%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  "Putting on the Game Face" |
  This blog is a doorway into the mind of Percy Goodfellow. Don't be shocked at the lost boys of Namby-Pamby Land and the women they cavort with. Watch as his caricatures blunder about the space between audacious hope and the wake-up calls of tomorrow. Behold their scrawl on the CRT, like graffitti on a subway wall. Examine it through your own lens...Step up my friends, and separate the pepper from the rat poop. Welcome to my abode...the armpit of yesterday, the blinking of an eye and a plank to the edge of Eternity. Note: This blog is my journal. I've no interest in persuading anyone to adopt my views. What I write is whatever happens to interest me when I start pounding the keys. |
| Draining the Swamp is no easy task. Trump inherited a raft of Obama holdovers who take pride in the term "Resistance." This is their strategy and they fancy themselves akin to the partisan fighters that attacked the Germans behind the lines in World War 2. It is a fierce, no holds barred, scorched earth policy of resisting Donald Trump at every turn, regardless of the cost. For three years the nation has witnessed the results. If Trump stands for one thing the Democrats take the opposite point of view. As a result of getting to get to pick the High Ground, the President has left his opponents with the uphill fight. The Democrats have been forced to take sides on issues in ways that are contrary to common sense. For example take the war with Isis. Isis was defeated and Trump wanted to bring the troops home. The Democrats opposed his actions and got public opinion to sway towards leaving some troops behind to "Guard the Oilfields." This gave the President the high ground. In the event things go sour in Syria, he can say...."I tried to bring our soldiers back but the Democrats and the SWAMP would have no part of it..." I could make the same case for the WALL... or regarding the Dreamers. If Trump says THIS the Democrats say THAT. THIS is choosing the common sense point of view and leaving the Left to argue THAT, the less logical opposing view. We are now about to enter Phase 3. Phase 1 was the Muller Report and Phase 2 was getting Impeachment rolling in the House of Representatives. ASSUMING that the Democrats vote Impeachment and send the Articles to the Senate for trial this can't help but backfire. In the Senate the Republicans will be holding the high cards and have just suffered about as unfair a process in the House that can be possibly imagined. Adam Schiff has used every backhanded trick he can think of to create the narrative he hopped to sell the American People. Nothing Changed! The smart money says that the Democrats have gone too far to back down and will vote and forward the articles before Christmas. Common sense would dictate that they slam on the breaks, vote censure, and then try passing some bipartisan legislation before 2020. Right now the Republicans have a long string of successes and the Democrats have nothing to show for the past three years. If the Democrats think this will soon be over, they're drinking cool-aid. This will drag on in the Senate right up until the election. While the Horowitz Report will not live up to Republican expectations, it will be sufficient to get the ball rolling and the Durham report will follow with criminal indictments. What will begin as a raw wound will give way to the pus of eight years of Obama rule. Like a Stage Play the final act will come to a climax and the curtain will come down on an era that most Americans would rather forget. Just remember where this opposing view strategy has led the Democrats. The irony is that it is not to late for the lemmings to stop their hell bent rush to destruction... The irony is they won't. What will play out in the Senate is a vindication of everything we all know and fear will otherwise be swept under the carpet. An impeachment trial in the Senate will open all those boxes with the sealed lids and show the American People the truth of what happened under the Obama Administration. There'll be enough bad news to remove the last shreds of doubt. |
| The Horowitz report will be a "Nothing Burger." The "Blockbuster" finding will be that a low level FBI functionary, who was since fired, messed with the supporting documents used to get a FISA warrant. However, his actions did nothing to change the outcome of the underlying process. Everything else that transpired between the Department of Justice, FBI and the courts was completely above board and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, while having partisan leanings, did nothing to allow partisanship to interfere with their work as dedicated public servants. "Fox News: Durham has reportedly taken up Horowitz’s findings concerning the falsified FISA document, meaning the ex-FBI lawyer who made the changes is now under criminal investigation." So it appears the DOJ has decided to throw the ex-FBI lawyer under the bus and hope this will lay the matter to rest..., into believing this was the full extent of the wrongdoing... and that someone is finally being held accountable. In essence, the Horowitz Report will toss President Trump a crumb and tell him, "...be glad and rejoice in it." |
| Well, the Impeachment Hearings have come to a close in the House of Representatives. Everybody has gone home for the Thanksgiving Recess. The Democrats muddied up President Trump a bit, but not a whole lot. For those who watched, seeing the process unfold was more educational than anything else. It showed we had some human beings doing the work of State. I got to see some impressive ambassadors, some lower level functionaries (with an over stated sense of self importance), a political appointee who loved the spotlight, and some ambassadors who were in over their heads. The partisanship of the State Department was evidenced as people not really required to testify, waved their hands wildly, begging to be included, claiming the only reason for their presence was a subpoena. The whole "Circus" stemmed over a phone call between the new Ukrainian head of state, and President Trump where it was alleged that Trump used his power as chief Executive to try and get Yershenko to launch an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. Trump claimed the call was "Perfect" and the Democrats called foul, saying it was a gloved ultimatum and an abuse of power. The Democrats felt that their case had been made, while the Republicans felt it had not. The polling showed that public opinion had not shifted much in the favor of the Democrats and indeed might have backfired. The Republicans claimed that the Committee Chair, Adam Schiff, had stacked the procedural deck and unfairly tainted the proceeding, insisting on a process for taking depositions, and selecting witnesses that tipped the fact finding in favor of the Democrats. Despite all their shenanigans, the Democrats failed to make their argument, which rested heavily on hearsay and emotional appeals. At best they showed that the President had a political motive for wanting to get Joe Biden's past political involvement brought into the spotlight. There is no doubt that during the Obama Administration, Biden played an important role in Ukraine policy making and that his son Hunter, got a lucrative job on the board of an Energy company that paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars. In summary, the Democrats cried foul and the Republicans pushed back, defending the President's actions. Now that the first part is over where does all this go next? I'm not sure that Nancy Pelosi ever really wanted to go down the impeachment road. She yielded to pressure from her left leaning base and finally relented on a wait and see, two step process. The first phase was a fact finding exercise that would be used to justify a later vote on phase 2 which would vote on forwarding actual articles of impeachment. Now that the first part is over she is facing crunch time. Shown below is the problem she faces: Definition: Determine the best way to proceed on impeachment. Facts: The 2020 election is less than a year away The Democrats will be facing a formidable Republican opponent, Donald Trump Trump's base is solidly behind him. He has a long list of accomplishments and the economy is booming. The Democrats have not made as much political capital, in the past three years, focusing instead on hamstringing the current administration. Polls show impeachment is not working for the Democrats. Doubling down on impeachment adds liability to 2020 Election hopes. Assumptions: These are critical to Democrat's strategy. Trump cannot be defeated in 2020 by any of the candidates currently in the running. The best that can be hoped, if Trump does not commit a huge gaff, for is to hang onto the House of Representatives. The next Presidential window of opportunity for the Democrats will be in 2024, when Trump will be no longer eligible to run. Courses of Action: 1. Table impeachment and focus on solidifying a majority in the House of Representatives in 2020. Claim that the facts show the President abused his position but that there was not enough evidence to warrant impeachment. Vote to "Censure" President Trump. Focus on passing as much "Bipartisan" legislation as possible between now and 2020. 2. Put the matter in the hands of the members. Let them vote their conscience on wether to proceed or not. 3. Forward Articles of Impeachment and insist that all the Democrats get on the bandwagon. |
| Marie Yovanovitch typifies the type of resistance that President Trump faces at the State Department. During the hearings she was asked to relate a question she was provided when prepping to go before her confirmation hearing as Ambassador to Ukraine. The question was essentially, how she should answer if asked about her knowledge of the Bidens, specifically Hunter's appointment to the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The answer she was prepped to give was essentially that she knew nothing and suggest the board members refer the matter to the Vice President's office if they wanted to know more. What this shows is that the Biden involvement with Ukraine was known and that it represented a serious conflict of interest. While she was coached to answer as described above it is not clear the question was ever raised. What this showed was that bureaucrats in the State Department were very concerned that the subject might come up and Ambassador Yovanovitch was instructed on how to best respond. At the very least this should have raised a red flag in her mind as this was clearly a very sensitive matter and that Vice President Biden was vulnerable to claims of nepotism and conflict of interest. It happens that Yovanovitch was aware of the simmering controversy as she and earlier witnesses related in their testimony. So she knows this is an issue and that it has generated serious concerns at the State Department. Biden does not make matters any easier when he goes on a recorded video tape declaring how he personally intervened in getting a Ukrainian Prosecutor fired after threatening to withhold over a billion dollars in aid. The prosecutor, it is alleged, was closing in on a bribery scheme that involved Biden and his son. Now anyone who thinks the State Department is not partisan is delusional. It is without a doubt the most partisan of all the cabinet agencies. The Agency is a bastion of anti-Trump sentiment. So as Ambassador Yovanovitch continued in her testimony she quotes a truism that nobody can really argue with. It was penned in 1948 by Arthur Vandenberg a Republican senator from Michigan. He immortalized a line, "We must stop politics at the water's edge." What this means is that once diplomats go beyond the shores of the United States, they need to show a united foreign policy and not allow internal political differences to create a divided front. Anyone who read "The Godfather" should be familiar with this concept and the dangers it embodies. The question we have to ask is why Vandenberg felt compelled to utter these immortal words? He felt obliged, because he knew partisanship was a real problem and wanted it to stop overseas. Unfortunately, these things never really stop once they become part of an organization's culture. Once imbedded in the DNA at the State Department, "partisanship" has in the past and continues to rear its ugly head. The quote of Vandenberg by Yovanovitch is more a cover than a guiding principle. The Democrats are desperate for two reasons.. First, they want to protect Biden because he was a corrupt Vice President and could well become their nominee in 2020. Second because The State Department and the Ukrainian Embassy were up to their neck in partisan shenanigans. The evidence is out there, Rudy Giuliani is closing in and those political operatives from the State Department are desperate to cover it up. Ironically the strategy they are using is projecting onto President Trump the sins of the Obama administration. It is not an easy sell. Obama said, "Let them eat Cake." Trump delivered on providing Javelin missiles. The Democrats have a ready ally at the State Department and there is no shortage of partisan diplomats they can roll out as the need arises. Words of Wisdom that sound so very wise, often paint a false picture. It is an understatement to say a "Soft Coup" has been underway to unseat a duly elected president since Trump won in 2016. The consequences of this unrelenting partisan battle have been ongoing ever since. Marie Yovanovitch was raised in the culture and cannot deny its influence. Now the real question becomes, was Yoanoavitch an active participant or unaware of details of the cover operation to protect Joe and Hunter Biden and the larger pervasive plot to destroy the Trump Administration. Now much has been said in these impeachment proceedings about the use of a "regular" and an"irregular channel in the carrying out of foreign policy. What this means is, that the regular channel is the one that the embassy uses in its day to day work and the irregular channel is located one tier up at the State Department. In most Embassies Ambassadors have more control that Marie had because most countries overseas have not used their intelligence agencies to influence an American election. Normally Ambassadors exercise more foreign policy influence. In the past, however, the Ukrainian embassy was used for partisan purposes. It became a clearing house for anti-Trump propaganda. The Ukrainians were desperate, and fighting for their lives. They needed United States political support and Foreign aid. They were forced to do some bad things to get it. They allowed their Intelligence Services to be highjacked to influence a foreign election. As a consequence their behavior has been used to fuel corruption claims that tarnish an already, less than stellar, reputation. There are however, Embassies, which because of the scope of their work and the potential for affecting higher level foreign policy that get a dose of the irregular channel. In this channel, ambassadors, higher in the hierarchy, monitor and sometimes intervene in what the lower level Ambassador sees as "regularly" their turf and who resent getting pushed out of the way in matters of policy. Most of the time this doesn't happen, but in sensitive postings like Ukraine it does. Without a doubt Ambassador Yovanovitch resented being cut out of the loop in certain operational matters but had to accept it as a fact of life. She should have realized that her ambassadorship was going to get plenty of oversight regardless, of what she thought was best. So these are the two channels, termed the "regular" and "irregular." However, for Yovanovitch there were two additional channels she had to cope with. To understand how these worked the layman has to understand how a staff/cabinet, at least in theory, is supposed to work. The idea of a staff surely existed in some form or another prior to Frederick The Great. However, this is where the idea solidified and took the form we now know. It was a military staff that was conceived because the scope and complexity of modern war had gone beyond the capability of most commanders to manage. So generals were given some assistance in areas such as Personnel, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics and Command and Signal. The reason for a staff was to serve two functions. First it would help the commander decide what was best, and second, once that was determined to insure the optimal course of action was implemented. It turned out that a staff was much more effective, in most cases, then the average general and so leaders trained in the art of war, who went on to serve in political life, often brought this staff idea with them. What was termed a staff in military parlance became Cabinet in political speak. Move on now to how "Best" is determined. It is a process attributed to the Greeks for determining the optimal solution to a problem. It begins with defining the problem in broad terms, so the solution window allows for a range of options. Next Facts and Assumptions are identified. Next, discreet courses of action are proposed. These courses are examined to determine which one is optimal. Finally the best one is picked or elements of one or more amalgamated into what is felt to be the ideal approach. This understanding brings us back to what Ambassador Yovanovitch described as a "regular" and an "irregular channel." Actually there are four channels in the case involving the Ukrainian Embassy. The third channel is the President's independent assessment and a forth is a Trusted Advisor's Channel. In the problem solving process, all four of these are happening routinely and in concert with one another. For this to be ignored and overlooked by the State Department's "Fact Witnesses" is a startling omission. The Iranian Embassy under President Obama, saw Valery Jarrett plop right down in the middle of things. Robert E. Lee depended on his trusted advisor, General Stonewall Jackson for his opinion and input. It is not uncommon for a President to seek advice outside himself or his staff. It has plenty of precedent and a staff/cabinet , hates to see it used. Ambassador Yovanovitch would have naturally preferred the regular channel. She would have been a bit irritated by the irregular channel because it meant operational decision-making of was being pulled up to a higher State Department level. She would have been deeply concerned to have the President exercising his decision-making authority and would have deplored the fact that the President's trusted advisor was becoming deeply involved in the process. That is "Tough Grits." What she was relegated to was little more than the Embassy administrator performing the housekeeping duties of every day Embassy life. This was not what she'd signed up for, this was not what her thirty-three of experience had prepared her for and it irked her when her input was not helping shape the operational policy making. At this point understand that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had been regulated to the role of what in the military would be described as the Headquarter's Company Commander. Company command is a necessary ticket punch but operational or Line Companies are the better career assignment postings. It was not a role she relished. Her superiors felt that given her inexperience as a high profile Ambassador, she needed help. It wasn't that she was a bad ambassador and probably would have been fine at some low profile third world embassy but she would definitely need some help in the Ukraine. She was not a strong presence as soon became apparent. As the testimony showed, she failed to stand up for the President when OPEDS about her boss began appearing. She should have stepped in and squelched that kind of talk. General McCrystal was fired by President Obama for pretty much the same thing. If you recall, his staff was referring to VP Biden as "Bite Me." She did nothing..... "NO No, No? she answered when questioned if she asserted herself as these slurs began surfacing. It wasn't that she did anything wrong but rather that she was not taking the proactive action to make things right, that is to shut down these divisive partisan expressions, bandied about "beyond our shores" and nip them in the bud. In the questioning she seemed clueless of why she'd been sacked. She repeatedly asked her superiors what she'd done wrong. She was expected to have the President's back but due to her upbringing in the culture of the State Department that thought probably never entered her mind. So it is no surprise that nobody could point to anything specifically wrong in her tenure but then again it appeared she was running a "Loose Ship." Second, there was the issue that not only was she not proactively supporting her boss but it was being said that she was "Badmouthing" him. One allegation was that she told a counterpart that he need not worry about President Trump because he would soon be impeached." Perhaps this is untrue, but somebody at the embassy was doing it and the buck, as with McCrystal, stops at the ambassador's desk. However, even this would not have gotten her fired. The more serious allegation was that she submitted a list naming people who were not to be prosecuted. Now again maybe she didn't personally do this but it appears that, at the very least, somebody on her staff did. It goes something like this..... "Listen Mr. Ukrainian, President's like Trump come and go but we are always going to be here. If you know what's best you better take heed..." The story goes that Ambassador Yovanovitch was a point-woman in the war against corruption and when you jump into that fray you are liable to "Piss people off." I submit to you that the Ambassador was no such threat to the corrupt powers to be in Ukraine. The closest she came to that was a session to commemorate a real fallen Ukrainian hero, who did in fact "Piss Off" some powerful people in the war on corruption. Most Ukrainian officials probably can' t even tell you who Yovanovitch is. What "pissed off" these "Corrupt Officials" was the sheer duplicity, the double standard of what was going on under the table. On the one hand the Embassy was badmouthing President Trump and Ukrainian corruption while with the other was back channelling, "do not prosecute" names of various high profile Individuals. I submit that it was the sheer hypocrisy that was "Pissing People Off." The Embassy went to great lengths to disparage Ukrainian officials, who they accuse of a smear campaign to take out a selfless ambassador... a true champion in the war against corruption. This is baloney! What Rudy Giuliani and the President have come to realize is that the current administration's efforts to direct foreign policy are being continuously sandbagged by our own disgruntled diplomats, motivated by spite and the need to cover up the misdeeds of the Obama Administration. |
| Background: In Vietnam I was traumatized on numerous occasions. Sniper fire, Improvised Explosive Devices (Booby-Traps) Enemy Contacts and witnessing the carnage of war on the enemy, civilians and our own soldiers. At the time and upon recollection it was not so much the intensity of each event, which were generally interspersed with periods of boredom and nothing much happening, but rather with the protracted and unrelenting fear, constantly worrying and anticipating that suddenly an event would materialize, out of the blue, something violent, unanticipated, characterized by surprise, shock and brutality. I can personally relate to a handful of such events but it was the responsibility for the welfare of the men and the chronic fear that took the greatest toll. It was not the individual combat events that hardened my world view but the cumulative effects that built up over time. In this epistle I'm not going to describe the details of any specific combat event but rather to relate the overall effect on the criteria named above. These include Safety, Trust , Power, Control, Esteem and Intimacy (familiarity). While there was trauma experienced in the "Eachs" it was the cumulative effect of each of these events over time that changed my belief systems as thy relate to the criteria. For example, I had a way of looking at life before I went to Vietnam that changed after I got there and grew as I experienced the debilitating effects of combat. So rather than focusing on a single event and the effect it had, I will answer in terms of how the overall experience changed my life. The baseline was who I was before I arrived in country. I was basically an ordinary person, trained to lead a Rifle Platoon. I didn't really fit the profile of a John Wayne type, however, I'd been prepared by my upbringing in a military family in ways I didn't realize at the time. For example a favorite pastime with my friends was playing "Guns." We would pretend we were allied soldiers and we would sneak around trying to get the upper hand on one another. When I went to College it was at North Georgia, a military college with a tradition for producing small unit infantry leaders. The ROTC program further prepared me as did the Summer Camp training at Ft. Bragg North Carolina. So while I might not have looked the part, being six foot 130 pounds, I had a solid grounding on what a Rifle Platoon leader was supposed to do in accomplishing the mission and looking out for the welfare of the men. Over the the course of the year I started out with the belief that War was going to be fraught with trauma, people were going to get killed and injured, however I would emerge unscathed and not become another sad statistic. About halfway through my tour I changed that belief to one where...."When my number comes up, I sincerely hoped it won't be too serious, maybe a limb blown off or something along those lines..." I'd seen plenty of that. By the end of my tour I confronted the real possibility, that given the attrition rate I was probably going to die, unless G0D stepped in with some serious intervention. Applying the Criteria to the Trauma SAFETY: It was possible to behave in a combat environment in ways that promoted your personal safety and reduced the likelihood of being killed or seriously injured. For example at the sound of rifle shots or machine-gun fire my body was conditioned to instantaneously find cover and concealment. It became a reflex, happened spontaneously, and did not require a conscious act. To this day the sound of a car backfiring sets me heading for the prone position. I hate being startled in that way and loud unexpected noises put me into a dark frame of mind. The tour in Vietnam taught me to recognize dangerous behaviors. I often described these to my soldiers and discussed them with my peers. Whenever a Lieutenant, NCO or soldier got killed or wounded we would discuss the event at some length. From this post mortem analysis the "100 Mistake Theory" evolved. For example, suppose a Lieutenant was prone to find a secluded place to perform his basic body functions. Everybody else prudently got used to defecating inside the platoon perimeter. One day the VC stumbled upon the LT doing his daily routine and killed him. The analysis would show that he made this mistake many times before the consequences of his unsafe behavior caught up with him. The lesson learned was that people do stupid things on a recurring basis and that while it was natural to look at only the last act that led to death, it was also important to look at the habitual carelessness that led up to it. This sounds self-evident but patterns of bad behavior are looked on much differently in civilian life than combat where the consequences are much more extreme and unforgiving. This evolving awareness of the fundamentals of prudent behavior shaped my thinking and the views of my soldiers. TRUST: Is based upon an assumption that people will do what they were trained to do and behave as soldiers in the United States Army. For a platoon leader making this assumption was quickly disabused. I've had many discussions about the relationship between accomplishing the mission and looking out for the Welfare of the Men. Fear of being killed or wounded is unrelenting in combat. Even worse is the fear of not measuring up in ways that lead to the death of those under our leadership. It gets to be a heavy emotional weight that accompanies a leader 24/7. I noted early in my tour that the men were often resentful that I made them go to our ambush sites instead of simply going a couple of hundred meters beyond the perimeter of the base camp and hiding out for the night. Instead of accomplishing the mission concurrent with doing it in a way that maximized the welfare of the men Leaders often took counsel with their fears and compromised the mission by failing to fulfill all its requirements. Naturally there is some guilt in adopting this MO and instead of confronting it, many rationalized it away. My platoon sergeant held the view that the mission was exclusively to look out for the welfare of the men and the mission be damned. So there was a constant struggle on my part reconciling the two basic responsibilities of a Platoon Leader. I had a responsibility to my Company Commander as well as to the men and the conflict led to some serious trust issues with many of those I led. As a result I tended to be much less trusting of others as my time in Vietnam went on. This extended into my life outside the war-zone and continues to this day. POWER: Is the authority to direct others in a corporate enterprise. It is the means by which a social organization is moved towards a corporate goal. Often that power is used for personal gain rather than in the corporate best interests. This is often referred to as "Abuse". The execution of power requires checks and balances. In the absence of these safeguards individuals in an organization often loose the ability to make the distinction between corporate and personal goals. Its like having two credit cards, one with your name on it and the other with the organizations. In Vietnam and throughout my career in the military I exercised great care in how I used the power of my office, because I have seen its debilitating effect and feared the possibility of this happening to me. One must be willing to use the power for the good of the enterprise and refrain from using it for personal gain. I have seen so many examples of this abuse leading to to dishonor and corruption, that I've lost count. My experience in Vietnam and elsewhere led to the realization that a sense of "humility" is the only real defense against loosing the distinction between corporate and personal power. Wherever possible, I've sought to use my power to bring out the best in others and thereby protect myself from becoming victimized by self importance, arrogance and greed. Control: As a result of my Vietnam experience and what I later encountered in life, I have come to realize that we really have very little control of matters outside ourselves. My experience taught me in the leading of my soldiers, relationships with my wife and the raising of my children, that I should not pat myself on the back too hard when things go well nor overly chastise myself when they don't. Christian values go a long way towards illuminating the road to a decent life, as do treating others with respect and kindness. In combat however, while these principles still apply, it is often necessary to make recourse to authority and compel soldiers to do things they don't want to do. It is the same with raising children. Setting a good example, having standards of conduct, are important but also important is giving others a chance to make mistakes. Given that my goal as a father and leader was not to screw up the development of those I was responsible for, I had to accept and underwrite the inevitable consequence of behaviors that have to be learned in the school of hard experience. Esteem: In Vietnam I managed to hold my value system together. I did nothing to bring dishonor onto myself, my units and superiors. I've always fancied myself a good man with all the imperfections inherent is the human condition. I am fortunate to have survived some very difficult times and emerged intact both physically and mentally. Still, I have my scars, baggage and unique cast of demons. They cause me to bolt upright in the dead of night and cry out to God to forgive me my imperfections. I would change none of the things I have experienced, but must have fallen short in ways I can't fathom or remember, because of the nightmares I'm plagued with. Intimacy: I see intimacy as ones relationship with a spouse. It is not something for a leader to pursue with someone else particularly where a direct line of authority exists. If a leader is "married" then they should not seek intimacy with anyone that is not their "Significant Other." For a leader I'd use instead the term "Familiarity." In a platoon in combat it is often said that "Familiarity breeds Contempt." What this means is that if the Lieutenant or NCO, allows subordinates they get to know them too well, then then followers can no longer attribute to their mental or moral qualities, the benefit of the doubt. They come to see their leader as someone no better than they are. He or she is exactly who they are. Soldiers ideally want to be led by a God, but have to settle for a human being. They want to attribute to that mortal qualities that they often don't possess in large measure. If a leader cavorts with subordinates they soon realize that they are not dealing with someone exceptional but only an ordinary person or worse, who like themselves are prone to all the shortcomings that human beings demonstrate in their daily lives. They do not view this as conducive to their longevity. In the life and death world of a combat environment they understand that a leader is human but want that leader to be as close to Godlike as they can get. It might sound bizarre to the uninitiated, but to a soldier God becomes very real. If they can't have one of the almighty for their leader then soldiers want someone of the highest mental and moral standard, someone who at the very least is in good standing with God, who in leading them will bring the benefit of a person in good stead with the divine and the umbrella that relationship provides. So the "Familiarity" rule generally holds in that it keeps the baseness of a leader hidden from view and allows for the attribution of the benefit of doubt, however, in rare cases it can also lead to a realization that a leader ls someone with exceptional qualities and in such rare instances "Familiarity can lead to awe." |
| It will be interesting to see where all this impeachment nonsense goes. It appears this is all a stunt that does not bode well for the Democrats. Or does it? Maybe the radical left knows something we don't. Maybe the liberals have twenty or more Never Trumpers up their sleeve that they intend to pull out of the hat when the time is right. For example I didn't know that Kelly and Tillerson tried to enlist Hali to sandbag President Trump. Here we had a top general Chief of Staff and a successful corporate leader Secretary of State trying to enlist the UN Ambassador in a scheme to "Reign In" President Trump. Or did they? These days one can't believe anyone or anything regarding politics. Special Interests contribute to and buy influence in both parties and what appears to be happening turns out to be an illusion to get voters to think one thing, when something entirely different is happening behind the scenes. For example when the President appointed Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General it turned out that his early Trump support was an "Insurance policy" for an unlikely outcome the Democrats hoped would never happen. Then we have Kelly and Tillerson being "Never Trumpers" in disguise. Or maybe Niki Haley is a false flag partisan who will show different colors once she gets into power. Maybe she is being groomed to be the Republican who will run if Trump gets impeached. Think about it, there are plenty of Republican Senators who hate the President, and would like nothing better than to see him impeached. Niki Haley would be their poster child. I certainly hope this isn't the case but my experience is that what I don't consider and fail to anticipate are the things that come back to bite me in the butt. |
| The Obama Administration as those which have proceeded it since WW2 was content to look the other way. They were content to let this "One Ton Elephant" in the living room, roam about Capitol Hill consuming resources (Black Budget) and growing each year by exponential proportions. A host of intelligence agencies have been created and tasked to keep this "Mother of Manhattan Projects" veiled in secrecy. Actually "Veiled" is not a good word because the beast has been hidden in plain sight. Whenever someone says, "Look at the elephant" they're assailed by the full weight of the Deep State to "Shut the Fuck up, play the game or face dire consequences." In the beginning they murdered people who threatened their dark little secret, however in more recent times have reserved lethal force for when other means failed. The truth behind a growing belief in UFOlogy: 1. Extraterrestrials (ETs) Exist. They have been visiting this planet for thousands of years. 2. They have interacted with humans and used their DNA to create product improved versions of life on this planet. 3. They don't want human-kind to destroy the biosphere with pollution or nuclear weapons. 4. They routinely abduct humans and other life forms to obtain root stock for their genomes. 5. The consider humans to be "Intelligent life" and animals to be disposable. 6. They have been known to expunge human populations which did not genetically develop to meet expectations. 7. The Deep State is scared "Shitless" what they might do if antagonized. 8. The Deep State has developed aspects of their off world technology through back engineering, particularly aeronautical platforms used in inter-solar and interstellar space travel. 9. The Deep State maintains a liaison with various ET entities, and carries out trade. 10. The Deep State has sent emissaries to visit intelligent life forms in other interstellar systems. 11. The Deep State has established a human presence on the Moon and Mars and explored other planets of our solar system. 12. The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) is a front for our Secret Space Force. 13. The Deep State has entered into cooperative ventures with the ETs that have been mutually beneficial. 14. There have been conflicts with the ETs which have resulted in mutual loss of life. 15. In addition to back engineering crashed platforms the United States has been provided "Hand Me Down" inter-solar craft of various types. 16. Our Secret Space Force grew so large it had to be formally acknowledged by President Trump. |
| The Deep State traces its origins to the appointment by President Truman of an organization code named Majestic 12. The name "Majestic" has a connotation associated with a form of government that existed in the Middle Ages and still continues in many countries across the planet. It connotes an elitist group made up of kings, a nobility and a strong military. The very name does not bode well for the United States. It all began with the downing of extraterrestrial (ET) saucers in New Mexico in 1947 and the discovery of off-world technology and the bodies of ET crew members. It struck a note of abject fear into our top elected officials and Truman appointed Majestic. 12 to look into the matter and report back to him. The whole subject was immediately cloaked beneath a veil in the highest security known to man. At all costs the Roswell Incident and many of the events that followed had to be covered up while the government scratched its head in befuddlement and tried deciding what to do. The truth is that our top political leaders never really decided what to do and Majestic 12 went on to morph into the Deep State, which is a huge bureaucracy, commanding an unlimited "Dark Budget" with tentacles extending into the very essence of our political process. The mission of MJ 12 was: 1. Determine if the ETs are Real. 2. Prevent the citizens of the United States from acknowledging an ET presence. 2. Find out why they are here. 2. Determine if they pose an existential threat to humanity. 3. Back-engineer the technology of space travel 4. Provide a defense against a potential attack/invasion. There might be a few more but, these are the obvious ones. Dr. Stephen Greer and others advocating "Disclosure" have done great work in bringing the coverup to light but the government has still managed to maintain a veil of secrecy for the last seventy-five years. In that time Majestic 12 has grown into the huge Deep State that currently exists. The long and dark reach of this unconstitutional bureaucracy has the full weight of government behind d it. It's said that you can't ask a hog to slaughter itself and there has never been a check on the growing and clandestine activities involving this unlawful secret organization. It exists with virtually no government oversight. To preserve its continuation the Deep state uses intelligence agencies to provided cover for its activities and destroy virtually any opposition that might arise to threaten its existence. The government of the United States has become a charade, that today only functions as a facade for all these illicit activities. The electorate is allowed to go blissfully to the polls thinking they have a say in how their Republic is being governed. This shadow body has grown so powerful and unwieldy that disclosure is no longer possible. The Constitution has been shredded and become little more than the veneer for a criminal enterprise with deep roots and dark secrets. |
| President Trump has a Cabinet. The Cabinet is composed of agencies that are designed to assist the President and make policy recommendations on a range of activities too broad for one man to effectively manage. Examples of these agencies are Defense, Treasury, State, Education, Homeland Security and a host of others. The Organization of a Cabinet has its origin in what is commonly referred to as a "Staff" in the military. This is where the whole notion of having a Cabinet comes from. So to understand how a Cabinet is supposed to work one must understand how a Staff works because a civilian cabinet is essentially the same as a military Staff, the origin of which goes back to Frederick the Great and the German General Staff. In war and in government a staff exists to accomplish two things. First is to determine "Best" and second to make sure the organization acts upon what is decided. For example the first part is no more than the problem solving process. In this process the problem is defined, facts and assumptions surrounding the problem are laid out, possible courses of action are formulated and the optimal course recommended to the decision maker, who is the General or in political parlance, The President. Now here is the part that nobody seems to understand. It is not the staff that makes the decisions, it is the General or the President. The staff can only make recommendations. The ultimate decision maker is the General or the President (G/P). However, one of the great dangers of a staff manifests itself when they decide they are the ultimate deciding authority and not the G/P. This is what we see happening in today's politics. Often Cabinet staffers continue from one administration to the next. This should not be an issue unless the staff officer (bureaucrat) forgets who they are and decides that the decisions of the G/C are not to be supported when they differ from the position or view of the staff officer. When partisan politics come into play, the staff is no longer as concerned about "Best" as they are about maintaining power, continuing the policies of the old administration and/or preserving the status quo. For the unscrupulous holdovers it is OK to "Sandbag" the President or worse, try cutting him out of the decision loop altogether. This is one of the major problems that President Trump is facing. Partisans from the old administration, still embedded in the bureaucracy are engaged in partisan warfare to sabotage the effectiveness of the newly elected regime, which brings with it changes in the points of view that they campaigned on. It is not practical to replace everyone in government with each change in administration and those that continue to serve are expected to professionally and faithfully serve the new administration regardless of their prior political affiliation. This was historically not much of a problem until the Democrats lost the 2016 election and set out to impeach President Trump. However, this is not the whole problem. What is being forgotten is what I call "Concurrency" in the decision making process. In the Military there are three separate entities working through the process. Obviously the staff (Cabinet) is involved but so is the President. In his mind he is game planning the same process as his staff. By the time the staff is ready to make their recommendations the President has ideas of his own arrived at independently. This enables him to enter into informed dialogue and reconcile his thinking from the group-think of his formal advisors and experts. Most people understand intuitively that this is what is going on in the exchange between the two. What is not intuitive is the third appendage of the process. In the military, the commander often asks a trusted subordinate commander to work the problem independently of himself and his staff. In Government this translates to having a trusted advisor outside the box providing input to the decision making. So when President Trump asks Rudy Juliani, his personal lawyer and trusted advisor, to approach the problem from a different angle, this dimension to the process comes into play. It has ample precedent in both the conduct of war and the exercise of government. As long as there have been leaders and staffs there have been trusted outside advisors. They are legitimate and integral to the process providing an invaluable source of wisdom and advice. |
| There are quasi-governmental agencies known by several names which include THE SWAMP, THE DEEP STATE and MAJESTIC 12. THE SWAMP: This is most likely no more than a moniker hung on the Washington Bureaucracy. These are governmental agencies that have been infiltrated at the top and are controlled by elitists who feel in no way answerable to elected officials they trot out, for the sake of appearances and pretend to vote for every two to four years. These appointed (non elected) power brokers have come to believe that the people work for them and do their bidding. For example Cabinet Agencies such as Secretary of State, feel that foreign policy is their exclusive domain and the President is a feckless figurehead put forth as a firewall, between themselves and the people. They consider themselves the actual ones in control while the President "...struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more." In their view the President is no more than a puppet who deflects the heat of the electorate while they pull the strings behind the scenes. This was certainly the case with the Obama Administration and would have have continued under Clinton. When Trump was elected this whole dynamic was turned topsy-turvy and suddenly the American People had a president who wasn't clued in on the wires and mirrors of Washington Politics. Trump actually believed he was the one in charge and that the Constitution was the way government worked. In his mind it was not a bunch of platitudes to be used as a smokescreen but an actual set of guiding principles that had purpose and actually meaning. Acting on his naive beliefs the new president represented an existential threat to the bureaucratic power brokers. THE DEEP STATE is an entirely different entity. The Impeachment hearings show exactly how this works if anyone is really interested and paying attention. Adam Schiff is doing behind closed door everything in his power to deflect attention away from the sins of the Obama Administration. THE DEEP STATE: Is a submerged part of our government that is totally conducted in secret and answers to the President in name only. These are the Intelligence Agencies and the secrecy that surrounds their work is used as a cover for the SWAMP for both legitimate as well as illicit purposes. Chuck Schumer stated publicly words to the effect... "that you better not mess with these guys because they have seven ways from Sunday to get back at you." The Intelligence agencies cooperate with the SWAMP in making sure that elected officials don't get to carried away with the power of their elected office. They know where most of the dirt is buried and they selective leak "Bad News" to the media when they see a politician who threatens their rice bowl. As a secondary mission it must be said that they also protect the Republic from foreign interference, but have no doubt that tools are readily used against the the electorate when the situation warrants. For Example Ex Central Intelligence chief John Brennan and others are masters of taking proprietary information and weaponizing it for use against their enemies . MAJESTIC 12: This brings us to the most secretive and deeply imbedded policy making body in our government. It was established in the mid-1950s out of concern over the crashes of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). Imagine the shock of the Truman Administration when it became clear that the UFOs brought down in New Mexico were of extraterrestrial origin. OH MY GOODNESS! (OMG)... They must have reacted when confronted with the actual crash wreckage and body parts of the aliens and guess what? OMG! one of the creatures survived and could be seen, touched and interviewed. SHAZAN! Who would have ever imagined that those little green men actually exist... only they weren't exactly green and consisted of more than one variety. They had been coming here for thousands of years and the evidence of their presence was to be seen in archeological writing, ruins and artifacts existing at locations across the planet. Our government has devolved since the end of WW2 into a figurehead governing body. The real power is currently held by a group that has no doubt grown since its inception to include many more than 12 members. |
| Fox News: Former Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said Wednesday... "that he was grateful for the "deep state's" role in prompting the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. A CBS reporter asked McLaughlin if the impeachment inquiry would add to President Trump' s concerns about the "Deep State." She stated, “There is something unique you have to agree that now that the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community, it feeds the president’s concern, an often-used term about a ‘deep state’ being there to take him out.” "Well, you know, THANK GOD FOR THE 'DEEP STATE," McLaughlin responded, provoking laughter and applause." Most Americans commonly believe that the term "Deep State" and "Bureaucracy" are synonymous. John McLaughlin was on a talk-show sitting there with John Brennan, former director of the CIA under President Obama. McLaughlin was emphasizing the patriotic role the whistle-blower played and acknowledged the existence of the Deep State, heretofore a vague reference to a murky entity never said to officially exist. I couldn't believe it. Here we have confirmation that the "Deep State" is real and John McLaughlin is glad that it is. Up to now the Deep State was the elephant in the bedroom nobody wanted to talk about. McLaughlin, and he should know, acknowledged its presence. There have been claims for years, surrounding the UFO controversy that "The Deep State" is real and composed of unelected officials who direct policy independent of government control. The story is that it morphed from a commission established by President Truman, to look into the extraterrestrial presence that came to light following saucer crashes in New Mexico in 1947. Dr. Stephen Greer, heading the Disclosure Project, claims that there are bureaucratic entities operating outside of government control, who even the President is unaware of. He has provided a list of funded agencies that refuse to talk to the President or his national security advisors, citing that they don't have a need to know. The Deep State, as Greer defines it, is a group of eletists who control the Black Budget and all matters involving the extraterrestrials. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
Love it! Especially the safety measures for us homo sapiens...
