers, given that much smaller deployments of National Guard to the border have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They also question the cost the military will bear, as the operation pulls troops away from training, other missions and their families. And then, they say, there's the murky legality of the mission, its scope and its purpose.

US troops will join over 2,000 National Guardsmen who are already at the border, meaning upwards of 7,000 American forces will be mobilized to stop Central American migrants that are still some 900 miles away from the border and weeks away from arriving in the US.

Despite Trump's unsubstantiated claim that the group of Central Americans includes "gang members and some very bad people," most of the migrants have reportedly indicated that they plan to apply for asylum once they arrive in the US.
 This is not a national security issue. ... We're seeing women, children and the elderly within this caravan fighting for their lives. We don't need more military there," according to Bishop Garrison, the interim executive director of the Truman National Security Project . . . "We don't need to make a sensitive issue and situation all the more dramatic," said Garrison, a former Homeland Security and Pentagon official.
 Both Fischer and a former military official, interviewed separately, raised the question of the rules of engagement for the troops. . . . "what if something does happen and lethal force is deployed and you have the US military firing at unarmed civilians?" Anger about the deployment and the perception that Mattis is allowing the military to be used for political purposes led one former Pentagon official to call for him to step down.

"This is a craven political stunt by President Trump ahead of the US midterms, and a cynical capitulation by a secretary of defense who has prided himself on improving the readiness, focus and lethality of the US armed forces," Kelly Magsamen, a National Security Council official under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, wrote in Defense One. The former military officer, who logged two decades of experience as an army officer before moving on to become a strategist, said the troops were being sent to "do a mission that could ... be done by another entity" such as the National Guard.  Dave McGinnis, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, agreed. [A] former official pointed out that US laws prohibit the military from detaining people, "so it's not like we're sending down an operational force, it's just people in a largely supportive role. That's why I say it's a stunt, so [Trump] can say, yeah, we're sending the military down to the border." McGinnis said Trump's move also sets a precedent. "If Congress allows him to do this, you're pushing the envelope on using the military for things this country has never, ever permitted," he said. "The visual on this for the world is really bad from a military perspective," McGinnis said. "It's using regular military troops for things that democracies really don't do."
 Cost also remains a major concern. Congressional sources with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees told CNN that they have not received cost data from the Pentagon.

Vote Democrat on November 6, 2018 - Trump and his lawlessness must be stopped. #NotMyPresident.

Pence Secretly Drafted Trump’s Latest Transgender Ban

Hate group leader Tony Perkins with Trump and Pence

As much as I despise Donald Trump and view him as a clear and present danger to America, in some way Mike Pence presents an even more insidious danger.   Pence - like Rick Santorum, Ken Cuccinelli and some other virulently anti-gay Republicans - is a religious fanatic and will go to any lengths to quell his inner demons.  One of his main demons concerns homosexuality due to, in my belief, the fact that he, like Santorum and Cuccinelli, is a self-loathing closeted gay who somehow thinks that make life a living hell for other LGBT individuals makes amends for his own secret lusts.  (Pence also spent his early years as a Catholic, which I know first hand screws one up unbelievably if you are LGBT).  The only positive thing Pence did is not have seven children like Santorum and Cuccinelli did as they tried to convince the world - and most importantly themselves - that they aren't really gay.  Thus, it is no surprise to learn that Pence along with a group of professional gay-haters  was behind Der Trumpenführer's latest anti-transgender military ban.  Among this cabal was hate group leader Tony Perkins, in my view one of the most dishonest individuals on the planet.  A piece in Think Progress looks at this latest attack which is based on the usual Christofascist lies.  Here are excerpts:

Then President Trump announced a new ban on transgender people serving in the military late Friday, it was somewhat of a surprise — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had reportedly recommended in February that Trump allow transgender people to serve. It turns out that Vice President Pence and some of the country’s most prominent anti-LGBTQ activists had a role in reversing the outcome, which explains why the report explaining the decision is rife with anti-trans junk science.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern reported Friday night that, according to multiple sources, Pence played “a leading role” in creating the report, along with Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, which has been dubbed “Trump’s favorite think tank,” and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-LGBTQ hate group.  Both Heritage and FRC praised the report Friday. According to Stern’s reporting, it was true that Mattis favored allowing transgender military service, but Pence “effectively overruled” him.

A separate source independently confirmed to ThinkProgress Saturday that Pence was involved, characterizing him as forming his own ad hoc “working group,” including Anderson and Perkins, separate from the panel of experts Mattis had assembled.

Mattis’ original document is not currently publicly available, but it was widely reported that Mattis favored an inclusive approach that resembled what had originally been proposed by Defense Secretary Ash Carter under President Obama in 2016. [T]he report features numerous anti-trans talking points that FRC and other anti-LGBTQ groups have used in various campaigns favoring discrimination against transgender people. It also attempts to distort the research on transgender health in ways that directly parallel Anderson’s recently released book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. One of the most obvious biases in the new report is an emphasis on concerns about how transgender people in the military might somehow infringe on the privacy of other soldiers — particularly women. These are the same arguments Perkins, Anderson, and others have made in justifying overturning LGBTQ protections in Houston or defending North Carolina’s HB2, a law that mandated discrimination against transgender people.

According to the report, transgender people would violate other troops’ privacy simply by sharing a space with them . . . . Not so subtly, the report concludes that unit cohesion will deteriorate if the anti-transgender prejudices of other service members are not catered to.

“[U]nit cohesion” is the same hollow argument that was previously used to defend “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), a law that prohibited lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from serving openly in the military. Such warnings even included near-identical concerns about shared shower use. Following DADT’s repeal, a study showed that LGB inclusion had no negative impact on military morale, despite similar warnings. Nowhere does the report even mention that every major medical organization in the U.S. has arrived at a consensus that transgender people should be affirmed in their gender identities and supported in their transitions. The American Medical Association has even explicitly expressed support for lifting the military’s ban on transgender service. The report likewise makes no mention of the widely-used standards of care developed by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), which recognize the benefits of affirmative care.

As has become inevitable in just about every attempt to justify anti-trans discrimination (including Anderson’s book), the study also wildly distorts studies about the suicidality of transgender people.

The report essentially manufactures doubt about the health outcomes of transgender people to justify the very kind of discrimination that is the most significant factor for trans people’s negative experiences.

But as the report largely reflects the views of Pence, a longtime opponent of LGBTQ equality, and some of the top anti-LGBTQ activists in the country, it’s easy to see how it arrived at such discriminatory conclusions.

It is very difficult to lie more than Tony Perkins who, like Trump, should be assumed to be lying if his lips are moving. 

McCain Backs Bill to Block Trump Transgender Troops Ban; Joint Chiefs Oppose Ban

Joseph Dunford Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

As noted in previous pots, the only area in which Der Trumpenführer is keeping his campaign promises is in the realm of his promises to Christofascists to roll back LGBT rights and non-discrimination protections.  His effort to ban transgender Americans from serving in the U.S. Military is merely one part of an aggressive agenda that includes appointing anti-gay Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, reversing Obama era policies and promoting the myth of Christian persecution. Thankfully, Trump is running into perhaps unexpected opposition to his transgender ban.  As the title to this post notes, a bi-partisan bill is in Congress that would thwart Trump's effort.  Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in opposition to the outright ban.  First these highlights from The Hill:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) is backing a bipartisan bill that would block President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.

“When less than one percent of Americans are volunteering to join the military, we should welcome all those who are willing and able to serve our country,” McCain said in a statement.

“Any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness standards should be allowed to serve — including those who are transgender," he said.

This is the latest show of resistance by McCain, who has frequently been a thorn in Trump's side. Most dramatically, McCain cast the deciding vote in July to kill the Senate's attempt at repealing Obamacare. As a Russia hawk, he's also blasted Trump's attempted rapprochement with Moscow, and as Armed Service chairman, has frequently criticized Trump for requesting lower-than-expected defense spending and taking months to develop an Afghanistan strategy.

Friday's bill would prohibit the Pentagon from involuntarily separating or denying the re-enlistment of currently serving transgender troops solely on the basis of gender identity.  It would also require Defense Secretary James Mattis to complete the study of accession — recruitment and training — of transgender recruits that he started before Trump announced the ban.

Finally, the bill would express the sense of Congress that individuals who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be eligible to serve.

As for the Joint Chiefs, here are highlights from Politico:

The nation's top military officer on Tuesday told Congress that transgender troops who meet existing standards should not be kicked out of the military, underscoring the Pentagon leadership's reluctance to carry out President Donald Trump's earlier call to ban them from serving "in any capacity."

“I believe any individual who meets the physical and mental standards and is worldwide-deployable and currently serving should be afforded the opportunity to continue to serve," Marine Gen. Joe Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing on his reappointment as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dunford’s advice meshes with “interim guidance” that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued earlier this month for the military to follow while a study on transgender service members is underway.

Dunford’s testimony covered a wide range of front-burner issues, ranging from personnel and combat readiness to the current situations in Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula.

Trump's effort to harm LGBT Americans needs to be resisted.  This ban does nothing but pander to Christofascist extremists.