USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!!

[Lauren Johnson]

Since the "KGB" FSB or whoever has a troll farm in Leningrad with untold numbers of workers, does anybody know if our own CIA or other agencies have anything comparable. It would seem like they would have to. Please inform--James Lateer

I just read an article on just this thing. Can't find it for now. But the answer is, Yes, in a large way. I'll post it if I run into it again. It's viewed as information warfare.

IMO, one of the significant trolling operations is the Q Anon identity, designed to spread the myth of the White Hats in the military and intelligence agencies as a part of Trump's clean the swamp efforts. The only way to do it, since the swamp is so huge, is to round people up and take them to Guantanamo, some such operation. Another angle is that there are thousands of sealed warrants ready to go. There are a lot of people whose only hope is for Trump to round up swamp dwellers -- most of whom are Democrats. ::willynilly::

[James Lateer]

It is sad, sad, sad that we as a country cannot imagine a discussion about whether we still need a National Security State, since the Cold War (its justification) is long since over.

During the recent go-around between Trump and the FBI, there was a talking head who I watched on the cable news who actually said that our untrustworthy elected officials should not question the actions of the truly patriotic men of the CIA and the FBI. How dare they?

It is significant that in his memoirs "Honorable Men," former CIA director William Colby discussed a policy question whereby the CIA would have been forbidden by law to interfere with any "Democratic" government. He stated that it would be impossible to legally define a "Democratic" government. At first, that argument sounded absurd to me. But after pondering the issue, I finally, in my head, agreed with him.

So we can't define in writing which governments we should interfere with and which ones we shouldn't. It's apparently true. So if we can't decide that in writing, then on what basis do we decide upon which governments with which we will interfere? If you can answer that, you're smarter than I am.

England, of course, has three branches of government. The Parliament is elected, but the Queen and the House of Lords is not. The Queen appoints the Governor General of Canada. When World War II broke out, the Canadian Parliament was not consulted. The Governor General merely sat down and wrote out a declaration of war all by himself.

The US has three "co-equal" branches of Government: the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has the right to overrule the other two. And we blindly swear that they are all three "co-equal" (NOT)!

So how do the people of the five Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland) all wind up in the top twelve richest countries in Europe, per capita, and they don't have a National Security State? How do they sleep at night? (I'm pretty sure they sleep pretty well).

At last count, we have 17 "Security Agencies" yet we really don't get any security from them, (beyond Military Intelligence which we have always had).

There are only two countries which have always had a civilian spy establishment. Those two are Russia and England. (This is according to General Reinhard Gehlen in his memoir "The Service"). Apparently, all the other countries have gotten along o.k. without them.

Although Trump has racist tendencies, every student of the "deep state" should give him some credit. Unlike Nixon, Trump has apparently faced down the FBI and won. According to the talking-heads, the FBI has suffered at least a temporary blow to its reputation. It's telling that in a contest of "reputability" against Trump, the FBI has come out second-best. When you think about that, it's not a very good testament about the FBI. And Nixon had to plead "I'm not a crook".

At least Trump should deserve lots of credit for saying that the CIA lied about the WMD's in Iraq. He also suggested that the father of Ted Cruz was tangled up in the JFK assassination. (He probably was, in some way or another, through the Bush family if the truth were known).

The extended 7 year honeymoon between Trump and the National Security State should prove interested. If anyone happens to be looking for a strong opinion about the National Security State, I would eagerly take an amateur's shot, although I've only come into this interest very recently. But, like many researchers, I try to be objective (and overlook the racism of Trump when necessary). I don't think researchers into the National Security State should involve their current partisan political allegiances. To me, it's much more fun when one leaves one's personal political baggage at the front door.

People interested in the National Security State may not know everything about it, but we are way, way, way ahead of the talking heads on TV and frankly, probably way ahead of the 99% of Americans. People in our country apparently believe that the National Security State is like apple pie, patriotism and motherhood all wrapped up into one.

It's sad and pathetic when you think about it. I try not to think about it. But it's an annoyance any way you slice it. Oh, well.

James Lateer

[Peter Lemkin]

The President is finally excited about the Daily Brief! Photo credit: DonkeyHotey / WhoWhatWhy (CC BY-SA 2.0) See complete attribution below.
If somebody were to compile a definitive list of do's and don'ts in politics, "Don't have it come out that you had an affair with a porn star while your third wife was at home with your newborn child" would probably feature fairly prominently.
It turns out, however, that if your name is Donald Trump and you have already successfully broken every other rule in the book, hardly anybody is going to bat an eye when it is reported that you had a tryst with one of the stars of Trailer Trash Nurses 6.
While the current president has rewritten the political rule book in a lot of negative ways, in this case it might be good that his reported affair with Stormy Daniels or the dalliance that former playmate Karen McDougal said she had with Trump at about the same time isn't a huge deal. Because it shouldn't be.
Sure, it seems to reflect poorly on Trump's character and voters can, and maybe should, take that into account. However, while adultery may technically be against the law in some states, Trump won't be prosecuted for his affair with a porn star. And paying her to keep quiet about it is not illegal. In addition, this happened years ago, long before Trump ran for office.
Perhaps most importantly, even if all of the details of the affair that Daniels described in an interview are true, the public will likely never know the full story. For example, maybe there is a "porn star exemption" in the pre-nup of the Trumps, or these affairs were somehow sanctioned by Melania.
We don't know and, quite frankly, we don't deserve to know. It's certainly a story that the media should report but we shouldn't obsess over it. Ultimately, this is a private issue and none of our business.
(It must be noted that this specifically applies to the legal behavior of candidates. Having consensual sex with porn stars is not against the law. Neither is bragging about sexual assault. Actually committing such an assault, as Trump has been accused of doing, would be a different story.)
In theory, a case can be made that a candidate's character matters. Actually, it should matter. But most voters have shown that it doesn't at least not when the character of "their" candidate is in question, as we have pointed out before.
Ironically, the people who have figured this out are the Christian conservatives.
"Evangelicals and conservatives have fallen for guys who talk right about the issues we've elected them time and again and we didn't get anything out of it," Frank Cannon, the president of the conservative American Principle Project, told The Hill. "[Trump] is a guy who comes from a crass political world. He doesn't have the rhetoric or the biography so he knows he has to deliver for us to keep our support and he's done that."
As with so many things in politics, both sides are hypocrites when they point fingers and preach morality. Just as evangelical Christians are looking the other way now, Catholics did the same thing when "their" President, John F. Kennedy, was in office.
It's simply political pragmatism.
"This is not a guy I want to be my pastor," Cannon said. "But being a pastor isn't the job."
He is right, of course. And for the country, it's great that the religious right does not just feel this way but is also not shy to talk about it. If Christian conservatives can admit that the values they preach are less important than getting results, that means, hopefully, we can pay less attention to what political candidates do on their own time as long as it is legal.
There is a lot of "Whataboutism" these days, the concept of justifying the bad behavior of one's own candidate by comparing it to that of an opponent.
On the right, Trump's behavior should kill "Whataboutism." It's perfectly acceptable that conservatives don't want to criticize their own candidate for anything ranging from extramarital affairs to lying to saying racist things.
But then they can't ever turn around and point a finger at their opponents for doing similar things.
On the left, anybody who defended what President Bill Clinton did to, and with, Monica Lewinsky is in no position to criticize Trump for the affair.
But those things also shouldn't define their presidencies. Morality matters, but saints who run the country into the ground would make worse leaders than certain adulterers who make the US better for all of its people.
There are plenty of things to criticize Trump for, but the condemnation of his adultery should only be coming from the first lady. The voters should focus on his record.

[Tracy Riddle]

[Lauren Johnson]

From Pat Lang's blog on Project Lakhta

"We will use the key performance indicators (KPIs) we created in November to measure the level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active measures campaign. The plethora of examples within the indictment serves to confirm much of our analysis, but also shows their successes were more robust than previous analysis had concluded.

KPI 1 Shape the U.S. election discourse and feed divisiveness into the United States. The efforts in the creation of thousands of online accounts to create, publish and repeat divisive messages, creating slightly nuanced content and otherwise pushing themes that would be most inflammatory has now been documented in the indictment. The DoJ shared an example: "The Russians organized one rally in support of the President-elect and another rally to oppose him, both in New York, and on the same day."

KPI 2 Framing the dialogue via ads and fictitious persons. This is where the Russians invested heavilynot only millions in funds which they funneled to social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook, but also in online search ads with Google and Bing. Additionally, their use of email and assuming the identities of real U.S. citizens to infiltrate and provide direct support to various political entities is now well-documented." securituboulevard.com
-------------
[FONT=&amp] I have no idea what or who "Security Boulevard" may be but I needed a mission statement for Project Lakhta. A number of people are saying that Lakhta just wasn't professional enough for them to give it much credit. I disagree. the program may have been run by Putin's Caterer billionaire friend with a few ex-SVR as cadre and the rest enthusiastic geeks, but IMO the results speak for themselves. If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly contributed to US political disarray.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The image of Michael Moore marching in a Project Lakhta anti-Trumo demonstration is just too, too delicious.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The question arises of actual motive on the part of the Russians. Much of the usual drivel is circulating about Russian hatred of democracy as a commodity.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]IMO that is not the root of their behavior in this matter and in all the other IO operations that they seem to be continuing against the US. No, I think the objective is simply to weaken the US as a self-declared adversary that wishes to see Russia reduced to the status of a mid-sized regional player subject to US oversight and control.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]How childish and self absorbed we are! pl
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]https://securityboulevard.com/2018/02/project-lakhta-russian-meddling-gets-russians-indicted/[/FONT]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/techn...4051510220

[Tracy Riddle]

From Pat Lang's blog on Project Lakhta

"We will use the key performance indicators (KPIs) we created in November to measure the level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active measures campaign. The plethora of examples within the indictment serves to confirm much of our analysis, but also shows their successes were more robust than previous analysis had concluded.

KPI 1 Shape the U.S. election discourse and feed divisiveness into the United States. The efforts in the creation of thousands of online accounts to create, publish and repeat divisive messages, creating slightly nuanced content and otherwise pushing themes that would be most inflammatory has now been documented in the indictment. The DoJ shared an example: "The Russians organized one rally in support of the President-elect and another rally to oppose him, both in New York, and on the same day."

KPI 2 Framing the dialogue via ads and fictitious persons. This is where the Russians invested heavilynot only millions in funds which they funneled to social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook, but also in online search ads with Google and Bing. Additionally, their use of email and assuming the identities of real U.S. citizens to infiltrate and provide direct support to various political entities is now well-documented." securituboulevard.com
-------------
[FONT=&amp] I have no idea what or who "Security Boulevard" may be but I needed a mission statement for Project Lakhta. A number of people are saying that Lakhta just wasn't professional enough for them to give it much credit. I disagree. the program may have been run by Putin's Caterer billionaire friend with a few ex-SVR as cadre and the rest enthusiastic geeks, but IMO the results speak for themselves. If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly contributed to US political disarray.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The image of Michael Moore marching in a Project Lakhta anti-Trumo demonstration is just too, too delicious.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The question arises of actual motive on the part of the Russians. Much of the usual drivel is circulating about Russian hatred of democracy as a commodity.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]IMO that is not the root of their behavior in this matter and in all the other IO operations that they seem to be continuing against the US. No, I think the objective is simply to weaken the US as a self-declared adversary that wishes to see Russia reduced to the status of a mid-sized regional player subject to US oversight and control.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]How childish and self absorbed we are! pl
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]https://securityboulevard.com/2018/02/project-lakhta-russian-meddling-gets-russians-indicted/[/FONT]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/techn...4051510220

"We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity"

As I've said before - and I guess I have to say it again - I don't support any nation's efforts to tamper in any other nation's elections or internal affairs. EVER. It's not all right when the US does it, or when Russia does it, or when Israel or China or the UK do it. I've been pretty consistent about that.

I think we on the Deep Politics Forum should condemn all corrupt state & corporate power and not take "sides" because of some misguided ideology. Russia is a gangster capitalist country today, just like China. Leftists need to wake up and realize that the brand of "Marxism" they practiced was always a fraud, and it's completely dead and buried today.

[Lauren Johnson]

One to two billion global deaths.

[Peter Lemkin]

[Tracy Riddle]

That was an interesting debate between Greenwald and Risen, though they spent a lot of time arguing about the meaning of the word "treason." Note that Greenwald concedes:

[FONT=&amp]GG:[/FONT][FONT=&amp] "The idea that I ever thought or said that it was a hoax that Russia was meddling in the election is completely false. I never said anything like that…On the question of Trump lying, there's no question Trump and lots of people have repeatedly lied about the core questions of this case, their meeting with Russian officials, and a whole bunch of other related issues."
[/FONT]
But then he falls back on this argument: "What I've said from the beginning is the same thing that I say now, which is that the lesson of the Iraq war for sure, when, you know, it seemed like there was a whole bunch of evidence because it was appearing on the front page of the New York Times quoting foreign officials and intelligence officials with not-firsthand knowledge and all of that about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his alliance with al Qaeda, the lesson is that we shouldn't believe claims from the U.S. government absent convincing evidence. Meaning not anonymous sources inside of governments making assertions without underlying corroboration, but actual tangible evidence that we can see and assess for ourselves in order to make that assessment."

Personally, I never believed the Saddam/WMD claims for a moment. I didn't need to rely on the government's "evidence," either. I could see for myself that the circumstantial evidence didn't support it. A country that was under 24/7 surveillance since 1990 (by the US, Israel, the UN and others) couldn't possibly rebuild and hide any WMD program. A nuclear weapons program can't be hidden in the basement of a factory. And when the UN weapons inspectors spent months in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003 and FOUND NOTHING, that pretty much sealed the deal.

The Trump-Russia case is entirely different. The circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming, as I've posted in other threads. You don't need to be a software/hacking expert (which I am not) to observe the public behavior (and now-available text messages and emails) of various people and determine that they were receiving stolen DNC emails and happily distributing them. If Seth Rich had really leaked the emails to Assange, by now Assange would have put forth the evidence to prove it. It would be very easy to do.

Additionally, Greenwald mimics the Trump party line by giving us this idiocy: "That they were also supportive of Bernie Sanders, of Jill Stein, that they were really interested in sowing division. That was the motive that they had attributed to the people that they indicted."

Greenwald is smarter than that. He knows that the Russians supported anyone and everyone who might damage or destroy HRC's campaign. Sanders could at least damage Clinton in the primaries, and maybe even take the nomination from her. Jill Stein drew leftist voters away from her in the general election. In fact, if all of Stein's voters had picked Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton would have won all three states and the electoral college. This is not rocket surgery, Glenn.

[Peter Lemkin]

Demonstration in Washington, D.C. organized by Teens For Gun Reform in the wake of shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Photo credit: Lorie Shaull / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
In response to the Florida school massacre, the White House had President Donald Trump participate in an unusual, media-filmed "listening" session with mourning parents and students.
Trump listened how could he not? He is being pressured to do something about gun violence in America. This most recent slaughter, and the remarkable public response to it, led by young people, is creating a potentially inexorable emotional wave.
So he proposed a solution.
More guns.
Yup! Trump thinks the way we can stop the murderous wave that has overtaken America is by putting weapons into the hands of amateur sheriffs who, he insists, will stop the marauders in their tracks.
On Twitter yesterday morning, Trump declared that "A gun free' school is a magnet for bad people."
What we need, he says, is to have some adults at the schools not security guards, but teachers, administrators, and others carrying concealed weapons.

[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966650397002813440"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump[/URL]


I never said "give teachers guns" like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving "concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience - only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to
1:26 PM - Feb 22, 2018

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=966650397002813440"]
  83.6K[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966650397002813440"]
  48.3K people are talking about this[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966653833047887874"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump[/URL]


....immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A "gun free" school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!
1:40 PM - Feb 22, 2018

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=966653833047887874"]
  96.2K[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966653833047887874"]
  53.7K people are talking about this[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966657362789568512"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump[/URL]


....History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!
1:54 PM - Feb 22, 2018

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=966657362789568512"]
  117K[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966657362789568512"]
  61.1K people are talking about this[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966660169194229761"]
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump[/URL]


....If a potential "sicko shooter" knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won't go there...problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won't work!
2:05 PM - Feb 22, 2018

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=966660169194229761"]
  100K[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966660169194229761"]
  72.6K people are talking about this[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy







This makes a lot of sense. In fact, everyone who feels threatened who is around people who have grudges, or bad tempers, or seem a bit unhinged ought to support this concept.
Photo credit: US Air Force

Based on Trump's own criteria, one place, surely, that qualifies as needing responsible adults' packing hidden guns would be:

• The White House. Some pretty famous folks have opined that there's a madman on the loose there. And worry that he could blow up the whole world.
  
• The Greater Trump Orbit. We hear that women have been assaulted by some sexual predator who thinks he can get away with anything and apparently is right.
  
• The Trump Household. Those poor Trump wives and ex-es. They must live in fear. Why not encourage them to carry a stylish and petite firearm in their bejeweled purses, and train them for accuracy, should they ever be put in a scary and potentially dangerous situation?
  
• Trump Hotels. Is it safe to venture into those places without being well armed? Concealed weapons for all drinkers and guests who would responsibly and effectively utilize their instrument.
  
• While we're at it, all those people who felt threatened by Trump when they worked for him really should be packing "protection."