• For the two other branches, has it come to telling these judges, fine, that’s your opinion, now you enforce it?

This is a fascinating piece by  Daniel Horowitz via Conservative Review.  From what I’ve read in recent months and years it is entirely accurate.

Is there no conservative GOP Congress that can effectively end the ‘judicial monarchy’?

If there is any liberal who can deny the accuracy of this piece, let’s here from her.     DLH

Obama’s third term: 13 times courts said Trump must continue Obama’s lawless policies

Daniel Horowitz· August 20, 2018  reposted as permitted

With the runaway train of judicial supremacy consuming our political system, do elections really matter any more?

Anyone who has his head above the sand should recognize by now that the unelected judiciary – what was supposed to be the weakest branch of government – has been accorded the status of sole and final arbiter of every social and political question in recent years. But there is a subset of this judicial tyranny that is particularly disturbing. In addition to overstepping their jurisdiction, ignoring the Constitution, and abusing the rules of standing, courts are now using Obama’s discretionary executive policies (many of which were lawless) as a new legal baseline, thereby prohibiting Trump from merely reverting back to the way things were before Obama unilaterally changed the law.

Here are 13 prominent examples:

1) Executive amnesty: This must be at the top of anyone’s list. Obama’s unilateral violation of American sovereignty and immigration law was likely the most lawless act of an executive in recent memory. But when Trump simply countermanded that usurpation, a number of district judges – from William Alsup and Nicholas Garaufis to John Bates – said he must continue issuing work permits and visas to people who, under the law, must be deported. Shockingly, the Supreme Court refused to grant the government an expedited appeal despite the unprecedented circumstances, forcing the administration to first go through the crazy Ninth Circuit.

2) Presidents set refugee levels … except for Trump: The law (8 U.S.C. §1157(a)(2)) grants the president full authority to set the circumstances and numbers of refugees, yet several district judges, including Theodore Chuang of Maryland, ruled that Trump must continue the refugee policies of Obama. Evidently, only Democrat presidents can set the refugee cap. Unfortunately, the administration gave in to these courts and modified the refugee provisions of the “travel ban,” so this issue never had its day at the Supreme Court.

3) Temporary immigration status is really permanent: Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is designed to afford temporary residence to those here legally while a natural disaster happens to take place in their countries. Contrary to statute, Bush and Obama extended it to illegal aliens and made it permanent for many countries. Trump merely followed the statute and made this status temporary, yet Judge Denise Casper said that because Trump is a racist, the word “temporary” in the statute really means “permanent.”

4) Catch-and-release of bogus asylum seekers: Obama not only expanded the definition of asylum but began releasing even adults who came here as bogus asylum seekers. Judge Dana Sabraw mandated that Trump continue catch-and-release. Additionally, in July, Judge James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in the D.C. District, certified an entire class of Central American asylum-seekers to lodge an injunction against five ICE offices for not continuing another Obama policy of granting paroles to aliens who passed the credible fear test. Boasberg is also a member of the lawless FISA court.

5) Obama’s visa programs are now the law: One of the many immigration programs Obama concocted by administrative fiat was a program to allow foreign entrepreneurs to circumvent the visa process and apply directly for parole. Trump respected the fact that only Congress can create this program and merely discontinued it. Judge Boasberg, once again, ruled last December that he must continue it!

6) Take the Census, but don’t find out who’s a citizen: In July, Judge Jesse M. Furman indicated during oral arguments that he would side with the liberal states suing the Department of Commerce for adding a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form. Granted, it was not just Obama who stopped asking this all-important question, but this question was asked from the founding on up through the 1950s. But Trump can’t simply restore this commonsense practice.

7) Trump must continue Obama’s contraception mandate: Last December, Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the Trump administration must continue enforcing the Obama-era contraception mandate, forcing employers to directly or indirectly provide contraception as part of their mandated insurance benefits for their employees. The Supreme Court already invalidated Obama’s mandate in the Hobby Lobby case, yet Obama found a way around it. Now, Trump must continue Obama’s discretionary policies.

8) Transgenders in the military: From the time of George Washington until the last year of Obama’s presidency, men who castrated themselves or imagined that they were women did not serve in the military. Obama changed that in 2016 without approval from Congress. Yet several judges in D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle mandated that Trump admit them into the military and continue a policy that never existed before 2016. Judge Marvin Garbis of Baltimore, a Bush appointee, even ruled that the Pentagon must pay for the “surgery.” Every president, as commander in chief, can determine military enlistment qualifications, but not Trump.

9) Obama’s teenage pregnancy program is in the Constitution: In June, a federal district judge in Washington D.C., Kentanji Brown Jackson, ordered the Trump administration to continue doling out $800 million in grants to private organizations to prevent teenage pregnancies. This program never existed in this form until Obama and has proven ineffective, but it must continue, because a judge said so.

10) Obama now sets regulations on cars … forever? In April, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction on the Department of Transportation’s delay of penalties to auto makers that didn’t comply with Obama’s added Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Obama dramatically expanded the penalty, and his decisions are now final.

11) Trump must regulate drainage ditches: In 2015, Obama declared that seasonal runoffs and ponds in your backyard are now “navigable” waters subject to federal water regulations. Trump merely restored the commonsense policy in place since 1980, defining navigable waters as, you know, waters that transport commercial ships, not breeding grounds for mosquitos. But Judge David Norton, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that Trump must continue Obama’s policy, despite a Georgia judge finding the policy itself to be unconstitutional.

12) Hot air? Trump must continue Obama’s methane policies: Last year, Judge William Orrick ordered Trump to continue Obama’s lawless legislation of allowing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to regulate the venting and flaring of methane from oil and gas production. This has been devastating to our burgeoning natural gas industry. No statute on the books could conceivably grant such authority to the BLM. Orrick is the same lawless Obama-donor judge who declared a nationwide sanctuary policy attempting to block the DOJ from punishing sanctuary cities.

13) Obama regulated free speech of 3D gun blueprints; Trump must do the same: Obama’s State Department dramatically expanded its authority under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations to stop Americans from merely publishing CAD files of 3D gun prints. This is the First Amendment, not a gun issue. The Trump administration merely stopped regulating this particular activity, but Judge Robert Lasnik ordered the Trump administration to block Cody Wilson from simply uploading a CAD file.

These are just the cases off the top of my head.

It is self-evident is that unless the entire culture and scope of power of the judiciary is reformed wholesale, elections will no longer matter unless Democrats win. Even a better Supreme Court cannot save us from an arbitrarily shopped district or circuit court that has the power to set national policy on everything under the sun.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

There is always something in their back pocket to charge you with

The main theme of this article has been pounded by our “illustrious senior editor” off and on from this blog’s inception, relating especially to China where he has considerable experience.  Incisive reading.

Reposted with permission of the Strategic Culture on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.   Via lewrockwell.com

Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?

Several years ago the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted a law restricting firearms purchases to one per month. This was intended to discourage smuggling of weapons to urban areas outside Virginia with tight gun control laws and (unsurprisingly) high homicide rates. The law didn’t seem to do much good and in a rare outbreak of common sense was later repealed, though there’s recent misguided talk from Attorney General Mark Herring of reviving it.

During its short period in force, the prohibition spawned a popular saying in the Old Dominion: “Buy one gun a month – it’s the law!”

A similar attitude may be appropriate in light of an estimate that due to vague statutes and the proliferation of federal regulations – which have the force of law – we wake up in the morning, go to work, come home, eat dinner, and go to sleep  unaware we may have committed several federal crimes in the course of the day. The number varies but the average number of crimes per American seems to be about three.

The more important point is that every one of us is probably guilty of something. “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker told the Wall Street Journal in July 2011. “That is not an exaggeration.”

  • This means that if they want you, they can get you.
  • That in turn means that who gets charged, prosecuted, and jailed is a matter of the relevant officials’ discretion.
  • And that in turn means that discretion can and will be politicized.

Like the boychiks used to say in the good ol’ NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs; Народный комиссариат внутренних дел): “Give Us the Man, and We Will Make the Case.” (I guess nowadays, we should say “person.”)

Let’s stipulate that the true Rechtsstaat, where justice is administered in a politically neutral manner is few and far between in human history. The norm is politicized justice where holders of power – in an elective system, the winners – use the justice system to harass and terrorize the losers.

But America today must be the only country that’s ever been so goofy that the losers are able to terrorize the winners. Whatever your feelings about the current administration, consider: the feds come in like gangbusters, breaking down doors, rousting targets from their beds, seizing their personal documents and devices, and subjecting them to piled-on charges and questioning designed to result in perjury, obstruction, and conspiracy charges – especially the phony crime of “lying to the FBI” – adding  up to decades in jail. Those accused are forced to plead guilty to a lesser charge or bankrupt themselves hoping they will be vindicated by a jury of sheep their peers, where the feds have a 90 percent-plus conviction rate. That’s treatment meted out to Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, and others.

Conversely, clear evidence of crime, such as mishandling classified material, is a freebie: “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Oh, some of the emails are “personal?” That’s OK, you decide what’s what – we trust you! There’s a claim a foreign power hacked a computer server, which some compare to an act of war demanding retaliation – no, we don’t need to see the server itself, your contractor’s report is good enough for us! And while you’re at it, go ahead and purge your electronic records (even material you’re obligated to preserve) and smash up your smart phones and pull out SIM cards. Oh, hey, does anyone need immunity? No need to bargain, we’re happy to provide! That’s the treatment accorded to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Tony Podesta, and their ilk.

It’s no coincidence, Comrades, that this disparity is the work of denizens of a law enforcement and intelligence apparatus that is focused like a laser on two closely linked objectives: One, get Donald Trump. Two, at all costs, make sure that he cannot in any way move forward on his stated objective to improve ties with Russia. Those objectives are the two sides of the coin called Russiagate. All else, including the disparity of treatment given those close to Trump versus his opponents, is a function of Russiagate. Three other things also follow:

  • Trump’s powerlessness, even within his own administration. What kind of Chief Executive is reduced to tweeting what his subordinates ought to do – for example, providing Congress with documents demanded from the Department of Justice – versus ordering them to do it?
  • Trump’s personnel. People wonder, especially on foreign policy, why has Trump surrounded himself with a swarm of neoconservatives and Bush-retread Republicans? Maybe he is one of them. Or maybe anyone who dissented from the established warmongering line would be putting his head through a noose.
  • Flipping the “Russians did it” narrative: Among the President’s defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors, Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) “interfered in our elections” in order to “undermine our democracy.” Mitt Romney was right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that’s the variable. The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher Steele dossier is full of “Russian dirt” – though there’s literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing to Britain’s MI6 and GCHQ.

The Russia! Russia! Russia! hysteria is sometimes called a new McCarthyism, but that’s unfair – to Tailgunner Joe. In his day, whatever his excesses, there really were Stalinist agents at the State Department. This new panic is nothing we’ve seen before, except maybe during the Salem witch frenzy of the 1690s.

Which brings us to Maria Butina, a Russian grad student and Second Amendment advocate jailed (and refused bail) on thin allegations of unregistered lobbying. As Phil Giraldi observes: “If you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any way influential, there is potentially hell to pay because the FBI will be watching you. You are automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy. Once ‘evidence’ is collected, you will be indicted and sent to prison, mostly to send a message to Moscow. It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union’s judiciary used to function is now becoming standing operating procedure in the United States.”  Butina has been portrayed as some kind of honey pot femme fatale, a cross between Anna Chapman and Natasha from “The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle,” using her Slavic charms to bewitch the naïve ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ crowd at the National Rifle Association. Among Butina’s nefarious activities: networking at the National Prayer Breakfast. If they arrested everyone with foreign government connections schmoozing at the Prayer Breakfast, they’d have to shut the thing down.  Honestly, I doubt even the investigators believe Butina is guilty of anything, and if she were any other nationality but Russian she wouldn’t be facing years in jail. [ATTENTION: A legal defense fund for Butina has now been formed!]

Which brings us to the biggest threat to what’s left of our liberties as Americans. (No, not the yanking of the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.) As is well known, we are facing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign of deplatforming, shadowbanning, flitering, and other foul means of putting dissenting voices into a digital GULag. While the glove belongs to tech giants and their executives, the hand inside is the government’s. Using Russian meddling as a pretext, companies that do billions of dollars of business with the federal government are only too happy to police the web of “suspected Russian-linked accounts.” And since, as Hillary says, Putin is the leader of the worldwide “authoritarian, white-supremacist, and xenophobic movement” who is “emboldening right-wing nationalists, separatists, racists, and even neo-Nazis,” anything and anybody that fails Virginia Senator Mark Warner’s or Mark Zuckerberg’s sniff test is now fair game. We are told that to sow discord and chaos Russian troll farms and social media ads target “divisive” issues related to race, Black Lives Matter, and Ferguson, absent which we’d all be holding hands singing Kumbaya. Connecting Putin and Russia with racism feeds into a cockamamie phantasmagoria of Crimethink concepts that increasingly are considered outside the protection of what was once quaintly known as free speech: hate speech, fake news, conspiracy theories, white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, patriarchy, “cisgenderism,” and many more. The idea of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is out the window.  Instead we have: anyone to the right of me gets what he deserves.

While we hear a lot about the “input” end – violation of free speech rights, a deadly, valid concern – even more worrisome is the “output”: limiting what Americans can see and hear that differs from the official media line, itself largely a bulletin board for government sources. Unsurprisingly, that line is unfailingly for war and intervention. As Patrick Armstrong puts it, maybe the censors could just buy some old Soviet jamming equipment.

It is hard to escape the notion that we are approaching the edge of some profound historical moment that will have far-reaching, literally life and death consequences, both domestically and internationally. In the period preceding World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended? Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace, progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter, revolution, and brutal ideologies?

Whether opposition to the gathering darkness can be effective is uncertain. But what is not uncertain is our duty to oppose it, even at the risk of committing three felonies a day. “Fellow Thought criminals – unite!”

[A version of the foregoing was delivered to the Ron Paul Institute Media & War 2018 Conference on August 18, 2018.]

Copyright © 2018 Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

“Neuropolitics” vs epistemology and genuineness

Interesting article to keep up on the latest developments in marketing research and electioneering, or at least buzz words.  Nothing really knew, technology assisted analysis of focus group results has been in use for a number of years. We suspect people and opinions are deeper than this tool can uncover and a conflicting message can elicit the same response.  Now decide which is more compelling. Rhetoric has been around a long time.

Further, we hope that people are more sophisticated and able to determine lack of genuineness which this research invites.  More important in our opinion is understanding how people come to know what they know, or think they know ~~ epistemology  ~~ and, affecting and effecting that, come to know the truth.

MIT “Technology Review” article by Elizabeth Svoboda

The “neuropolitics” consultants who hack voters’ brains  (excerpt) (bold emphasis ours)

These experts say they can divine political preferences you can’t express from signals you don’t know you’re producing

Maria Pocovi slides her laptop over to me with the webcam switched on. My face stares back at me, overlaid with a grid of white lines that map the contours of my expression. Next to it is a shaded window that tracks six “core emotions”: happiness, surprise, disgust, fear, anger, and sadness. Each time my expression shifts, a measurement bar next to each emotion fluctuates, as if my feelings were an audio signal. After a few seconds, a bold green word flashes in the window: ANXIETY. When I look back at Pocovi, I get the sense she knows exactly what I’m thinking with one glance.

Petite with a welcoming smile, Pocovi, the founder of Emotion Research Lab in Valencia, Spain, is a global entrepreneur par excellence. When she comes to Silicon Valley, she doesn’t even rent an office—she just grabs a table here at the Plug and Play coworking space in Sunnyvale, California. But the technology she’s showing me is at the forefront of a quiet political revolution. Campaigns around the world are employing Emotion Research Lab and other marketers versed in neuroscience to penetrate voters’ unspoken feelings.

This spring there was a widespread outcry when American Facebook users found out that information they had posted on the social network—including their likes, interests, and political preferences—had been mined by the voter-targeting firm Cambridge Analytica. While it’s not clear how effective they were, the company’s algorithms may have helped fuel Donald Trump’s come-from-behind victory in 2016.

But to ambitious data scientists like Pocovi, who has worked with major political parties in Latin America in recent elections, Cambridge Analytica, which shut down in May, was behind the curve. Where it gauged people’s receptiveness to campaign messages by analyzing data they typed into Facebook, today’s “neuropolitical” consultants say they can peg voters’ feelings by observing their spontaneous responses: an electrical impulse from a key brain region, a split-­second grimace, or a moment’s hesitation as they ponder a question. The experts aim to divine voters’ intent from signals they’re not aware they’re producing. A candidate’s advisors can then attempt to use that biological data to influence voting decisions.

Political insiders say campaigns are buying into this prospect in increasing numbers, even if they’re reluctant to acknowledge it. “It’s rare that a campaign would admit to using neuromarketing techniques—though it’s quite likely the well-funded campaigns are,” says Roger Dooley, a consultant and author of Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing. While it’s not certain the Trump or Clinton campaigns used neuromarketing in 2016, SCL—the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump—has reportedly used facial analysis to assess whether what voters said they felt about candidates was genuine.

But even if US campaigns won’t admit to using neuromarketing, “they should be interested in it, because politics is a blood sport,” says Dan Hill, an American expert in facial-expression coding who advised Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto’s 2012 election campaign. Fred Davis, a Republican strategist whose clients have included George W. Bush, John McCain, and Elizabeth Dole, says that while uptake of these technologies is somewhat limited in the US, campaigns would use neuromarketing if they thought it would give them an edge. “There’s nothing more important to a politician than winning,” he says.

The trend raises a torrent of questions in the run-up to the 2018 midterms. How well can consultants like these use neurological data to target or sway voters? And if they are as good at it as they claim, can we trust that our political decisions are truly our own? Will democracy itself start to feel the squeeze?

Unspoken truths

Brain, eye, and face scans that tease out people’s true desires might seem dystopian. But they’re offshoots of a long-standing political tradition: hitting voters right in the feels. For more than a decade, campaigns have been scanning databases of consumer preferences—what music people listen to, what magazines they read—and, with the help of computer algorithms, using that information to target appeals to them. If an algorithm shows that middle-aged female SUV drivers are likely to vote Republican and care about education, chances are they’ll receive campaign messages crafted explicitly to push those buttons.

Biometric technologies raise the stakes further. Practitioners say they can tap into truths that voters are often unwilling or unable to express. Neuroconsultants love to cite psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, who distinguishes between “System 1” and “System 2” thinking. System 1 “operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control,” he writes; System 2 involves conscious deliberation and takes longer.

. . .

“One of the things we can analyze is the attentional process,” says Mexico City neurophysiologist Jaime Romano Micha, whose former firm, Neuropolitka, was one of the top providers of brain-based services to political campaigns. Romano Micha would place electrodes on a subject’s scalp to detect activity in the reticular formation, a part of the brain stem that tracks how engaged someone is. So if subjects are watching a political ad and activity in their reticular formation spikes, say, 15 seconds in, it means the message has truly caught their attention at that point.

“There’s nothing more important to a politician than winning.”

Other brain areas provide important clues too, Romano Micha says. Electrical activity on the left side of the cerebral cortex suggests people are working hard to understand a political message; similar activity on the right side may reveal the precise moment the message’s meaning clicks into place. With these kinds of insights, campaigns can refine a message to maximize its oomph: placing the most gripping moment at the beginning, for instance, or cutting the parts that cause people’s attention to wander.

But while brain imaging remains part of the neuropolitical universe, most neuroconsultants say it’s hardly sufficient by itself. “EEG gives us very general information about the decision process,” Romano Micha says. “Some people are saying that through EEG we can go into the mind of people, and I think that’s not possible yet.” There are cheaper and more reliable tools, several consultants claim, for getting at a voter’s true feelings and desires.

. . .

Pocovi’s approach at Emotion Research Lab requires only a video player and a front-facing webcam. When volunteers enroll in her political focus groups online, she sends them videos of an ad spot or a candidate that they can watch on their laptop or phone. As they digest the content, she tracks their eye movements and subtle shifts in their facial expressions.

“We have developed algorithms to read the microexpressions in the face and translate in real time the emotions people are feeling,” Pocovi says. “Many times, people tell you, ‘I’m worried about the economy.’ But what are really the things that move you? In my experience, it’s not the biggest things. It’s the small things that are close to you.” Something as small as a candidate’s inappropriately furrowed brow, she says, can color our perception without our realizing it.

. . .

Ohme declines to discuss his current political clients in much detail, citing confidentiality agreements. But he volunteers that in an iCode survey of nearly 900 people, he predicted Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat before the election. Throughout the year, Clinton ran comfortably ahead of Trump in traditional polls. But when Ohme asked test subjects whether Clinton shared their values, they often hesitated for an unusually long time before responding that she did. Ohme knew a sense of shared values was a big factor motivating people to vote in 2016 (in previous elections “powerful” and “leader” were key), so the results of the test gave him serious doubts about a Clinton victory. He argues that if Clinton’s campaign had run one of his studies before the election, she would have understood the depth of her vulnerability and could have made course corrections.

Ohme claims to have helped other candidates in similar straits. One of his tests revealed that while a certain European client had a good-sized base of supporters, many weren’t motivated to get out and vote because they assumed their candidate would win. Armed with this knowledge, the campaign made a renewed push to get its loyal base to the polls. The client ended up winning in a squeaker.

The biggest lies in life

Does measuring people’s spontaneous reactions to a TV ad or a stump speech tell you how they will ultimately vote, however? “On the applied side, it’s pretty unclear, the hype from the reality,” says Darren Schreiber, a professor in political science at the University of Exeter and author of Your Brain Is Built for Politics. “It’s easy to over-believe the ability of these tools.” So far cognitive tests have had mixed results. Contrasting studies have shown that implicit attitudes both do and don’t predict how people vote.

Still, Schreiber, who has conducted brain-scan tests of political attitudes, admits the technologies are worrisome. Democracy assumes the presence of rational actors, capable of digesting information from all quarters and coming to reasoned conclusions. If neuroconsultants are even half as good as they claim at probing people’s innermost thoughts and shifting their voting intentions, it calls that assumption into question.

“We are susceptible in multiple ways, and not aware of our susceptibility,” Schreiber says. “The fact that attitudes can be manipulated in ways we’re not aware of has a lot of implications for political discourse.” If campaigns are nudging voters toward their candidate without voters’ knowledge, political discussions that were once exchanges of reasoned views will become knee-jerk skirmishes veering ever further from the democratic ideal. “I don’t think it’s time to run in panic,” Schreiber says, “but I don’t think we can be sanguine about it.”

Ohme insists that voters can inoculate themselves against neuroconsultants’ tactics if they’re savvy enough. “I measure hesitation. I can change your mind only if you hesitate. If you are a firm believer, I cannot change anything,” he says. “If you’re scared to be manipulated, learn. The more you learn, the more firm and stable your attitudes are, and the more difficult it is for someone to convince you otherwise.”

Further, a sense of genuineness is important.  Hillary could push  buttons and did , the result of using other focus group research.  But did people believe her, would they ever?

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Mullen’s profundities

  • Also: security clearance – the coin of the realm
  • Make that “the coin of the swamp”
  • Lou Dobbs holds forth


“I am concerned about the whole issue of free speech. And as long as John is not revealing classified information that he shouldn’t, then I certainly think he has a right to speak,” Mike Mullen, retired US Navy admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Fox News on Sunday.


You all remember Chairman Mullen and his eloquence in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood massacre, don’t you?

In a speech another Obama genius, Marie Harf, could have written for him, Mullen opined that the real problem with Islamic extremism is some really “uneducated” mullahs!

He added that besides educating those Mullahs in the real meaning of the Quran, teaching young Muslims to read will pretty much prevent “the despair that “leads a child…into the arms of Al Qaeda and the Taliban”.

The erudite Admiral Mullen suggested the solution even before Marie Harf did…the lack of jobs is the real cause of terrorism. (You can do your own interpretation of Chairman Mueller’s remarks as presented below.)

At any rate, Mike Mullen is obviously not the “go to guy” intellectually on any issue.

“The harder you chase leaks, the more leaks there will be,”

Once again, Mullen just repeats what he’s heard from some of his leftist friends (thinking about this guy as Chairman of the JCOS is really disheartening): “I am concerned about the whole issue of free speech. I certainly think ..(Brennan).. has the right to speak.”

Hey Mike! Sounds very patriotic. However, Who, when, or how has anyone prevented daffy John Brennan from speaking, even though he has nothing true or of value to say!

Again, I say, guys like this were leading our military…and Intelligence services??!! I wish you were kidding!!!!!     DLH

Referencing article:

“”Brennan received some support on Sunday from Mike Mullen, a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Trump’s threat to revoke the security clearances of those who have been critical of him is a sign that the president is “creating a list of political enemies.”

Mullen said that while Trump has the authority to pull the security clearances of former national intelligence and other officials, his doing so is “incredibly problematic.”

“It immediately brings back the whole concept of the ‘enemies list’ under President (Richard) Nixon,” Mullen said in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that it was also reminiscent of the anti-communist crusade led by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.

“Mullen said that he does not support Brennan being as critical of Trump as he has been but believes that the former CIA director and others should not have to fear that they will be stripped of their security clearances because of their criticism.

“I am concerned about the whole issue of free speech. And as long as John is not revealing classified information that he shouldn’t, then I certainly think he has a right to speak,” Mullen said.

2010 article by Bridget Johnson writing at The Hill

Mullen: Broadly tackling extremism will undermine ‘uneducated’ mullahs (excerpt)

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday that new ways of deterrence that address those factors that make individuals vulnerable to coercion were essential in tackling the threats of the 21st century.

Adm. Mike Mullen, in a speech at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and al-Qaida can be deterred by the threat of retaliation, but efforts to attack the basis of extremism were essential through support of education and development.

“Attacking the humiliation, the hopelessness, the illiteracy and abject poverty which lie at the core of the attraction to extremist thought will do more to turn the tide against terrorism than anything else,” the chairman said. “We can continue to hunt and kill their leaders, and we will. But when a person learns to read, he enters a gateway toward independent education and thought. He becomes more capable, more employable, and enjoys a sense of purpose in his life.

“He will understand the Quran for what it is and not merely what his mullah tells him it is, who is equally uneducated,” Mullen continued. “He can raise his children to a higher standard of living than the one he knew, an aspiration shared by parents around the world. And his wife will help him prevent the despair that might lead a child of theirs into the arms of al-Qaida or the Taliban.”

Lou Dobbs holds forth:


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Remember Porter Goss . . . of the “intelligence community” . . .

  • He came from the right stuff  ooze for the swamp, so he should be listened to?
  • An old bud of Dennis Hastert


Even before Chuckie Schumer named THE PROCESS for us, Porter Goss had learned most of the ‘SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY’ the “Intelligence” folks can getcha !

Nothing much surprises anymore but in reading the names of the 12 “former intelligence chiefs” who signed the public letter protesting the persecution of former CIA Director James Brennan, I was mildly struck by the inclusion of another “former” CIA Director.

Now I’m guessing but if there are many folks who remember Mr. Goss, they too might be “mildly”, or, greatly struck by his apparent enthusiasm to be counted among Mr. Brennan’s defenders.

For those of you who may not remember him, Porter Goss was named in September, 2004 by G W Bush to head the CIA after the departure of George Tenet.

Goss was brought in to “rebuild” the CIA, to “shake things up” over at Langley following what some described as “a lot of intelligence failures” regarding 9/11 and the Iraqi WMD’s. Also, according to news reports at the time, there were many damaging leaks coming out of the CIA (remember “Mary McCarthy” and the WaPo story about “secret CIA prisons”?).

As a former CIA agent himself, Goss surely had a pretty good grip on the task that he faced. He undoubtedly knew there would be fierce opposition to an effort to restore effectiveness and respect for an agency which had pretty much lost both. Among other actions Goss undertook to ‘rebuild’ the agency, he got rid of the ‘bureaucratic ‘red tape’ that existed, tried to improve intelligence gathering and sharing with other agencies. He also initiated a number of probes to ferret out the leakers. It was thought by many that a lot of leaks were aimed at undermining Goss.

Democrat strategist, and later Fox News contributor and later former Fox News contributor, Bob Beckel was noting that, under Goss, there was a lot of “disarray” over at Langley. In perhaps one of his relatively sober moments, Bob was telling news organizations that, because Goss was such an “obvious Republican partisan”, his appointment as director caused “a lot of rancor, apparently causing some “veteran agents” to leave.’

At any rate, Mr. Goss lasted about 13 months, which would seem to indicate it takes about two months for each “way from Sunday” to finally take down a critic of our vaunted top Intelligence agency:


(Looks like Chuckie called it accurately.)

To underscore a point, John Negroponte was the director of the then newly created National Intelligence Agency to whom Goss reported. It was well known around Washington that Negroponte “was not happy with Goss”.

Interestingly, there seemed to be no such tension between Obama’s NIA director, James Clapper and his CIA chief Brennan. And for Brennan, there were no leaks…and Sunday never came.

And, it’s all one big happy ‘family’…Democrats and Republicans Bush appointees and Obama-ites; Just one happy Establishment!

Free Speech For All!                 DLH

Referencing this information in an article in The Blaze  

Twelve former intelligence chiefs signed and released a public letter protesting the decision by President Donald Trump to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who has been very critical of the president

“We feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House,” the letter said. “We know John to be an enormously talented, capable and patriotic individual who devoted his entire adult life to the service of this nation.”

“Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless,” it continued. “Since leaving government service, John has chosen to speak out sharply regarding what he sees as threats to our national security.”
“[W]e all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearance — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” they added. . . .

The contention that Trump was shutting down free speech mirrored that of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said Wednesday that the decision violated Brennan’s First Amendment right of free speech. Clapper was also one of the signatories.

More on Porter Goss via Wikipedia

Education and early CIA career 

Goss was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, the son of Virginia Holland (née Johnston) and Richard Wayne Goss, who was an executive of the Scovill Manufacturing Company (a corporation controlled by the Goss family).[2][3][4][5] He attended Camp Timanous in Raymond, Maine and was educated at the Fessenden School. In 1956, he graduated from the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut.

Goss graduated from Yale University in 1960 with a Bachelor of Arts in ancient Greek.[6] (Goss also speaks Spanish and French). At Yale, he was a member of Book and Snake, a secret society at Yale.[7] He was a member of the Psi Upsilon fraternity alongside William H. T. Bush, the uncle of President George W. Bush, and John Negroponte, who served as an ambassador for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and as Goss’s superior in the post of Director of National Intelligence from 2005 to 2006.[8] Negroponte solicited Goss’s assistance, while Goss was Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to get the position as US ambassador to the United Nations in the first term of the second Bush administration.

. . .


Goss is an active speaker on the lecture circuit.[31] The retired CIA Director registered in April 2015 as a lobbyist representing Turkey.[32]

On February 16, 2016, Goss expressed his support for former Speaker Dennis Hastert in a letter to Judge Thomas Durkin.[33]

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Hoping to hear from Brennan’s other peers

What are their peers afraid of?


Again, where’s a public statement from all those dedicated fellow “agency” patriots who are ‘appalled’ by Obama’s corruption of their agencies?

12 ex-intel officials slam Trump for ‘ill-considered and unprecedented’ action against Brennan

“As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech — even when that right has been used to criticize us — that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

The dozen stressed that while they don’t necessarily agree with comments made by Brennan, who’s become a frequent guest on liberal news channels, they believe he has the right to voice them.

The statement came just a day after the White House revoked Brennan’s security clearance following a review of access granted to several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The Trump administration said Brennan “has a history that calls his credibility into question,” and accused him of “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims about the administration.

“The president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.


The “Dirty Dozen” (or is it 13 now?) former intelligence “officials” who are unconsolably distraught over President Trump revoking the top security clearance of James Brennan confirms for me that our entire Intelligence apparatus is a frighteningly corrupt system.

We’ve addressed this in previous posts but every day, in various ways, it becomes more obvious and more troubling.

At one level, these dozen signatories expose an unbelievable ignorance of our basic Constitutional guarantee of “free speech”. Either that or they have chosen the most cynical and insulting approach imaginable to try to protect what they see as a personal ‘entitlement’.

For example, how does it impede John Brennan’s ability to continue to speak out, to insult the president of the United States, on national television, on a cable network dedicated to the destruction of this presidency?

Obviously, it doesn’t. However, when John Brennan has a top secret security clearance, he is perceived by not just the relatively uninformed audience for that network, but our allies and enemies throughout the world, as “having the “goods”…knowing ‘secrets’ no one else knows and therefore must be believed above anyone else.

When Brennan says Trump is guilty of “treason”, he is trading on his perceived ‘insider top secret knowledge’!

We believe it is a fair question to ask: “Exactly why does a government official keep his ‘top secret clearance’ when he leaves government service? And why is the “Dirty Dozen” so inflamed over President Trump threatening to end the practice?

We believe the answer to that question is ridiculously obvious. As suggested in the preceding, the secret clearance has a monetary value to the individual as Mr. Brennan is illustrating… in the extreme.

Perhaps more important, though, than these 12 or 13 former “intelligence officials” coming out in the most public way to defend Brennan and criticize Trump is what it reveals about their respective organizations.

These people have at various times, headed agencies and bureaus in the intelligence service. They have selected the people who report directly to them and greatly influence selections of the people who will in turn report to that level. And so on throughout the process.

These former officials have with this imprudent action revealed a very important truth. We are constantly told that the despicable actions of the most recent former top levels of our Intelligence, Justice, and law enforcement organizations should not be used to tar those lower level operatives in those organizations… those “hard working, patriotic, non-partisan, dedicated folks who put it all on the line to protect us ordinary citizens.” An illustrative example comes to mind. Peter Strzok was a 27 year employee of the FBI. He rose through the ranks to a high level, critical position within the bureau.

He has, now, at last, unequivocally been exposed as an extreme partisan, a dedicated ideologue, willing to personally take extraordinary action to defeat the legally expressed will of the American people!

So how did this guy rise through the ranks with this kind of temperament and political attitude? Or, did he just suddenly become a political activist when he attained a high level of responsibility?

I don’t think so. More importantly, are today’s ranks of our Intelligence, Justice, and law enforcement organizations rife with Peter Strzoks, recruited and promoted by the choices made by those among the “Dirty Dozen”?

If not, explain to me how the ‘most honorable’ Bob Gates rushes to defend the likes of a James Brennan. Doesn’t Gates anymore pay attention to recent events…what with his own “top secret clearance”?

What the “Dirty Dozen” have done, in my judgement may be even worse than what the detestable Brennan has done to our national intelligence apparatus with his proven lies to congress and the American people, and his public accusations against the duly elected President of the United States. Brennan and his buddy Clapper (one who always tries to be the “least dishonest” as he can) have even strongly suggested that ‘maybe Putin has something on Trump’!

And Bob Gates wants these two to keep their top secret clearances?!

Anf, finally, sprinkled throughout our nation’s highest Intelligence, Justice, and law enforcement organizations, who knows how many of those ‘hardworking’ folks , having been recruited, hired, and promoted share the partisan views and troubling ideology of these former highest level guys who cling jealously to their privileged status as secretly well-informed guardians of our Constitutional freedoms?

But, that’s just the opinion of one who doesn’t have ‘top secret clearance.     DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Gotta R.E.S.P. E. C.T her talent


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

“TRIBUTE to OUR FALLEN” today – (see notice below)

Patriot Guards (generic photo)

The Patriot Guard Riders, ALR and CVMA have been invited to participate in the “TRIBUTE to OUR FALLEN” ceremonies to be held in Davenport, IA on Saturday, August 18th, 2018. Our task will be to escort the “Lest They be Forgotten” flag to the field, provide flag line tunnels for movements of the Colors and the “Lest They Be Forgotten” flag, and surround the field with flags following those movements.

Tribute To Our Fallen Ceremony: Saturday, 18 AUG 18, 1900 hrs.
RALLY POINT: Runge’s Mortuary & Crematory, 838 E. Kimberly Rd., Davenport, IA MAP
RALLY TIME: 1745 hrs., PRB 1800-1820 hrs. KSU 1855 hrs. for escort of “Lest They be Forgotten” flag to the Field and establishing our flag lines.

NOTE: This year’s Key Note Speaker is SSg Bobby Henline, US Army (ret), WIA during OIF. SSg Henline served 4 tours in Iraq and received burns over 40% of his body in an IED explosion. He now relays his story through comedy. This will be one fantastic event. Please invite all of your friends to attend.

NOTE: All Active Duty, Reserve or National Guard and Retired personnel in attendance (whether in uniform or not) are being asked to sign in on arrival for participation in Roll Call during the Battlefield Cross portion of our Ceremony. When your names are read, stand and loudly report, “Here Sir.” Much Thanks in Advance.

Thanks to TN for forward

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

A real Thermopylae moment for newspaper editors

300 join slimy hands to condemn Trump (for telling the truth about them)

Pathetic little gossip mongers can’t take being called out

Then there is Trump Voter Derangement Syndrome


Heilemann: ‘Virtually Certain’ 10 Percent of the GOP Would Be OK with Trump Killing Their Parents, Grandparents 

Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” NBC analyst John Heilemann posed the scenario of a pollster asking members of the GOP that think it would be OK for President Donald Trump to kill their parents or grandparents, saying he is “virtually certain” 10 percent would be fine with the president killing . . .

Sgt. Hulka Has A Message For The Newsrooms Of America: ‘Lighten up, Francis’  (excerpt)

You may remember Sgt. Hulka as the man who whipped Pvt. Bill Murray into fine, fighting form in the movie “Stripes.” Murray played a self-absorbed, lazy smart-ass with a chip on his shoulder. In other words, he would have fit right in at CNN.

Yesterday we saw the latest display of newsroom onanism when some 300 newspapers led by The Boston Globe published editorials attacking President Trump over his anti-press rhetoric. You probably didn’t notice this massive, nationwide, coast-to-coast protest because, well, when are these newsrooms not attacking Trump?

. . .

Uh, no. I won’t be “thanking the media” for their “service.” This may be news to the kids down at The Boston Globe, but sitting at your laptop sipping skinny vanilla lattes and sending snarky tweets about Donald Trump’s kids is hardly the same as storming the beaches at Normandy or fighting the battle of Fallujah.

If the military were like the media, every base would be in a five-star hotel, the guns would have no ammo and they would spend all day giving each other medals.

. . .

After decades of water-carrying for the Clintons and bending the knee before Obama, the media want to be seen as defenders of objectivity. The same “reporters” who tried to explain how Obama wasn’t lying when he said “If you like your doctor …” The same “journalists” who fed us Hillary Clinton’s talking points about her Bleach-Bitten email server. These same partisan apparatchiks are now angry that they’re seen as part of the political fight, rather than above it.

Full article here

And of course the “Social Media Masters of the Universe”, Google Twitter Facebook, no bias there

Prager U unfit!?

Shadow Ban: PragerU Reveals Immediate 99.9999% Drop in Facebook Reach

Conservative non-profit group PragerU appears to be facing Facebook censorship, as many recent posts from group are suffering from a 99.9999 percent drop in engagement based on Facebook’s own dashboard. The Social Media Masters of the Universe also pulled down two PragerU videos, which it labeled “hate speech.”

DLH and R Mall


Inconvenient Truth about abortionists and their enablers

  • How many Bishops and parish priests will discuss the movie with the flock, give it the Inconvenient Truth reverence (how many Protestant pastors as well)?

From the trailer and accompanying explanation, the movie, “Gosnell”, is a powerful expose not just of what a smug, vicious killer Gosnell was, but an indictment of the entire pro-abortion movement.  Click on video to watch trailer.

(ed note  Sooo Youtube has made the trailer unavailable.  No doubt in service to the producers who would probably benefit from the repetition. Funny they were so quick to  do this. Wonder why?   You can view it here   https://www.dailywire.com/news/34591/watch-movie-trailer-about-serial-murder-amanda-prestigiacomo    )

It will be a real test of the Catholic Church says it stands for, what the ‘modern’ church stands for, by how aggressively this movie is promoted in parishes across America. (I don’t look for Pope Francis to do much, out of fear he might offend his progressive media promoters).

I also, in part, expect the Church “leaders” (the Holy Bishops) to be fearful of being too aggressive on this issue when they are likely to feel they don’t want to rile the few liberals who may not have been motivated by the “Pennsylvania Report”.

Against the background of Pennsylvania and Pope Francis’ primary interests in climate change, wealth redistribution, and the glories of Marxism, these are very dark days for the Catholic Church.

(Incidentally, wasn’t Cardinal Wuerl a favorite of Pope Francis?)        DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment