Category: Mark A. Hewitt

It's Time for Congress to Pass the 'John McCain Rule'


A year after the election and the Democrats, the media, establishment Republicans are still apoplectic over the inauguration of President Donald Trump. 

It’s obvious they hate him.  When did the media stop looking at Donald Trump as an entertainment figure and begin to loathe him?  True, bat-guano, off-the-charts loathing.  The answer, of course, is when Donald Trump challenged President Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Even today, few things get a liberal Democrat or the media more riled up than questioning President Obama’s qualifications to be president.  It’s almost (but not quite) the same level of hate and disgust as they reserve for climate deniers whom they want to strip their citizenship, stuff in a boxcar, and shuffle them to a gulag.  Conservatives and Republicans have learned to just “not go there.”  No good could ever come from even a rational discussion.

Isn’t the liberal hysteria a case of: They doth protest too much, methinks.  What is the source of their hatred that they would do something like hiring a third party to generate a phony document in order to get back at and unseat the president?

Outside the myth-making and propaganda-making apparatus that is the media, President Obama’s story has rarely been told—without spin.  Why is there even a question—isn’t it “settled science” since a birth certificate was produced?  Wasn’t it all about the birth certificate?  No.

Born in America (Hawaii) of a foreign father (a British subject before Kenya gained their independence) and an American mother, any lawyer in the (now defunct) Immigration & Naturalization Service would have said of the infant, “Per the U.S. Constitution, Little Barack is an American citizen.”  Also, per the father’s country’s constitution, Little Barack is also a British subject or Kenyan citizen—pick one.  That is how constitutions and laws work.

The media were very careful in what they reported.  They purposely hid some facts from the public that would have been upset the political balance because the candidate Obama was a Democrat.  Had the candidate Obama been a Republican, the Democrats and the media would have moved to disqualify him and they would have started with his peculiar birth. 

As a Democrat, no immigration attorney was ever called to the networks to tell the rest of the story of the birth of Barack Obama.  However, had he been a Republican, the networks would have immigration attorneys lined up around Times Square just to make the most salient of points: If the U.S. Constitution confers American citizenship to a child born of an American mother, doesn’t being born to a foreign father also make him a citizen of his father’s country?  The answer is yes.  That is a condition called Dual Nationality.  A dual national is not a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  A Republican Barack Obama would have been ruthlessly disqualified on national television. 

There’s another character in this story who intersects the Cartesian coordinates of Presidents Trump and Obama: Senator John McCain.  Senator McCain won the Republican nomination, Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for President.  If anyone was paying attention, the 2008 race for the Presidency was marred by questions regarding the qualifications of the two nominees.  The Democrats and the media insisted that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen by virtue of being born to an American mother on American soil.  Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state.  

The House of Representatives passed a resolution essentially declaring John McCain, a person born abroad of American parents, was, as stipulated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, a natural born citizen.  Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

In the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain—a person born abroad of American parents—and Senator Obama—a person born of one American parent and one alien parent—had unresolved constitutional eligibility issues.  The issue could only be adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court.  If one of the candidates “with standing” had sued the other candidate to resolve the issue of what does it mean by natural born citizen as articulated in the U.S. Constitution, it would have been interesting politics. 

The money would have been on McCain to win any lawsuit outright.  Courts have devised the “but for” rule.  With McCain, “but for” the fact his parents were stationed overseas on official duties he would have been born in the United States and consequently, a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the United States. 

The Founders specifically wanted to avoid any issue of “split allegiance,” that is a person born of one American parent and one foreign parent, someone who may not have some allegiance to America but may have had a greater allegiance to another country. 

Donald Trump created a firestorm with, “He was a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”  Also, “I supported McCain for president.  He lost and let us down….  I’ve never liked him as much after that.”  No one has ever received an adequate explanation why the pre-president Donald Trump had issues with John McCain. 

I submit Donald Trump cannot and will not forgive John McCain for not taking the obvious constitutionally ineligible Barack Obama to court.  That he was a coward, that he was afraid of being called a racist.  Barack Obama forced John McCain’s hand—either sue me to disqualify me or let it ride and let the voters decide.  When it was time to show leadership in the face of a candidate who played the blood sport of politics, by not taking Barack Obama to court, John McCain simply capitulated and violated his oath of defending the U.S. Constitution. 

Donald Trump will likely never forgive John McCain when the country needed him the most.  John McCain continues to thrust his finger in the air to President Trump.  Donald Trump will likely never forgive Barack Obama for wrecking America.  MAGA, and all that. 

The Left clearly cannot forgive Donald Trump for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  Dozens of articles were published in American Thinker regarding the veracity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  The consensus was that BHO’s birth certificate was a forgery.  Counterfeit.

As time went on, candidate Trump got a little smarter on the whole “birther” thing, threatening to sue Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be President.  Both men had a parent of another country at the time of their birth.  Candidate Trump isn’t afraid of taking anyone to court.

The manufactured “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump is simply a little “payback” for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  The Left will never give up, they will crawl over broken glass and will not rest until they unseat President Trump. 

It’s time to have the Congress pass a law that defines the “natural born citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution as a person born in America of American parents.  Also, a person born abroad of American parents (but for…) qualifies as natural born.  We could call it the John McCain Rule.

A year after the election and the Democrats, the media, establishment Republicans are still apoplectic over the inauguration of President Donald Trump. 

It’s obvious they hate him.  When did the media stop looking at Donald Trump as an entertainment figure and begin to loathe him?  True, bat-guano, off-the-charts loathing.  The answer, of course, is when Donald Trump challenged President Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Even today, few things get a liberal Democrat or the media more riled up than questioning President Obama’s qualifications to be president.  It’s almost (but not quite) the same level of hate and disgust as they reserve for climate deniers whom they want to strip their citizenship, stuff in a boxcar, and shuffle them to a gulag.  Conservatives and Republicans have learned to just “not go there.”  No good could ever come from even a rational discussion.

Isn’t the liberal hysteria a case of: They doth protest too much, methinks.  What is the source of their hatred that they would do something like hiring a third party to generate a phony document in order to get back at and unseat the president?

Outside the myth-making and propaganda-making apparatus that is the media, President Obama’s story has rarely been told—without spin.  Why is there even a question—isn’t it “settled science” since a birth certificate was produced?  Wasn’t it all about the birth certificate?  No.

Born in America (Hawaii) of a foreign father (a British subject before Kenya gained their independence) and an American mother, any lawyer in the (now defunct) Immigration & Naturalization Service would have said of the infant, “Per the U.S. Constitution, Little Barack is an American citizen.”  Also, per the father’s country’s constitution, Little Barack is also a British subject or Kenyan citizen—pick one.  That is how constitutions and laws work.

The media were very careful in what they reported.  They purposely hid some facts from the public that would have been upset the political balance because the candidate Obama was a Democrat.  Had the candidate Obama been a Republican, the Democrats and the media would have moved to disqualify him and they would have started with his peculiar birth. 

As a Democrat, no immigration attorney was ever called to the networks to tell the rest of the story of the birth of Barack Obama.  However, had he been a Republican, the networks would have immigration attorneys lined up around Times Square just to make the most salient of points: If the U.S. Constitution confers American citizenship to a child born of an American mother, doesn’t being born to a foreign father also make him a citizen of his father’s country?  The answer is yes.  That is a condition called Dual Nationality.  A dual national is not a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  A Republican Barack Obama would have been ruthlessly disqualified on national television. 

There’s another character in this story who intersects the Cartesian coordinates of Presidents Trump and Obama: Senator John McCain.  Senator McCain won the Republican nomination, Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for President.  If anyone was paying attention, the 2008 race for the Presidency was marred by questions regarding the qualifications of the two nominees.  The Democrats and the media insisted that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen by virtue of being born to an American mother on American soil.  Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state.  

The House of Representatives passed a resolution essentially declaring John McCain, a person born abroad of American parents, was, as stipulated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, a natural born citizen.  Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

In the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain—a person born abroad of American parents—and Senator Obama—a person born of one American parent and one alien parent—had unresolved constitutional eligibility issues.  The issue could only be adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court.  If one of the candidates “with standing” had sued the other candidate to resolve the issue of what does it mean by natural born citizen as articulated in the U.S. Constitution, it would have been interesting politics. 

The money would have been on McCain to win any lawsuit outright.  Courts have devised the “but for” rule.  With McCain, “but for” the fact his parents were stationed overseas on official duties he would have been born in the United States and consequently, a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the United States. 

The Founders specifically wanted to avoid any issue of “split allegiance,” that is a person born of one American parent and one foreign parent, someone who may not have some allegiance to America but may have had a greater allegiance to another country. 

Donald Trump created a firestorm with, “He was a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”  Also, “I supported McCain for president.  He lost and let us down….  I’ve never liked him as much after that.”  No one has ever received an adequate explanation why the pre-president Donald Trump had issues with John McCain. 

I submit Donald Trump cannot and will not forgive John McCain for not taking the obvious constitutionally ineligible Barack Obama to court.  That he was a coward, that he was afraid of being called a racist.  Barack Obama forced John McCain’s hand—either sue me to disqualify me or let it ride and let the voters decide.  When it was time to show leadership in the face of a candidate who played the blood sport of politics, by not taking Barack Obama to court, John McCain simply capitulated and violated his oath of defending the U.S. Constitution. 

Donald Trump will likely never forgive John McCain when the country needed him the most.  John McCain continues to thrust his finger in the air to President Trump.  Donald Trump will likely never forgive Barack Obama for wrecking America.  MAGA, and all that. 

The Left clearly cannot forgive Donald Trump for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  Dozens of articles were published in American Thinker regarding the veracity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  The consensus was that BHO’s birth certificate was a forgery.  Counterfeit.

As time went on, candidate Trump got a little smarter on the whole “birther” thing, threatening to sue Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be President.  Both men had a parent of another country at the time of their birth.  Candidate Trump isn’t afraid of taking anyone to court.

The manufactured “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump is simply a little “payback” for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  The Left will never give up, they will crawl over broken glass and will not rest until they unseat President Trump. 

It’s time to have the Congress pass a law that defines the “natural born citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution as a person born in America of American parents.  Also, a person born abroad of American parents (but for…) qualifies as natural born.  We could call it the John McCain Rule.



Source link

Kaepernick, the Smithsonian, and the Lessons of History


The lessons of history are being reflected in the collections by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, if only we will look. Two pieces of cloth commemorating protests by African-American athletes have achieved the sacred status of residence there.

At the time of Colin Kaepernick’s seminal protests that birthed the NFL’s kneeling crisis he was on record believing that the United States flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth.

“At the end of the day the flag is just a piece of cloth and I am not going to value a piece of cloth over people’s lives.  That’s just not something I can do, it’s not something I feel morally right doing and my character won’t allow me to do that.”  

Another former football player, Shannon Sharpe, has said much the same thing, declaring the American Flag — the Red, White, and Blue — to be merely a racist “piece of cloth” that “nobody fights for.”  

Mr. Sharpe went further by showing his disdain for America, the American Flag, and for Francis Scott Key’s Star-Spangled Banner.  The full quote from his television show is,


“Well, we know what the anthem was originally written for and who it was written by, okay?  The flag, okay?  We understand what the flag?  What does it represent?  When did this narrative come to be that the military and the police own the flag and only them?  I can go buy a flag and I can hang it up in my backyard.  We need to stop this, Skip.  We need to — the flag is a piece of cloth and nobody fights for a piece of cloth.”

Another piece of cloth, Colin Kaepernick’s jersey, recently became part of the Black Lives Matter collection at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. He sullied his own mess kit with his racist activism — he is a Black Lives Matter icon worthy of inclusion into the Museum of African American History and Culture — and he was not picked up for the current season.

  “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” 

Among the museum’s featured sports items is a track warm-up suit that belonged to gold medalist Tommie Smith, who with teammate John Carlos famously executed the Black Power Salute during the American National Anthem at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.  That event is regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of the modern Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was not very happy with Carlos and Smith, and deemed their domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games.  The president of the IOC ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team.  When the U.S. Olympic Committee refused, IOC President Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team.  The U.S. Olympic Committee capitulated and for their racial protest Tommie Smith and John Carlos were expelled from the Games. 

In other words, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were booted out of the Olympics and they didn’t come back.  They went on, got jobs, and lived a good life as Olympic gold medal winners and world-class athletes. Their fate came from above, the work of autocratic Avery Brundage.

Colin Kaepernick also faced the loss of his athletic career, this time from a group, not an autocrat. But like Smith and Carlos, his gesture spread as an emblem of defiance. Unfortunately for them, the NFL owners did not learn the lesson on power taught by Brundage.

A rational person should come to the conclusion that across the NFL team owners were not very happy with the spectacle of a disruptive influence who should be focused on football, not his own personal anti-America agenda.  There is sufficient evidence that NFL team owners deemed Colin Kaepernick’s political statements and actions disqualified him from receiving another contract.  There is a reasonable expectation that had he received a contract it would be construed as a “green light” to deviate from what is expected of him contractually as a player and enable him to continue his agenda.  Giving him a new contract would be rewarding bad behavior. 

A number of high profile people — professional athletes, Hollywood stars, politicians — claim Colin Kaepernick should be in the NFL.  But for his expression of his First Amendment rights, he’s being blackballed.  By and large, this is not a smart group of people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  As any good corporate lawyer can attest, the government cannot restrict free speech but a corporation can.

Not a single one of this august group of people would come to the microphone and announce that President Trump also has First Amendment rights.  IOC President Brundage had no qualms in booting Olympic gold medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos out of the Olympics for their egregious political behavior.  They were held accountable for their actions.

In 1968, for banning Carlos and Smith, the left railed at IOC President Brundage and threw every scurrilous and racist charge that they could muster at him.  Fifty years later, the left has a death grip on the NFL.  There is a complete lack of leadership by the NFL owners and the commissioner to hold players accountable for their on-field political actions.  If they continue to support players who kneel during the National Anthem as a form of protest against what they perceive as a racist American Flag, I submit they are either leftists or clueless.  Either way, they are killing the Golden Goose.

If you want to play politics, run for office or take up another occupation.  Quit bothering the nice people in the stands who pay to see you.  The NFL should get a clue.  But I’m afraid than’t and consequently, I’ve watched my last game.  The NBA owners, coaches, and commissioner (are even worse than the NFL’s and) need to pay attention, quit the social justice game and focus on basketball and your fans otherwise, you too will have a non-socialist fan base that rejects your political message and walks out on you.  We have other things we could be doing.

The lessons of history are being reflected in the collections by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, if only we will look. Two pieces of cloth commemorating protests by African-American athletes have achieved the sacred status of residence there.

At the time of Colin Kaepernick’s seminal protests that birthed the NFL’s kneeling crisis he was on record believing that the United States flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth.

“At the end of the day the flag is just a piece of cloth and I am not going to value a piece of cloth over people’s lives.  That’s just not something I can do, it’s not something I feel morally right doing and my character won’t allow me to do that.”  

Another former football player, Shannon Sharpe, has said much the same thing, declaring the American Flag — the Red, White, and Blue — to be merely a racist “piece of cloth” that “nobody fights for.”  

Mr. Sharpe went further by showing his disdain for America, the American Flag, and for Francis Scott Key’s Star-Spangled Banner.  The full quote from his television show is,


“Well, we know what the anthem was originally written for and who it was written by, okay?  The flag, okay?  We understand what the flag?  What does it represent?  When did this narrative come to be that the military and the police own the flag and only them?  I can go buy a flag and I can hang it up in my backyard.  We need to stop this, Skip.  We need to — the flag is a piece of cloth and nobody fights for a piece of cloth.”

Another piece of cloth, Colin Kaepernick’s jersey, recently became part of the Black Lives Matter collection at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. He sullied his own mess kit with his racist activism — he is a Black Lives Matter icon worthy of inclusion into the Museum of African American History and Culture — and he was not picked up for the current season.

  “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” 

Among the museum’s featured sports items is a track warm-up suit that belonged to gold medalist Tommie Smith, who with teammate John Carlos famously executed the Black Power Salute during the American National Anthem at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.  That event is regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of the modern Olympic Games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was not very happy with Carlos and Smith, and deemed their domestic political statement unfit for the apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games.  The president of the IOC ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the U.S. team.  When the U.S. Olympic Committee refused, IOC President Brundage threatened to ban the entire U.S. track team.  The U.S. Olympic Committee capitulated and for their racial protest Tommie Smith and John Carlos were expelled from the Games. 

In other words, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were booted out of the Olympics and they didn’t come back.  They went on, got jobs, and lived a good life as Olympic gold medal winners and world-class athletes. Their fate came from above, the work of autocratic Avery Brundage.

Colin Kaepernick also faced the loss of his athletic career, this time from a group, not an autocrat. But like Smith and Carlos, his gesture spread as an emblem of defiance. Unfortunately for them, the NFL owners did not learn the lesson on power taught by Brundage.

A rational person should come to the conclusion that across the NFL team owners were not very happy with the spectacle of a disruptive influence who should be focused on football, not his own personal anti-America agenda.  There is sufficient evidence that NFL team owners deemed Colin Kaepernick’s political statements and actions disqualified him from receiving another contract.  There is a reasonable expectation that had he received a contract it would be construed as a “green light” to deviate from what is expected of him contractually as a player and enable him to continue his agenda.  Giving him a new contract would be rewarding bad behavior. 

A number of high profile people — professional athletes, Hollywood stars, politicians — claim Colin Kaepernick should be in the NFL.  But for his expression of his First Amendment rights, he’s being blackballed.  By and large, this is not a smart group of people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  As any good corporate lawyer can attest, the government cannot restrict free speech but a corporation can.

Not a single one of this august group of people would come to the microphone and announce that President Trump also has First Amendment rights.  IOC President Brundage had no qualms in booting Olympic gold medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos out of the Olympics for their egregious political behavior.  They were held accountable for their actions.

In 1968, for banning Carlos and Smith, the left railed at IOC President Brundage and threw every scurrilous and racist charge that they could muster at him.  Fifty years later, the left has a death grip on the NFL.  There is a complete lack of leadership by the NFL owners and the commissioner to hold players accountable for their on-field political actions.  If they continue to support players who kneel during the National Anthem as a form of protest against what they perceive as a racist American Flag, I submit they are either leftists or clueless.  Either way, they are killing the Golden Goose.

If you want to play politics, run for office or take up another occupation.  Quit bothering the nice people in the stands who pay to see you.  The NFL should get a clue.  But I’m afraid than’t and consequently, I’ve watched my last game.  The NBA owners, coaches, and commissioner (are even worse than the NFL’s and) need to pay attention, quit the social justice game and focus on basketball and your fans otherwise, you too will have a non-socialist fan base that rejects your political message and walks out on you.  We have other things we could be doing.



Source link

Hillary's Espionage and the Statute of Limitations


Alger Hiss was a U.S. State Department official who was accused in 1948 of being a Soviet spy.  Hiss’s indictment stemmed from alleged espionage in the form of secret State Department documents spirited out of Foggy Bottom and into the hands of persons “not authorized to receive” them.  “The Pumpkin Papers” consisted of sixty-five pages of retyped secret State Department documents, four pages in Hiss’s own handwriting of copied State Department cables, and five rolls of developed and undeveloped 35mm film.  

Being charged under the Espionage Act was appropriate for those who obtained any information relating to the national defense and delivered that information to someone who was not authorized to have it.  The former State Department official, Alger Hiss, typed classified information on his office typewriter, slipped the copies into a briefcase, removed classified information from the State Department, and provided all of this to his Soviet handler, who photographed and microfilmed it.  The FBI wished to prosecute Alger Hiss for espionage, but the Justice Department indicated that the statute of limitations had run out, and Hiss was convicted of the lesser crime, perjury, for lying to the FBI.

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton insisted that she “had broken no rules” to conduct government business through the use of a private email service in lieu of the U.S. government’s unclassified system, the Non-Classified Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (abbreviated as NIPRNet) and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet).  These are a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information.

The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars developing, deploying, and protecting its internet protocol router networks to enable authorized government officials to conduct the business of government, properly exchange information, and intelligence, up to and including information classified SECRET, with others in the government (and their contractors) who are authorized and entitled to have it.  Mrs. Clinton purposely avoided using the government’s networks through the use of a homebrew server.  That she found a way to transmit countless classified documents, up to and including special access program material, to her personal server has been made public and is not in question.

The former Democratic presidential candidate disclosed that she and her aides had deleted more than 30,000 emails she deemed “personal.”  For a frame of reference, 30,000 emails printed out represents a stack of 60 reams of paper, a stack 11 feet tall.  When the FBI retrieved the spools of microfilm, the Alger Hiss “Pumpkin Papers” printed out to a stack four and a half feet tall.

Hillary Clinton and the FBI have learned much from the Alger Hiss case.  The American public will not be able to read a transcript of Hillary Clinton’s interview with the FBI, because the bureau did not transcribe it.  Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton was also not placed under oath during the three-and-a-half-hour interview.  When Mrs. Clinton wasn’t placed under oath, she could not be charged with lying to the FBI, as Alger Hiss was eventually charged with and convicted of.

There doesn’t seem to be a race against the clock for the Trump DOJ to charge Mrs. Clinton with espionage.  Alger Hiss escaped prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 due to the statute of limitations having expired.  Also, there was no appetite by the DOJ to charge the former senior State Department official and Democrat lawyer.  Although federal statute USC 3282 provides for a five-year statute of limitation for the vast majority of federal crimes, this statute of limitations does not necessarily stand in the case of espionage prosecution.  It is generally agreed by legal scholars that acts of espionage can be prosecuted for at least ten years after the alleged act.  

I wish Congressman Trey Gowdy could give Attorney General Sessions a lesson on Spoliation of Evidence, with which attorneys fresh out of law school are familiar.  Hillary Clinton’s deletion of 30,000 emails is a classic case.  When parties fail to produce relevant evidence within their span of control, evidence they are otherwise naturally expected to possess, the U.S. legal system allows and even mandates that unfavorable presumptions be drawn against them.  So when some item of relevant evidence – whether documents, physical objects, or data relevant to an ongoing legal matter – is destroyed, discarded, or modified in some way, the U.S. legal system allows us to presume that the missing evidence was unfavorable to that party and allows us to draw conclusions accordingly.  The classic junior high school excuse, “the dog ate my homework,” isn’t valid under the law when the disappearance is suspicious.

Spoliation of evidence is prohibited by an array of laws and regulations.  Also, anyone who destroys relevant evidence or assists in such destruction is subject to criminal prosecution, civil fines, tort liability, exclusion of testimony, and dismissal of claims, as well as adverse evidentiary inferences.  We have little way of knowing if any one of the 33,000 missing documents under Mrs. Clinton’s control could have been used “to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.”

The Trump DOJ should be making all possible efforts to retrieve the missing 33,000 emails and determine once and for all: “was it espionage or was it yoga?”

“You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or for bridesmaids emails,” Congressman Trey Gowdy said in an interview to Fox News.  “When you are using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”

The cabal of President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director James Comey did everything they could to protect Hillary Clinton from the politically explosive charge of espionage when it was obvious to anyone in the intelligence community what she was doing.  There is sufficient and obvious evidence that like the Soviet spy Alger Hiss, Mrs. Clinton should be charged with espionage before the statute of limitations runs out.

Alger Hiss was a U.S. State Department official who was accused in 1948 of being a Soviet spy.  Hiss’s indictment stemmed from alleged espionage in the form of secret State Department documents spirited out of Foggy Bottom and into the hands of persons “not authorized to receive” them.  “The Pumpkin Papers” consisted of sixty-five pages of retyped secret State Department documents, four pages in Hiss’s own handwriting of copied State Department cables, and five rolls of developed and undeveloped 35mm film.  

Being charged under the Espionage Act was appropriate for those who obtained any information relating to the national defense and delivered that information to someone who was not authorized to have it.  The former State Department official, Alger Hiss, typed classified information on his office typewriter, slipped the copies into a briefcase, removed classified information from the State Department, and provided all of this to his Soviet handler, who photographed and microfilmed it.  The FBI wished to prosecute Alger Hiss for espionage, but the Justice Department indicated that the statute of limitations had run out, and Hiss was convicted of the lesser crime, perjury, for lying to the FBI.

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton insisted that she “had broken no rules” to conduct government business through the use of a private email service in lieu of the U.S. government’s unclassified system, the Non-Classified Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (abbreviated as NIPRNet) and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet).  These are a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information.

The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars developing, deploying, and protecting its internet protocol router networks to enable authorized government officials to conduct the business of government, properly exchange information, and intelligence, up to and including information classified SECRET, with others in the government (and their contractors) who are authorized and entitled to have it.  Mrs. Clinton purposely avoided using the government’s networks through the use of a homebrew server.  That she found a way to transmit countless classified documents, up to and including special access program material, to her personal server has been made public and is not in question.

The former Democratic presidential candidate disclosed that she and her aides had deleted more than 30,000 emails she deemed “personal.”  For a frame of reference, 30,000 emails printed out represents a stack of 60 reams of paper, a stack 11 feet tall.  When the FBI retrieved the spools of microfilm, the Alger Hiss “Pumpkin Papers” printed out to a stack four and a half feet tall.

Hillary Clinton and the FBI have learned much from the Alger Hiss case.  The American public will not be able to read a transcript of Hillary Clinton’s interview with the FBI, because the bureau did not transcribe it.  Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton was also not placed under oath during the three-and-a-half-hour interview.  When Mrs. Clinton wasn’t placed under oath, she could not be charged with lying to the FBI, as Alger Hiss was eventually charged with and convicted of.

There doesn’t seem to be a race against the clock for the Trump DOJ to charge Mrs. Clinton with espionage.  Alger Hiss escaped prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 due to the statute of limitations having expired.  Also, there was no appetite by the DOJ to charge the former senior State Department official and Democrat lawyer.  Although federal statute USC 3282 provides for a five-year statute of limitation for the vast majority of federal crimes, this statute of limitations does not necessarily stand in the case of espionage prosecution.  It is generally agreed by legal scholars that acts of espionage can be prosecuted for at least ten years after the alleged act.  

I wish Congressman Trey Gowdy could give Attorney General Sessions a lesson on Spoliation of Evidence, with which attorneys fresh out of law school are familiar.  Hillary Clinton’s deletion of 30,000 emails is a classic case.  When parties fail to produce relevant evidence within their span of control, evidence they are otherwise naturally expected to possess, the U.S. legal system allows and even mandates that unfavorable presumptions be drawn against them.  So when some item of relevant evidence – whether documents, physical objects, or data relevant to an ongoing legal matter – is destroyed, discarded, or modified in some way, the U.S. legal system allows us to presume that the missing evidence was unfavorable to that party and allows us to draw conclusions accordingly.  The classic junior high school excuse, “the dog ate my homework,” isn’t valid under the law when the disappearance is suspicious.

Spoliation of evidence is prohibited by an array of laws and regulations.  Also, anyone who destroys relevant evidence or assists in such destruction is subject to criminal prosecution, civil fines, tort liability, exclusion of testimony, and dismissal of claims, as well as adverse evidentiary inferences.  We have little way of knowing if any one of the 33,000 missing documents under Mrs. Clinton’s control could have been used “to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.”

The Trump DOJ should be making all possible efforts to retrieve the missing 33,000 emails and determine once and for all: “was it espionage or was it yoga?”

“You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or for bridesmaids emails,” Congressman Trey Gowdy said in an interview to Fox News.  “When you are using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”

The cabal of President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director James Comey did everything they could to protect Hillary Clinton from the politically explosive charge of espionage when it was obvious to anyone in the intelligence community what she was doing.  There is sufficient and obvious evidence that like the Soviet spy Alger Hiss, Mrs. Clinton should be charged with espionage before the statute of limitations runs out.



Source link

Take the Politics Out of Classifying Mental Disorders


For almost fifty years, same-gender sex activists have waged an unrelenting war of violence and intimidation on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) during the psychiatric group’s conventions and meetings, repeatedly shouting down the main speakers’ discourse, frequently taking over the stage and microphone, and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1971, homosexual activist Franklin Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention.  At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate.  Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us.  You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”  Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions.  He stated, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” 

Another homosexual activist, Barbara Gittings, exclaimed that “it was never a medical decision – and that’s why I think the action came so fast.  It was a political move.  That’s how far we’ve come in ten years.”  In 1968, the APA published DSM-2, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  In the new manual, homosexuality was removed from the category of sociopathic personality disturbances and placed under the general category of sexual deviations alongside gender identity disorder, sadism, masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, transvestitism, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and more.  In the face of unrelenting attacks on the APA, in 1973, the APA voted to downgrade homosexuality to a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.”  In December 2012, transvestitism and sexual identity disorder were removed. 

The latest victory of the LGBT crowd was celebrated in the media. “The APA announced this month approved changes in its official guide to classifying mental illnesses.”  Among the major announced revisions to the manual, known as the DSM-5 was the elimination of transvestitism and the term “gender identity disorder,” a term “long considered stigmatizing by mental health specialists and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists.”  On December 5, 2012, the Huffington Post proudly ran an article that proclaimed “The End of Transgender as a Mental Illness.”  A couple weeks, later CNN reported, “Being Transgender No Longer a Mental ‘Disorder’ in Diagnostic Manual.” 

There seem to be three players in the game of tug-of-war for the control of the content of the DSM: the activists, the majority of APA members who capitulated and voted to turn a long-standing mental illness into normal behavior, and the minority of APA members who voted to keep the classifications.

Ryan Sorba has chronicled the left’s fifty-year history of activism against the APA, its DSM, and the classification of sexual deviations and disorders.  The winning side has found that violence and intimidation to achieve a political end – the definition of terrorism – has been successful.  As Barbara Gittings said, “now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”  

“Many LGBT activists felt that the gender dysphoria diagnosis could be a powerful legal tool when challenging discrimination in health insurance plans and services.”  The National Center for Transgender Equality said it was pleased with the change.  “It will mark a significant lowering of the stigmatization that many trans people have faced,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the center.  “The changes help make clear that there is nothing pathological about having a transgender identity, and that the role of the mental health profession is to affirm and support individuals in being themselves in the face of societal misunderstanding,” she said.

On the losing side of the APA vote to remove sexual identity disorder from the DSM, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, continues to be cited nationwide for his 2015 article (and update in May 2016) “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution.”  He is succinct and direct, and his arguments are supported by common sense and clinical research.  “Transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.” 

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects.  The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken–it does not correspond with physical reality.  The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

“The transgendered person’s disorder,” said Dr. McHugh, “is in the person’s ‘assumption’ that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature.  It is a disorder similar to a ‘dangerously thin’ person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are ‘overweight.'”

Dr. Paul McHugh is fighting back against the activism and terrorism that saw the left wing of the APA ignore the longstanding fact that sex change is “biologically impossible” and that people who promote “sexual reassignment” surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

“Let’s address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade the idea that the exchange of one’s sex is possible.  Transgendered men do not become women nor do transgendered women become men.  All become feminized men or masculine women, counterfeits and impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’  When the shouting and tumult dies, it is not easy or wide to live in a counterfeit sexual garb.”

The Department of Defense uses the DSM as its source reference for psychiatric diagnoses and metal disorders.  With President Trump’s announcement to void the Obama transgender policy and reinstate the U.S. military ban on transgender people, is this the opening salvo in the fight for control of a reasonable and accurate DSM?

Most Americans have little knowledge of the DSM, its contents, and its implications.  The DSM “offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”  It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.  In the United States the DSM serves as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. 

Ben Shapiro is on target:

It’s cruel to allow a mentally ill person to exploit himself in public, but the political left is happy to do so in order to perpetuate the pseudo-scientific nonsense that a man can magically turn into a woman.  Their agenda: If men and women are the same but for hormone therapy, implants and repeated surgical intervention, then all disparities between male and female can be attributed to societal biases.  And those societally created “gender constructs” can be corrected only by massive government intervention, including re-education of children.  Bruce Jenner is merely a tool in this quest for redefinition of gender.

Common sense and reasonableness have been turned upside-down with the APA’s cowardly “majority decision” to declare in their updated DSM that those people previously diagnosed with a “gender identity disorder” are no longer classified by the medical community as mentally ill.  The National Institutes of Health need to reject the compromised “universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses” and decertify the APA’s DSM-5.  Repeal and replace with the previous version, the DSM-IV.  Take the politics out of classifying mental disorders.

For almost fifty years, same-gender sex activists have waged an unrelenting war of violence and intimidation on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) during the psychiatric group’s conventions and meetings, repeatedly shouting down the main speakers’ discourse, frequently taking over the stage and microphone, and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1971, homosexual activist Franklin Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention.  At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate.  Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us.  You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”  Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions.  He stated, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” 

Another homosexual activist, Barbara Gittings, exclaimed that “it was never a medical decision – and that’s why I think the action came so fast.  It was a political move.  That’s how far we’ve come in ten years.”  In 1968, the APA published DSM-2, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  In the new manual, homosexuality was removed from the category of sociopathic personality disturbances and placed under the general category of sexual deviations alongside gender identity disorder, sadism, masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, transvestitism, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and more.  In the face of unrelenting attacks on the APA, in 1973, the APA voted to downgrade homosexuality to a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.”  In December 2012, transvestitism and sexual identity disorder were removed. 

The latest victory of the LGBT crowd was celebrated in the media. “The APA announced this month approved changes in its official guide to classifying mental illnesses.”  Among the major announced revisions to the manual, known as the DSM-5 was the elimination of transvestitism and the term “gender identity disorder,” a term “long considered stigmatizing by mental health specialists and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists.”  On December 5, 2012, the Huffington Post proudly ran an article that proclaimed “The End of Transgender as a Mental Illness.”  A couple weeks, later CNN reported, “Being Transgender No Longer a Mental ‘Disorder’ in Diagnostic Manual.” 

There seem to be three players in the game of tug-of-war for the control of the content of the DSM: the activists, the majority of APA members who capitulated and voted to turn a long-standing mental illness into normal behavior, and the minority of APA members who voted to keep the classifications.

Ryan Sorba has chronicled the left’s fifty-year history of activism against the APA, its DSM, and the classification of sexual deviations and disorders.  The winning side has found that violence and intimidation to achieve a political end – the definition of terrorism – has been successful.  As Barbara Gittings said, “now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”  

“Many LGBT activists felt that the gender dysphoria diagnosis could be a powerful legal tool when challenging discrimination in health insurance plans and services.”  The National Center for Transgender Equality said it was pleased with the change.  “It will mark a significant lowering of the stigmatization that many trans people have faced,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the center.  “The changes help make clear that there is nothing pathological about having a transgender identity, and that the role of the mental health profession is to affirm and support individuals in being themselves in the face of societal misunderstanding,” she said.

On the losing side of the APA vote to remove sexual identity disorder from the DSM, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, continues to be cited nationwide for his 2015 article (and update in May 2016) “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution.”  He is succinct and direct, and his arguments are supported by common sense and clinical research.  “Transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.” 

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects.  The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken–it does not correspond with physical reality.  The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

“The transgendered person’s disorder,” said Dr. McHugh, “is in the person’s ‘assumption’ that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature.  It is a disorder similar to a ‘dangerously thin’ person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are ‘overweight.'”

Dr. Paul McHugh is fighting back against the activism and terrorism that saw the left wing of the APA ignore the longstanding fact that sex change is “biologically impossible” and that people who promote “sexual reassignment” surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

“Let’s address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade the idea that the exchange of one’s sex is possible.  Transgendered men do not become women nor do transgendered women become men.  All become feminized men or masculine women, counterfeits and impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’  When the shouting and tumult dies, it is not easy or wide to live in a counterfeit sexual garb.”

The Department of Defense uses the DSM as its source reference for psychiatric diagnoses and metal disorders.  With President Trump’s announcement to void the Obama transgender policy and reinstate the U.S. military ban on transgender people, is this the opening salvo in the fight for control of a reasonable and accurate DSM?

Most Americans have little knowledge of the DSM, its contents, and its implications.  The DSM “offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”  It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.  In the United States the DSM serves as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. 

Ben Shapiro is on target:

It’s cruel to allow a mentally ill person to exploit himself in public, but the political left is happy to do so in order to perpetuate the pseudo-scientific nonsense that a man can magically turn into a woman.  Their agenda: If men and women are the same but for hormone therapy, implants and repeated surgical intervention, then all disparities between male and female can be attributed to societal biases.  And those societally created “gender constructs” can be corrected only by massive government intervention, including re-education of children.  Bruce Jenner is merely a tool in this quest for redefinition of gender.

Common sense and reasonableness have been turned upside-down with the APA’s cowardly “majority decision” to declare in their updated DSM that those people previously diagnosed with a “gender identity disorder” are no longer classified by the medical community as mentally ill.  The National Institutes of Health need to reject the compromised “universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses” and decertify the APA’s DSM-5.  Repeal and replace with the previous version, the DSM-IV.  Take the politics out of classifying mental disorders.



Source link

Redefining 'Transgenderism' as Normal Behavior


In December 2012, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced changes to its official guide to classifying mental illnesses. Gender identity disorder had been classified for decades in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental disorder. The new DSM eliminated “gender identity disorder” and replaced it with a new term, “gender dysphoria.” Dysphoria is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is published by the APA and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The most important aspect of the DSM is that it “serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.” There are few parts of America the DSM doesn’t touch or influence. “It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.” The publication of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, now makes APA over $5 million a year, historically totaling over $100 million.

The LGBTQ community lobbied long and hard for the changes in the DSM. Their efforts were successful in that “being transgender” is no longer a “mental disorder” in the DSM. After the change, many LGBT activists felt that the new gender dysphoria diagnosis would be a powerful legal tool when challenging discrimination in health insurance plans and services. The new criteria represent “some forward progress on issues of social stigma and barriers to medical transition care, for those who need it.”

The change in the DSM also means that when gender identity disorder was diagnosed as a mental illness, corrective surgery was not warranted. The appropriate treatment for a mental disorder was therapy. With the new DSM, no longer is gender identity disorder considered a mental disorder, it is now considered a medically-correctable condition, like surgery needed to correct a physical birth defect such as cleft lip and palate.

Those who lobbied for the change in the DSM argued that “nonconformity to birth-assigned roles and victimization from societal prejudice do not constitute mental pathology.” There was more interest in changing the DSM to correct a perceived social injustice than understanding and treating a longstanding mental disorder. “The greater issue, though, may be the larger sociopolitical impact the new category will have,” wrote Dr. Dana Beyer, a public health and LGBT civil rights advocate who also served on the American Psychiatric Association’s working group. Dr. Beyer wrote of their successful lobbying of the APA, in “The End of Transgender as a Mental Illness:” “Our greatest accomplishment on the Working Group was reconceptualizing the state of ‘being trans’ from a mental illness to a normal human variant.”

As a rebuke to the lobbying efforts of LGBTQ activists to change the DSM and redefine mental disorders to achieve acceptance “as a normal human variant,” Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital reiterated that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and “that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.”

“The assumption that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective ‘personal truth.’”

The lesson here is not that a mental disorder is wiped off a list because over time, the population of sexual identity disorders “got healthy” and no longer exhibited the symptoms of transgenderism, as would be done in removing the bald eagle from the endangered species list. No, the lesson here is that if activists lobby long enough and hard enough, they can affect significant numbers of a voting block to get the offending language removed from the DSM.

Will the Left’s/LGBTQ activists’ lobbying of the APA to “end transgenderism as a mental illness” be a pyrrhic victory, subject to being overturned, or will it be the precursor to something more odious? The money is on “mission creep.” Apparently, with enough leverage and a sufficiently good cover story and effective activists, it won’t be long before there is another effort to “reconceptualize the state of ‘being pedo’ from the mental illness of ‘pedophilia’ to another normal human variant.” What if a transgender self-identifies as a wolf or an elf or a dragon? Activist psychiatrists are hard at work laying the ground work for “otherkin.” It’s a difficult issue, one compounded by the fact that many otherkin also identify as transgender themselves.

Dr. Marc D. Feldman, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama, suggests that “otherkin” didn’t seem like a good fit for mental health treatment. “People in advantaged countries like to think of themselves as especially complex, colorful, and special. The otherkin phenomenon certainly reflects this first-world preoccupation. But it isn’t illegal, doesn’t victimize other people, and isn’t a form of mental illness (unless people become delusional about it), so I don’t see a particular need for ‘treatment.’” In other words, if you self-identify as a wolf or an elf or a dragon you’re just “another normal human variant,” like transgenders. That is until you seek employment or demand your insurance company to pay for your conversion to a wolf or an elf or a dragon. See the transgender Dragon Lady and recall DOD’s recent policy change in tattoos. Eva Medusa should be on the next DOD recruiting poster.

The DSM as the U.S. universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses has been corrupted by external pressures. “Various authorities criticized that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual’s content. Many of the members of work groups for the DSM-5 had conflicting interests, including ties to pharmaceutical companies. Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage. General criticism of the DSM-5 ultimately resulted in a petition, signed by many mental health organizations, which called for outside review of DSM-5.”

There’s only so much accomplished APA members, like Dr. Paul R. McHugh, can do against a social justice steamroller. The APA and their DSM have been fully compromised and subject to social engineering, undue influence, and new definitions that are not supported by the evidence.

“‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said Dr. McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

If you thought you had problems with men in your daughter’s locker room or men winning women’s track events, wait until the LGBTQ activists are able to remove their next offending personality disorder, pedophilia, from the DSM. As for transgenders in the military, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said people should decide what sex they are before signing up. “Figure out whether you’re man or a woman before you join. U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill.”

The Trump administration needs to take the APA to court and decertify the compromised DSM as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses in the United States and reject the APA’s guidance and the DSM-5 as the source reference for the Obama policy of transgenders in the military. 

In December 2012, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced changes to its official guide to classifying mental illnesses. Gender identity disorder had been classified for decades in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental disorder. The new DSM eliminated “gender identity disorder” and replaced it with a new term, “gender dysphoria.” Dysphoria is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is published by the APA and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The most important aspect of the DSM is that it “serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.” There are few parts of America the DSM doesn’t touch or influence. “It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.” The publication of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, now makes APA over $5 million a year, historically totaling over $100 million.

The LGBTQ community lobbied long and hard for the changes in the DSM. Their efforts were successful in that “being transgender” is no longer a “mental disorder” in the DSM. After the change, many LGBT activists felt that the new gender dysphoria diagnosis would be a powerful legal tool when challenging discrimination in health insurance plans and services. The new criteria represent “some forward progress on issues of social stigma and barriers to medical transition care, for those who need it.”

The change in the DSM also means that when gender identity disorder was diagnosed as a mental illness, corrective surgery was not warranted. The appropriate treatment for a mental disorder was therapy. With the new DSM, no longer is gender identity disorder considered a mental disorder, it is now considered a medically-correctable condition, like surgery needed to correct a physical birth defect such as cleft lip and palate.

Those who lobbied for the change in the DSM argued that “nonconformity to birth-assigned roles and victimization from societal prejudice do not constitute mental pathology.” There was more interest in changing the DSM to correct a perceived social injustice than understanding and treating a longstanding mental disorder. “The greater issue, though, may be the larger sociopolitical impact the new category will have,” wrote Dr. Dana Beyer, a public health and LGBT civil rights advocate who also served on the American Psychiatric Association’s working group. Dr. Beyer wrote of their successful lobbying of the APA, in “The End of Transgender as a Mental Illness:” “Our greatest accomplishment on the Working Group was reconceptualizing the state of ‘being trans’ from a mental illness to a normal human variant.”

As a rebuke to the lobbying efforts of LGBTQ activists to change the DSM and redefine mental disorders to achieve acceptance “as a normal human variant,” Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital reiterated that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and “that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.”

“The assumption that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective ‘personal truth.’”

The lesson here is not that a mental disorder is wiped off a list because over time, the population of sexual identity disorders “got healthy” and no longer exhibited the symptoms of transgenderism, as would be done in removing the bald eagle from the endangered species list. No, the lesson here is that if activists lobby long enough and hard enough, they can affect significant numbers of a voting block to get the offending language removed from the DSM.

Will the Left’s/LGBTQ activists’ lobbying of the APA to “end transgenderism as a mental illness” be a pyrrhic victory, subject to being overturned, or will it be the precursor to something more odious? The money is on “mission creep.” Apparently, with enough leverage and a sufficiently good cover story and effective activists, it won’t be long before there is another effort to “reconceptualize the state of ‘being pedo’ from the mental illness of ‘pedophilia’ to another normal human variant.” What if a transgender self-identifies as a wolf or an elf or a dragon? Activist psychiatrists are hard at work laying the ground work for “otherkin.” It’s a difficult issue, one compounded by the fact that many otherkin also identify as transgender themselves.

Dr. Marc D. Feldman, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama, suggests that “otherkin” didn’t seem like a good fit for mental health treatment. “People in advantaged countries like to think of themselves as especially complex, colorful, and special. The otherkin phenomenon certainly reflects this first-world preoccupation. But it isn’t illegal, doesn’t victimize other people, and isn’t a form of mental illness (unless people become delusional about it), so I don’t see a particular need for ‘treatment.’” In other words, if you self-identify as a wolf or an elf or a dragon you’re just “another normal human variant,” like transgenders. That is until you seek employment or demand your insurance company to pay for your conversion to a wolf or an elf or a dragon. See the transgender Dragon Lady and recall DOD’s recent policy change in tattoos. Eva Medusa should be on the next DOD recruiting poster.

The DSM as the U.S. universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses has been corrupted by external pressures. “Various authorities criticized that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual’s content. Many of the members of work groups for the DSM-5 had conflicting interests, including ties to pharmaceutical companies. Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage. General criticism of the DSM-5 ultimately resulted in a petition, signed by many mental health organizations, which called for outside review of DSM-5.”

There’s only so much accomplished APA members, like Dr. Paul R. McHugh, can do against a social justice steamroller. The APA and their DSM have been fully compromised and subject to social engineering, undue influence, and new definitions that are not supported by the evidence.

“‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said Dr. McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

If you thought you had problems with men in your daughter’s locker room or men winning women’s track events, wait until the LGBTQ activists are able to remove their next offending personality disorder, pedophilia, from the DSM. As for transgenders in the military, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said people should decide what sex they are before signing up. “Figure out whether you’re man or a woman before you join. U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill.”

The Trump administration needs to take the APA to court and decertify the compromised DSM as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses in the United States and reject the APA’s guidance and the DSM-5 as the source reference for the Obama policy of transgenders in the military. 



Source link

199134_5_.png

How the Left Hijacked the American Psychiatric Association and Normalized Personality Disorders


While the Pentagon directive to allow transgender men and women to join the military faces an indefinite delay this may be a good time to review just how America was ensnared with this Obama-era policy.

The evidence is clear—the American Left succeeded in lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to eliminate some of the sexual identity disorders from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). 

Most Americans have little knowledge of the DSM, its contents, and its implications.  The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and “offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”  It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.  In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.  The Department of Defense uses the DSM as its source reference for psychiatric diagnoses and metal disorders. 

First published in 1968, DSM-II, Section 3, Part V, listed Personality Disorders and Certain other Non-psychotic Mental Disorders.  In this section, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder.  Under pressure from the Left and gay-rights groups, the APA compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it with the kinder and gentler descriptor: “sexual orientation disturbance” for people “in conflict with” their sexual orientation.  

In 1987 homosexuality was struck from the DSM by a majority vote of the APA members.  In 2012, transvestitism, was also eliminated from the DSM-5 (fifth edition), replaced gender identity disorder and further redefined and softened the previous personality disorder into gender dysphoria.  The change in terminology removed all implication and designation that transvestitism was a mental illness.  Dysphoria is defined as the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.  

With transvestitism finally voted out of the DSM, in June 2015 LGBT rights groups had one urgent agenda item for President Barack Obama: End the ban on transgender people serving in the military.  It wasn’t that transgender people were straining red rope barriers, lining up at recruiting stations to serve in the military in a rush of abject patriotism; no, acceptance into the military allowed transgenders free government-paid sexual reassignment surgery.  No longer was transvestitism considered a mental disorder, it was now considered a medically correctable condition, like a cleft lip and palate. 

Medically-correctable conditions like cleft lip and palate correct physical birth defects.  Sexual identity disorders are not physical birth defects but mental defects.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital continues to stress that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. 

“The assumption that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective ‘personal truth,’” said Dr. McHugh.  As a result, some states—California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor.”  Politics rule over common sense.


Dr. McHugh also said, “The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings ‘spontaneously lose those feelings’ over time.  Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were ‘satisfied’ with the operation ‘but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.’”

With the updated DSM-5, the APA voted against Dr. McHugh and his side, common sense, and biology. 

The APA was once the leader in psychiatric medicine—now it too is a joke; compromised beyond measure.  For the APA and the DSM, it is clear.  If you get enough votes, you can negate, soften, redefine, and ultimately legitimize any of the mental disorders.  With enough votes you can turn a disorder into a disability or by elimination, like a magician’s trick and a snap of the fingers, “you’ve just become plain normal.”  Now, the new normal is confused boys who can spontaneously “identify” as girls and confused girls who can spontaneously “identify” as boys.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh and thousands of other rational members of the APA know that sex change is “biologically impossible” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. 

The problems with the updated DSM are well known and extensive.  It is obvious the DSM as the U.S. universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses has been corrupted by external pressures. 

From Wikipedia: 

“Various authorities criticized that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual’s content.  Many of the members of work groups for the DSM-5 had conflicting interests, including ties to pharmaceutical companies.  Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage.  General criticism of the DSM-5 ultimately resulted in a petition, signed by many mental health organizations, which called for outside review of DSM-5.”  

The DSM, as the United States’ universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses, has been fully compromised and subject to the whims of an out of control Left-majority APA.  Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”  The personality disordered wing of the Left is voting the most odious personality disorders off the pages of the latest version of the DSM, not because the science is there.  There is nothing like being able to vote themselves a document to declare them to be of sound mind and body.  

The American military used to go through great lengths to recruit, train, and employ men and women “of sound mind and body.”  However, “there is no standardized mental assessment for people trying to enter the military.  A bill before Congress may finally direct the U.S. military to screen individuals for mental issues before they are allowed to enlist.  If the DSM remains DOD’s universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses, the sexual identity disorders, such as transgenderism, will not be considered as mental disorders.  What will they test?  The DSM is the standard reference.

The Trump Administration needs to decertify the compromised DSM as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses in the United States and reject its authority as the source reference for the Obama policy of transgenders in the military.  To do anything less is collaborating and promoting mental disorders. 

 

Breitbart:  Trump Defense Department Delays Obama’s Transgender Push in the Military. 


“The Pentagon is working to delay the July 1 deadline to fully implement the Obama-initiated policy that one year ago lifted the ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military.” 

While the Pentagon directive to allow transgender men and women to join the military faces an indefinite delay this may be a good time to review just how America was ensnared with this Obama-era policy.

The evidence is clear—the American Left succeeded in lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to eliminate some of the sexual identity disorders from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). 

Most Americans have little knowledge of the DSM, its contents, and its implications.  The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and “offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”  It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers.  In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.  The Department of Defense uses the DSM as its source reference for psychiatric diagnoses and metal disorders. 

First published in 1968, DSM-II, Section 3, Part V, listed Personality Disorders and Certain other Non-psychotic Mental Disorders.  In this section, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder.  Under pressure from the Left and gay-rights groups, the APA compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it with the kinder and gentler descriptor: “sexual orientation disturbance” for people “in conflict with” their sexual orientation.  

In 1987 homosexuality was struck from the DSM by a majority vote of the APA members.  In 2012, transvestitism, was also eliminated from the DSM-5 (fifth edition), replaced gender identity disorder and further redefined and softened the previous personality disorder into gender dysphoria.  The change in terminology removed all implication and designation that transvestitism was a mental illness.  Dysphoria is defined as the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.  

With transvestitism finally voted out of the DSM, in June 2015 LGBT rights groups had one urgent agenda item for President Barack Obama: End the ban on transgender people serving in the military.  It wasn’t that transgender people were straining red rope barriers, lining up at recruiting stations to serve in the military in a rush of abject patriotism; no, acceptance into the military allowed transgenders free government-paid sexual reassignment surgery.  No longer was transvestitism considered a mental disorder, it was now considered a medically correctable condition, like a cleft lip and palate. 

Medically-correctable conditions like cleft lip and palate correct physical birth defects.  Sexual identity disorders are not physical birth defects but mental defects.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital continues to stress that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. 

“The assumption that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective ‘personal truth,’” said Dr. McHugh.  As a result, some states—California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor.”  Politics rule over common sense.


Dr. McHugh also said, “The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings ‘spontaneously lose those feelings’ over time.  Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were ‘satisfied’ with the operation ‘but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.’”

With the updated DSM-5, the APA voted against Dr. McHugh and his side, common sense, and biology. 

The APA was once the leader in psychiatric medicine—now it too is a joke; compromised beyond measure.  For the APA and the DSM, it is clear.  If you get enough votes, you can negate, soften, redefine, and ultimately legitimize any of the mental disorders.  With enough votes you can turn a disorder into a disability or by elimination, like a magician’s trick and a snap of the fingers, “you’ve just become plain normal.”  Now, the new normal is confused boys who can spontaneously “identify” as girls and confused girls who can spontaneously “identify” as boys.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh and thousands of other rational members of the APA know that sex change is “biologically impossible” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. 

The problems with the updated DSM are well known and extensive.  It is obvious the DSM as the U.S. universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses has been corrupted by external pressures. 

From Wikipedia: 

“Various authorities criticized that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual’s content.  Many of the members of work groups for the DSM-5 had conflicting interests, including ties to pharmaceutical companies.  Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage.  General criticism of the DSM-5 ultimately resulted in a petition, signed by many mental health organizations, which called for outside review of DSM-5.”  

The DSM, as the United States’ universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses, has been fully compromised and subject to the whims of an out of control Left-majority APA.  Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”  The personality disordered wing of the Left is voting the most odious personality disorders off the pages of the latest version of the DSM, not because the science is there.  There is nothing like being able to vote themselves a document to declare them to be of sound mind and body.  

The American military used to go through great lengths to recruit, train, and employ men and women “of sound mind and body.”  However, “there is no standardized mental assessment for people trying to enter the military.  A bill before Congress may finally direct the U.S. military to screen individuals for mental issues before they are allowed to enlist.  If the DSM remains DOD’s universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses, the sexual identity disorders, such as transgenderism, will not be considered as mental disorders.  What will they test?  The DSM is the standard reference.

The Trump Administration needs to decertify the compromised DSM as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses in the United States and reject its authority as the source reference for the Obama policy of transgenders in the military.  To do anything less is collaborating and promoting mental disorders. 

 



Source link

199011_5_.jpg

Dual Citizenship and the Strange Case of the Election of Barack Obama


Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.  Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.  This principle contrasts with jus soli.

Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.  As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.  Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.  

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen.  Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act.  

Some argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” describes a category of citizenship distinct from that described by the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this was discussed during the constitutional convention of 1787.  While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase “natural born citizen” as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement. 

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Judge Pryor (she was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Obama safely in office in 2012, and confirmed by the Senate in 2014 )is correct in one regard, “that a person born…of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved,” presumably in a court of law.  That is because just as “persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization” do not qualify as natural born, neither should a person born of one American and one alien parent, qualifiy as natural born.  This latter circumstance is the definition and the qualifications of a person having the rights of nationality in two countries, or dual citizenship.

On the issue of dual citizenship, based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.  The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).  In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it.  There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists.  

Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens.  In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other.  

Barack Obama was born a dual national, with dual citizenship with rights of nationality in two countries.  As such, he may well have been disqualified as a natural born citizen and ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States, per Article Two of the United States Constitution. Senator Ted Cruz, aware of the hazards of dual citizenship, renounced any claim to Canadian citizenship owing to his birth there in the 2008 election cycle.  Barack Obama’s failure to do so in 2008 could well have been because he knew that the issue would never be aggressively pursued.

The media and Washington Democrats extensively colluded to interfere in the 2008 Presidential Election by supporting a likely ineligible candidate, one with obvious dual citizenship rights of nationality in two countries.  By ignoring his rights of dual citizenship, the media never fully vetted the U.S. constitutional qualifications of candidate Obama but rather redefined jus soli — born in the United States — as natural born.  It was on all the networks, therefore, it must have been the truth.

The media and Washington Democrats knew this was the critical issue of the election, that it should have been adjudicated in the courts, not on the nine o‘clock news or the front page of the Times or the Post.  Hundreds of Americans were maliciously branded as “racist” for questioning the obvious questionable credentials of the candidate and dual national Barack Obama. 

No matter how vigorous or successful the media was, racism wasn’t the problem in vetting candidate Obama.  It was a brilliant disinformation campaign waged by the real manipulators of the truth — the media and Washington Democrats — who influenced our 2008 election.  The media completely controlled the narrative and kept the issue out of the courts.  Senator McCain, who had standing to challenge in court, should have taken Senator Obama to the Supreme Court.

I can understand the angst and hatred by the media and Washington Democrats toward President Trump.  As the Russian collusion narrative disintegrates, Donald Trump is showing America just what liars the media are, that they are seasoned propagandists and masters of disinformation.  They are not acting in the best interests of America or Americans but their own self interests. 

Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.  Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.  This principle contrasts with jus soli.

Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.  As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.  Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.  

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen.  Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act.  

Some argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” describes a category of citizenship distinct from that described by the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this was discussed during the constitutional convention of 1787.  While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase “natural born citizen” as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement. 

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Judge Pryor (she was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Obama safely in office in 2012, and confirmed by the Senate in 2014 )is correct in one regard, “that a person born…of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved,” presumably in a court of law.  That is because just as “persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization” do not qualify as natural born, neither should a person born of one American and one alien parent, qualifiy as natural born.  This latter circumstance is the definition and the qualifications of a person having the rights of nationality in two countries, or dual citizenship.

On the issue of dual citizenship, based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.  The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).  In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it.  There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists.  

Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens.  In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other.  

Barack Obama was born a dual national, with dual citizenship with rights of nationality in two countries.  As such, he may well have been disqualified as a natural born citizen and ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States, per Article Two of the United States Constitution. Senator Ted Cruz, aware of the hazards of dual citizenship, renounced any claim to Canadian citizenship owing to his birth there in the 2008 election cycle.  Barack Obama’s failure to do so in 2008 could well have been because he knew that the issue would never be aggressively pursued.

The media and Washington Democrats extensively colluded to interfere in the 2008 Presidential Election by supporting a likely ineligible candidate, one with obvious dual citizenship rights of nationality in two countries.  By ignoring his rights of dual citizenship, the media never fully vetted the U.S. constitutional qualifications of candidate Obama but rather redefined jus soli — born in the United States — as natural born.  It was on all the networks, therefore, it must have been the truth.

The media and Washington Democrats knew this was the critical issue of the election, that it should have been adjudicated in the courts, not on the nine o‘clock news or the front page of the Times or the Post.  Hundreds of Americans were maliciously branded as “racist” for questioning the obvious questionable credentials of the candidate and dual national Barack Obama. 

No matter how vigorous or successful the media was, racism wasn’t the problem in vetting candidate Obama.  It was a brilliant disinformation campaign waged by the real manipulators of the truth — the media and Washington Democrats — who influenced our 2008 election.  The media completely controlled the narrative and kept the issue out of the courts.  Senator McCain, who had standing to challenge in court, should have taken Senator Obama to the Supreme Court.

I can understand the angst and hatred by the media and Washington Democrats toward President Trump.  As the Russian collusion narrative disintegrates, Donald Trump is showing America just what liars the media are, that they are seasoned propagandists and masters of disinformation.  They are not acting in the best interests of America or Americans but their own self interests. 



Source link

'It's Our Job to Tell You What to Think'


On Wednesday morning, Feb. 22, Mika Brzezinski, one of the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” shared her fears that President Trump was trying to undermine the media

He is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts.  And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think.  And that, that is our job.”

Let me rephrase: It is the media’s unspoken job to control what people think.  How very Pravda!  

She let slip the unspoken truth that, yes, it is the media’s “job” to “control exactly what people think.”  I was certain NBC’s mission statement would articulate the real professional purpose of their organization.  NBC News President Deborah Turness offered her mission statement buzzwords: Substance, Uplift and Connection.  This translates to SUC for short.  I’m from a military background and some acronyms are too perfect for words.

“It’s our job to tell you what to think.”  I had heard this concept before, about 15 years ago when I was a student at the Naval War College.  The school would frequently bring in guest speakers with strong or different views that conflicted or challenged the assembly of military and senior civil servant students.  In 2002-3, there was a war going on.  The United States had just rolled into Iraq.  The media were apoplectic, out for blood, just like today, with the sitting president. 

On these occasions, many of the guest speakers were rabid anti-war, anti-President Bush, or even anti-America.  The President of the War College said the purpose of these meetings and discussion panels was simple: regardless of your political views, as senior officers and senior civil servants, you will be exposed to people in very high positions who may have significantly different political views and you have to learn how or find ways to work with them. 

I attended one of the small discussion groups.  One of those guys on the panel was from Al-Jazeera.  He asserted, “Al-Jazeera only reported the truth.”  I guffawed loudly enough that the Al-Jazeera man shot out of his chair and challenged me with, words to the effect, “You’ve never even seen Al-Jazeera, how can you judge something you haven’t even seen?”

I countered with, “Al-Jazeera, like ABC and CBS and the New York Times, is a business.  Your reporting is approved by a senior editor who has an agenda.  He has a bias.  News that paint Muslims in a bad light is not reported.  He gets to choose what may be released and how news is reported.  But above all, Al-Jazeera’s reporting must be approved by a government official.  Case in point, EgyptAir Flight 800 was purposely flown into the water.  The cockpit voice recorder proved the relief pilot pushed the nose of the Boeing 767 into the Atlantic while he recited an Islamic prayer some thirteen times.  Al-Jazeera reported that it was a mechanical malfunction that brought down the airliner because a Muslim man would never take his own life.  That the relief pilot was heroically trying to save the aircraft.” 

His response was, “You don’t know what you are talking about.  It’s our job to report the facts accurately so you know what to think.”

Of course it is the media’s job to tell us what to think.  They are the Fourth Estate.  And they must be perfect.  The term is ascribed to Louis XVI, in May 1789, when he summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the “Estates General.”  The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy.  The Second Estate, three hundred nobles.  The Third Estate, six hundred commoners.  After the French Revolution, Sir Edmund Burke is credited with saying, as he looked up at the Press Gallery within the House of Commons, “Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.” 

Once upon a time, the press, the media, the Fourth Estate may have been “more important than them all” as they reported on the corruption and injustices of the branches of government.  But today’s media is at war with the Trump administration and they are doing their damndest to tell us what to think.  And their activities resemble that of a Fifth Column.  Every day brings new evidence that today’s media are engaged in clandestine fifth column activities involving journalistic acts of sabotage, media malfeasance, blatant disinformation or media espionage conducted by secret sympathizers. 

President Trump is engaged in a vicious counter-terrorism war with the media and the Democratic Party.  Yes, terrorism for what is terrorism but violence or intimidation to achieve some political mean?  The Democrat Party, aided and abetted by their army of fifth column “journalists,” are waging a clandestine war against the heart and soul of America. 

There was never a legitimate fifth column to undermine Obama or his administration.  However, with only two months into his 208-month administration, what we see today under the Trump Administration is a de facto fifth column enterprise dedicated to the destruction of the new President.  The media today are aggressively committed and organized against President Trump.  They are vehemently against the President who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  A free press that continues to operate as a chorus line of Obama pompom girls are still committed and organized to undermine the U.S. Constitution, and dedicated to destroy the rule of law, is an obvious enemy of the American people. 

Today we call it fake news.  It was all fake news during the Obama Administration but there was a difference.  The media had transformed into something different, worse, and more insidious.  They became active Obama collaborators.  They stopped conducting themselves as the fourth estate.  The media didn’t report on the most obvious corrupt administration in U.S. history, or the failures of Obama and his administration.  Instead, numerous reports indicated Obama had one the most scandal free administration ever.  The media and Obama were hand-in-glove, committed and organized to undermine the U.S. Constitution, destroy the rule of law, and attack common sense and American culture. 

Enter the Sixth Column.  The Trump Administration is the resistance movement. 

With the election of Donald Trump, the media continues to mock the President’s claim that his election is a “movement.”  President Trump is correct—his election is a movement, a resistance movement.  The Trump Administration and a sixth column—the men and women who voted for him rejected creeping socialism and the mandated surrender of their freedoms—are in a life-and-death struggle with the entrenched and collaborating fourth estate with the former Obama Administration holdovers and its lefty reporters who insist it is their job to tell us what to think. 

We can expect substantial continual conflicts between the remnants of the Obama Administration and its compromised media collaborators against the Trump Administration and his resistance movement members. 

Today’s media are not reporting the news; they are making it up.  Fake news by fake Americans.  They push any cock and bull story that could damage President Trump.  They seek his political death by a 1,000 cuts. 

I used to be accused of being part of the vast right wing conspiracy.  Today I’m part of President Trump’s Sixth Column.   Resist we much!  

 

Mark is the author of Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know. 

On Wednesday morning, Feb. 22, Mika Brzezinski, one of the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” shared her fears that President Trump was trying to undermine the media

He is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts.  And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think.  And that, that is our job.”

Let me rephrase: It is the media’s unspoken job to control what people think.  How very Pravda!  

She let slip the unspoken truth that, yes, it is the media’s “job” to “control exactly what people think.”  I was certain NBC’s mission statement would articulate the real professional purpose of their organization.  NBC News President Deborah Turness offered her mission statement buzzwords: Substance, Uplift and Connection.  This translates to SUC for short.  I’m from a military background and some acronyms are too perfect for words.

“It’s our job to tell you what to think.”  I had heard this concept before, about 15 years ago when I was a student at the Naval War College.  The school would frequently bring in guest speakers with strong or different views that conflicted or challenged the assembly of military and senior civil servant students.  In 2002-3, there was a war going on.  The United States had just rolled into Iraq.  The media were apoplectic, out for blood, just like today, with the sitting president. 

On these occasions, many of the guest speakers were rabid anti-war, anti-President Bush, or even anti-America.  The President of the War College said the purpose of these meetings and discussion panels was simple: regardless of your political views, as senior officers and senior civil servants, you will be exposed to people in very high positions who may have significantly different political views and you have to learn how or find ways to work with them. 

I attended one of the small discussion groups.  One of those guys on the panel was from Al-Jazeera.  He asserted, “Al-Jazeera only reported the truth.”  I guffawed loudly enough that the Al-Jazeera man shot out of his chair and challenged me with, words to the effect, “You’ve never even seen Al-Jazeera, how can you judge something you haven’t even seen?”

I countered with, “Al-Jazeera, like ABC and CBS and the New York Times, is a business.  Your reporting is approved by a senior editor who has an agenda.  He has a bias.  News that paint Muslims in a bad light is not reported.  He gets to choose what may be released and how news is reported.  But above all, Al-Jazeera’s reporting must be approved by a government official.  Case in point, EgyptAir Flight 800 was purposely flown into the water.  The cockpit voice recorder proved the relief pilot pushed the nose of the Boeing 767 into the Atlantic while he recited an Islamic prayer some thirteen times.  Al-Jazeera reported that it was a mechanical malfunction that brought down the airliner because a Muslim man would never take his own life.  That the relief pilot was heroically trying to save the aircraft.” 

His response was, “You don’t know what you are talking about.  It’s our job to report the facts accurately so you know what to think.”

Of course it is the media’s job to tell us what to think.  They are the Fourth Estate.  And they must be perfect.  The term is ascribed to Louis XVI, in May 1789, when he summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the “Estates General.”  The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy.  The Second Estate, three hundred nobles.  The Third Estate, six hundred commoners.  After the French Revolution, Sir Edmund Burke is credited with saying, as he looked up at the Press Gallery within the House of Commons, “Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.” 

Once upon a time, the press, the media, the Fourth Estate may have been “more important than them all” as they reported on the corruption and injustices of the branches of government.  But today’s media is at war with the Trump administration and they are doing their damndest to tell us what to think.  And their activities resemble that of a Fifth Column.  Every day brings new evidence that today’s media are engaged in clandestine fifth column activities involving journalistic acts of sabotage, media malfeasance, blatant disinformation or media espionage conducted by secret sympathizers. 

President Trump is engaged in a vicious counter-terrorism war with the media and the Democratic Party.  Yes, terrorism for what is terrorism but violence or intimidation to achieve some political mean?  The Democrat Party, aided and abetted by their army of fifth column “journalists,” are waging a clandestine war against the heart and soul of America. 

There was never a legitimate fifth column to undermine Obama or his administration.  However, with only two months into his 208-month administration, what we see today under the Trump Administration is a de facto fifth column enterprise dedicated to the destruction of the new President.  The media today are aggressively committed and organized against President Trump.  They are vehemently against the President who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  A free press that continues to operate as a chorus line of Obama pompom girls are still committed and organized to undermine the U.S. Constitution, and dedicated to destroy the rule of law, is an obvious enemy of the American people. 

Today we call it fake news.  It was all fake news during the Obama Administration but there was a difference.  The media had transformed into something different, worse, and more insidious.  They became active Obama collaborators.  They stopped conducting themselves as the fourth estate.  The media didn’t report on the most obvious corrupt administration in U.S. history, or the failures of Obama and his administration.  Instead, numerous reports indicated Obama had one the most scandal free administration ever.  The media and Obama were hand-in-glove, committed and organized to undermine the U.S. Constitution, destroy the rule of law, and attack common sense and American culture. 

Enter the Sixth Column.  The Trump Administration is the resistance movement. 

With the election of Donald Trump, the media continues to mock the President’s claim that his election is a “movement.”  President Trump is correct—his election is a movement, a resistance movement.  The Trump Administration and a sixth column—the men and women who voted for him rejected creeping socialism and the mandated surrender of their freedoms—are in a life-and-death struggle with the entrenched and collaborating fourth estate with the former Obama Administration holdovers and its lefty reporters who insist it is their job to tell us what to think. 

We can expect substantial continual conflicts between the remnants of the Obama Administration and its compromised media collaborators against the Trump Administration and his resistance movement members. 

Today’s media are not reporting the news; they are making it up.  Fake news by fake Americans.  They push any cock and bull story that could damage President Trump.  They seek his political death by a 1,000 cuts. 

I used to be accused of being part of the vast right wing conspiracy.  Today I’m part of President Trump’s Sixth Column.   Resist we much!  

 

Mark is the author of Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know. 



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

What African Airports Taught Me about Obamacare


In April 2008, I was in Monrovia, Liberia to determine if the company for which I was working wanted to take on the management of the airport, Roberts Field.  After 15 years of civil war, the airport – a former PanAm station where 707s and 747s stopped for fuel and food prepared by French chefs before traveling to South Africa or the Middle East – was just returning to operation.  As a Space Shuttle emergency landing strip, Roberts Field had the longest runway in Africa. 

During a two-week site survey, the director general of civil aviation asked our team of former pilots, a business development director, and architects and engineers to sit in on a couple of presentations to rehabilitate the old terminal building.  Other former government buildings in and around Monrovia were also shells, as destitute Liberians had stripped bombed buildings for whatever they could sell to scrap yards.  The two-story structure had been gutted down to the concrete floors and columns during the war.  

A Nigerian firm was first.  The leader took one look at the six white people sitting around the conference table and challenged the director general’s choice of evaluators.  “African brothers should support African brothers!”  The director general ignored the none too subtle and coded racist attack with “You can either give your presentation, or you can go.”

My team won the work, developed a master plan for the airport, and hired a U.S.-trained airport manager, and within a year, Delta Airlines began service between Monrovia and New York City, one of the former PanAm routes. 

During a 2010 Corporate Council on Africa convention in Washington, D.C., I delivered a 15-minute presentation on what it took to take Roberts Field, an airport that had been effectively dismantled and shut down, to a post-war “functional and safe” airport with Transportation Security Administration approvals for nonstop service between Liberia and America.  Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was the first one off a Delta 767 in the first inaugural flight.  After my presentation, over thirty representatives from African nations, from Angola to Zimbabwe, lined up to talk to me to see when I could visit their countries and see what we could do for their capital airports. 

Every country representative we met, from ambassadors to trade representatives, expressed a need and a desire for our services.  Who wouldn’t want a U.S. or European air carrier to service his country?  I must have made it sound easy.  (It was not.) 

We looked at other African airports.  We racked and stacked them according to some not so arbitrary metrics – primarily, how accommodating the government was.  A significant part of the success in the Liberian airport was directly attributable to the personal involvement of the chief executive.  Our program manager reported directly to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf on a monthly basis.  We were a welcome partner in the success of the airport.  It was a necessary arrangement to control the rampant corruption at the airport that we had found during our site visit. 

I was in no hurry to make the embassy connection to seek official sponsorship and entry into Zimbabwe.  However the situation was at their airport, I recommended to my leadership we reject any consideration of rehabilitating or managing Zimbabwe’s airport primarily because of its land confiscation policies that targeted white people.  The Obama administration had issues with the Zimbabwe government’s confiscation policies, but only on the basis that “confiscation of white-owned farms is contributing to the growing hunger crisis in the region.”  Three thousand white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe were subject to a “fast track” seizure program to redistribute farmland to landless blacks.

In our airport planning meetings, I learned that South Africa was contemplating a similar property confiscation law, and any consideration to evaluate their airports was also rejected.  I had plenty of potential work to consider without trying to involve the company in a potential race war on another continent. 

Nothing says, “White people are not welcome here” like a racist law designed to use the power of government to take a white person’s stuff.  It was pretty sobering revelation that if you were Caucasian, the government of Zimbabwe (and soon South Africa) could unilaterally confiscate your property – and everything in it or on it – without compensation, solely for redistribution to blacks.

Zimbabwe’s law was an obvious “payback” law.  The government of President Robert Mugabe effectively said, “You white people stole our land, we’re taking our lands back, and now we’re giving your land to landless black people.  White people are persona non grata in Zimbabwe.  Leave while you can.”  Government-backed land seizures were “chaotic and often violent” and resulted in numerous deaths and serious human rights abuses.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, how can anyone not see that the government of President Barack Obama channeled Robert Mugabe and effectively said, “The majorities have insurance, we’re taking your insurance, and now we’re giving your insurance to minorities and even illegal aliens”?  “And we are going to charge the IRS to make you pay for it whether you like it or not.”  Obamacare was a racist-motivated, government-backed insurance seizure, just as if the government came into your house, cracked open your home safe, stole your insurance policy, and charged you many times what your policy used to cost. 

In Zimbabwe, the government led a racially driven land grab solely for redistribution to blacks.  The South African black-majority government will also lead a racially driven land grab solely for redistribution to blacks.  In America, Obama led a racially driven insurance grab solely for redistribution to minorities and illegals. 

Republicans in Congress should vigorously reject this racist-motivated law and repeal it with extreme prejudice. 

Mark A. Hewitt is the author of the espionage thrillers Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know.

In April 2008, I was in Monrovia, Liberia to determine if the company for which I was working wanted to take on the management of the airport, Roberts Field.  After 15 years of civil war, the airport – a former PanAm station where 707s and 747s stopped for fuel and food prepared by French chefs before traveling to South Africa or the Middle East – was just returning to operation.  As a Space Shuttle emergency landing strip, Roberts Field had the longest runway in Africa. 

During a two-week site survey, the director general of civil aviation asked our team of former pilots, a business development director, and architects and engineers to sit in on a couple of presentations to rehabilitate the old terminal building.  Other former government buildings in and around Monrovia were also shells, as destitute Liberians had stripped bombed buildings for whatever they could sell to scrap yards.  The two-story structure had been gutted down to the concrete floors and columns during the war.  

A Nigerian firm was first.  The leader took one look at the six white people sitting around the conference table and challenged the director general’s choice of evaluators.  “African brothers should support African brothers!”  The director general ignored the none too subtle and coded racist attack with “You can either give your presentation, or you can go.”

My team won the work, developed a master plan for the airport, and hired a U.S.-trained airport manager, and within a year, Delta Airlines began service between Monrovia and New York City, one of the former PanAm routes. 

During a 2010 Corporate Council on Africa convention in Washington, D.C., I delivered a 15-minute presentation on what it took to take Roberts Field, an airport that had been effectively dismantled and shut down, to a post-war “functional and safe” airport with Transportation Security Administration approvals for nonstop service between Liberia and America.  Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was the first one off a Delta 767 in the first inaugural flight.  After my presentation, over thirty representatives from African nations, from Angola to Zimbabwe, lined up to talk to me to see when I could visit their countries and see what we could do for their capital airports. 

Every country representative we met, from ambassadors to trade representatives, expressed a need and a desire for our services.  Who wouldn’t want a U.S. or European air carrier to service his country?  I must have made it sound easy.  (It was not.) 

We looked at other African airports.  We racked and stacked them according to some not so arbitrary metrics – primarily, how accommodating the government was.  A significant part of the success in the Liberian airport was directly attributable to the personal involvement of the chief executive.  Our program manager reported directly to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf on a monthly basis.  We were a welcome partner in the success of the airport.  It was a necessary arrangement to control the rampant corruption at the airport that we had found during our site visit. 

I was in no hurry to make the embassy connection to seek official sponsorship and entry into Zimbabwe.  However the situation was at their airport, I recommended to my leadership we reject any consideration of rehabilitating or managing Zimbabwe’s airport primarily because of its land confiscation policies that targeted white people.  The Obama administration had issues with the Zimbabwe government’s confiscation policies, but only on the basis that “confiscation of white-owned farms is contributing to the growing hunger crisis in the region.”  Three thousand white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe were subject to a “fast track” seizure program to redistribute farmland to landless blacks.

In our airport planning meetings, I learned that South Africa was contemplating a similar property confiscation law, and any consideration to evaluate their airports was also rejected.  I had plenty of potential work to consider without trying to involve the company in a potential race war on another continent. 

Nothing says, “White people are not welcome here” like a racist law designed to use the power of government to take a white person’s stuff.  It was pretty sobering revelation that if you were Caucasian, the government of Zimbabwe (and soon South Africa) could unilaterally confiscate your property – and everything in it or on it – without compensation, solely for redistribution to blacks.

Zimbabwe’s law was an obvious “payback” law.  The government of President Robert Mugabe effectively said, “You white people stole our land, we’re taking our lands back, and now we’re giving your land to landless black people.  White people are persona non grata in Zimbabwe.  Leave while you can.”  Government-backed land seizures were “chaotic and often violent” and resulted in numerous deaths and serious human rights abuses.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, how can anyone not see that the government of President Barack Obama channeled Robert Mugabe and effectively said, “The majorities have insurance, we’re taking your insurance, and now we’re giving your insurance to minorities and even illegal aliens”?  “And we are going to charge the IRS to make you pay for it whether you like it or not.”  Obamacare was a racist-motivated, government-backed insurance seizure, just as if the government came into your house, cracked open your home safe, stole your insurance policy, and charged you many times what your policy used to cost. 

In Zimbabwe, the government led a racially driven land grab solely for redistribution to blacks.  The South African black-majority government will also lead a racially driven land grab solely for redistribution to blacks.  In America, Obama led a racially driven insurance grab solely for redistribution to minorities and illegals. 

Republicans in Congress should vigorously reject this racist-motivated law and repeal it with extreme prejudice. 

Mark A. Hewitt is the author of the espionage thrillers Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know.



Source link

The Power of Bogus Documents


I worked for the U.S. Border Patrol in the late 1990s.  One summer day, my driver and I headed for a tiny town outside Houston to look at some above-ground fuel storage tanks.  We took a “G-ride,” an unmarked Crown Victoria.

When my driver, wearing a green polo shirt with a USBP emblem over his left breast, got out of the vehicle, the complete labor force of the tank manufacturing company ran away from that green shirt.  The CEO of the company was standing on the deck as we arrived.  He turned white at the spectacle of his employees running away from us.  With arms raised as though he were being arrested, his comments were, “I swear, they all have good I-9s.”  It was obvious that his employees’ immigration documents were probably bogus.

The U.S. Border Patrol would dispatch “intelligence officers” to cross the border and investigate the counterfeit document mills that could be found in the Mexican border towns.  Some USBP agents or highway patrol troopers would stumble upon someone near the border who possessed multiple identity cards – driver’s licenses, primarily.  The photographs were the same as the person who was stopped, but the names and birthdates were all different.  The quality of those bogus driver’s licenses was amazing; if the owner hadn’t been stopped with a fistful of bogus licenses, he likely would have walked or driven away with just a ticket or a warning or nothing.

During that same timeframe, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) embarked to issue a new and improved “green card.”  Gone was the paper “flimsy.”  Hard and sturdy like a driver’s license, with all of the “hard to counterfeit” safeguards built into the card, the Form I-551 Permanent Resident “green card” became the new standard official identity card.

I recall that it was during a Friday supervisors’ meeting that we learned that the expected roll-out of the new state-of-the-art I-551 had been delayed by a week or so.  Over the weekend, U.S. Border Patrol Agents had apprehended several people with the new I-551s trying to cross the border.  An INS clerk in the U.S. who was learning to process green card applications had made up a batch of the new cards for some paying customers in Mexico. 

During my short time with the Border Patrol, I learned that most illegal aliens possess one or more counterfeit identity documents, and the Minnesota driver’s license was the bogus document of choice for illegal aliens.  Someone’s identity was stolen usually from a headstone in a cemetery.  I learned that counterfeit documents are big business in Mexico.  Making them is an expensive undertaking and enterprise requiring special card-making machines, official “blanks,” and software.

I asked, “Who could be doing this?  Who would or could sponsor these activities?”  I suspected that some disaffected government employee from the Mexican government was behind the bogus identity cards.  U.S. Border Patrol agents informed me that it wasn’t the Mexican government or the drug cartels or some civil service clerk who had infiltrated the INS.

It was the first time I had ever heard of the name George Soros. 

A few years later, I attended the Naval War College.  In one of my elective classes, we had a guest lecturer whose expertise was counterfeit documents.  He passed around two European identity cards, similar in size to today’s U.S. passport card or Form I-551 or an international driver’s license.  The two cards were identical in every way, and he challenged the class to determine which one was real and which one was fake.  The class was made up of military members or civil servants; none of us was trained in the manufacture or detection of counterfeit documents. 

When we all gave up, our guest speaker held up a card and said, “This is the one I made.”  He dropped the card onto the wooden lectern, and it landed, as expected, with a dull, audible “click.”  He then raised the other card and said, “This is the real one.”  He dropped it, and when it struck the hard wooden surface, it “rang like a bell.”  He admitted that he had failed to thoroughly replicate the bogus identity card and had to go back to the drawing board to determine the unique molecular characteristics of the special authentic card.

Like currencies, today’s identity cards and passports employ an amazing array of incredible technologies to thwart counterfeiters and deter the use of bogus documents.

Our discussion diverted to the very real problem of government agencies – in this case, those of Afghanistan and Iraq (it was 2003, and the U.S. was in Afghanistan and had recently pushed into Baghdad) – or rogue individuals with access to the equipment to issue official government documents (passports and transit visas, primarily) to senior members of the opposition parties as well as those people with money who were fleeing American forces. 

The rank-and-file Iraqi servicemembers were generally not knowledgeable of or did not have access to such technology and the sensitive document-generating machine systems.  Bogus papers were a gap in the country’s national security systems that could be easily exploited.  Baathists and Taliban leaders escaping Iraq or Afghanistan with superb counterfeit documents were able to expedite their departure, traversing border crossing points or “ports of entry.”  A Marine Corps lance corporal manning a Baghdad or Kabul checkpoint and verifying the identity documents of Iraqis or Afghanis fleeing their past or their hometown is not going to know if an “official-looking” document is legitimate or not. 

Bogus or counterfeit documents, those that appear genuine in order to achieve some (sometimes political) goal (enter a country illicitly, establish a new identity, travel under an assumed name, underage teens to buy liquor or enter a club, convey an approved political narrative, etc.), have become something of a science project for me.  They are everywhere.  There are simple reasons Democrats do not want photo IDs to vote: bogus people with bogus papers.

When it comes to looking for counterfeit documents, you have to know what you are looking for.  In 2008, my company won a contract to run a major airport in Africa.  We trained our security employees in what to look for regarding counterfeit or stolen documents.  On our very first day of operation, we stopped 19 Chinese men from boarding a jet because of fraudulent or stolen passports.  The word got out that the airport screening process was too hard, and the number of fake passports seen dropped substantially.

Today, a good-looking passport may be the ticket out of the hellhole that is Syria, but it is still a terrorist’s best way to enter a country.  Syrian refugees have been given preferential treatment to enter Europe, leading other migrants and members of ISIS to try to pass themselves off as Syrians.  Syrian passports were found near the bodies of two men responsible for the Paris attacks.  German customs officers recently seized packages containing Syrian passports.

Fake passports have become a valuable and necessary commodity.  Those with the means and wherewithal can easily acquire documents that establish a new identity, and those documents facilitate entry into a country.  In the USA, for illegal border crossers with bogus documents that establish that they are “other than Mexican,” all they have to do is utter the word “asylum,” and U.S. Border Patrol agents will take them before a federal magistrate, who, in turn, gives them a “notice to appear.”  These asylum seekers are turned loose to find an asylum attorney within ten days.  Guess how many actually appear with a lawyer.

The problem of counterfeit passports and bogus identity documents is huge and growing.  And America has been left more vulnerable under the Obama administration.

“Extreme vetting” is really the effort to root out the fake identity documents that are freely traded on the black market and are sold to asylum seekers, refugees, and terrorist groups.  President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering the United States is a good first step. 

Mark A. Hewitt is the author of the espionage thrillers Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know.

I worked for the U.S. Border Patrol in the late 1990s.  One summer day, my driver and I headed for a tiny town outside Houston to look at some above-ground fuel storage tanks.  We took a “G-ride,” an unmarked Crown Victoria.

When my driver, wearing a green polo shirt with a USBP emblem over his left breast, got out of the vehicle, the complete labor force of the tank manufacturing company ran away from that green shirt.  The CEO of the company was standing on the deck as we arrived.  He turned white at the spectacle of his employees running away from us.  With arms raised as though he were being arrested, his comments were, “I swear, they all have good I-9s.”  It was obvious that his employees’ immigration documents were probably bogus.

The U.S. Border Patrol would dispatch “intelligence officers” to cross the border and investigate the counterfeit document mills that could be found in the Mexican border towns.  Some USBP agents or highway patrol troopers would stumble upon someone near the border who possessed multiple identity cards – driver’s licenses, primarily.  The photographs were the same as the person who was stopped, but the names and birthdates were all different.  The quality of those bogus driver’s licenses was amazing; if the owner hadn’t been stopped with a fistful of bogus licenses, he likely would have walked or driven away with just a ticket or a warning or nothing.

During that same timeframe, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) embarked to issue a new and improved “green card.”  Gone was the paper “flimsy.”  Hard and sturdy like a driver’s license, with all of the “hard to counterfeit” safeguards built into the card, the Form I-551 Permanent Resident “green card” became the new standard official identity card.

I recall that it was during a Friday supervisors’ meeting that we learned that the expected roll-out of the new state-of-the-art I-551 had been delayed by a week or so.  Over the weekend, U.S. Border Patrol Agents had apprehended several people with the new I-551s trying to cross the border.  An INS clerk in the U.S. who was learning to process green card applications had made up a batch of the new cards for some paying customers in Mexico. 

During my short time with the Border Patrol, I learned that most illegal aliens possess one or more counterfeit identity documents, and the Minnesota driver’s license was the bogus document of choice for illegal aliens.  Someone’s identity was stolen usually from a headstone in a cemetery.  I learned that counterfeit documents are big business in Mexico.  Making them is an expensive undertaking and enterprise requiring special card-making machines, official “blanks,” and software.

I asked, “Who could be doing this?  Who would or could sponsor these activities?”  I suspected that some disaffected government employee from the Mexican government was behind the bogus identity cards.  U.S. Border Patrol agents informed me that it wasn’t the Mexican government or the drug cartels or some civil service clerk who had infiltrated the INS.

It was the first time I had ever heard of the name George Soros. 

A few years later, I attended the Naval War College.  In one of my elective classes, we had a guest lecturer whose expertise was counterfeit documents.  He passed around two European identity cards, similar in size to today’s U.S. passport card or Form I-551 or an international driver’s license.  The two cards were identical in every way, and he challenged the class to determine which one was real and which one was fake.  The class was made up of military members or civil servants; none of us was trained in the manufacture or detection of counterfeit documents. 

When we all gave up, our guest speaker held up a card and said, “This is the one I made.”  He dropped the card onto the wooden lectern, and it landed, as expected, with a dull, audible “click.”  He then raised the other card and said, “This is the real one.”  He dropped it, and when it struck the hard wooden surface, it “rang like a bell.”  He admitted that he had failed to thoroughly replicate the bogus identity card and had to go back to the drawing board to determine the unique molecular characteristics of the special authentic card.

Like currencies, today’s identity cards and passports employ an amazing array of incredible technologies to thwart counterfeiters and deter the use of bogus documents.

Our discussion diverted to the very real problem of government agencies – in this case, those of Afghanistan and Iraq (it was 2003, and the U.S. was in Afghanistan and had recently pushed into Baghdad) – or rogue individuals with access to the equipment to issue official government documents (passports and transit visas, primarily) to senior members of the opposition parties as well as those people with money who were fleeing American forces. 

The rank-and-file Iraqi servicemembers were generally not knowledgeable of or did not have access to such technology and the sensitive document-generating machine systems.  Bogus papers were a gap in the country’s national security systems that could be easily exploited.  Baathists and Taliban leaders escaping Iraq or Afghanistan with superb counterfeit documents were able to expedite their departure, traversing border crossing points or “ports of entry.”  A Marine Corps lance corporal manning a Baghdad or Kabul checkpoint and verifying the identity documents of Iraqis or Afghanis fleeing their past or their hometown is not going to know if an “official-looking” document is legitimate or not. 

Bogus or counterfeit documents, those that appear genuine in order to achieve some (sometimes political) goal (enter a country illicitly, establish a new identity, travel under an assumed name, underage teens to buy liquor or enter a club, convey an approved political narrative, etc.), have become something of a science project for me.  They are everywhere.  There are simple reasons Democrats do not want photo IDs to vote: bogus people with bogus papers.

When it comes to looking for counterfeit documents, you have to know what you are looking for.  In 2008, my company won a contract to run a major airport in Africa.  We trained our security employees in what to look for regarding counterfeit or stolen documents.  On our very first day of operation, we stopped 19 Chinese men from boarding a jet because of fraudulent or stolen passports.  The word got out that the airport screening process was too hard, and the number of fake passports seen dropped substantially.

Today, a good-looking passport may be the ticket out of the hellhole that is Syria, but it is still a terrorist’s best way to enter a country.  Syrian refugees have been given preferential treatment to enter Europe, leading other migrants and members of ISIS to try to pass themselves off as Syrians.  Syrian passports were found near the bodies of two men responsible for the Paris attacks.  German customs officers recently seized packages containing Syrian passports.

Fake passports have become a valuable and necessary commodity.  Those with the means and wherewithal can easily acquire documents that establish a new identity, and those documents facilitate entry into a country.  In the USA, for illegal border crossers with bogus documents that establish that they are “other than Mexican,” all they have to do is utter the word “asylum,” and U.S. Border Patrol agents will take them before a federal magistrate, who, in turn, gives them a “notice to appear.”  These asylum seekers are turned loose to find an asylum attorney within ten days.  Guess how many actually appear with a lawyer.

The problem of counterfeit passports and bogus identity documents is huge and growing.  And America has been left more vulnerable under the Obama administration.

“Extreme vetting” is really the effort to root out the fake identity documents that are freely traded on the black market and are sold to asylum seekers, refugees, and terrorist groups.  President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering the United States is a good first step. 

Mark A. Hewitt is the author of the espionage thrillers Special Access, Shoot Down, and No Need to Know.



Source link