constitutionalley.us

This past Thursday Walt Disney World dropped a Florida Boy Scouts council as a recognized charity for its employees. Henceforth, there will no Disney contributions to that BSA council in an employee’s name. And the reason?

The corporate giant — whose Orlando park is a major destination for “Gay Day” events in early June — will also no longer offer the council or its units grant funding, apparently a signal that the BSA decision, by keeping the adult ban, did not go far enough.

[snip]

The company is a top-ranked gay-friendly employer, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and in 2013, openly gay executive George Kalogridis was announced as president of Walt Disney World.

News of the policy change appeared on websites, including Scouts for Equality, an advocacy group started by Eagle Scout Zach Wahls to get the BSA to change their previous restrictive membership policies on gays.

I’m not a very relious person, more like agnostic-Lite, and I’m not in the habit of quoting scripture, but it seems that Mr. Kalogridis is at serious risk of running afoul of the following admonition:

And whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he were cast into the sea.
–Matthew 18:6,10

French essayist Julien Benda once penned the following:

Humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good.
This contradiction was an honor to the human species,
and formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world.
–Julien Benda, Treason of the Intellectuals, 1927

What Benda is describing applies only to Western Civilization as being formed by this rift. And if it is closing, Islam — whether or not one can call Islam a “civilization” — and the Chinese aren’t about to be swallowed by that closing. Only us.

In 1992 Roger Kimball wrote a stunning essay about the writings of Messrs. Benda and Finkielkraut with the following heading:

When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture,
the life of the mind loses all meaning.
—Alain Finkielkraut,The Undoing of Thought

Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere.
Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance?
—Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

Today we do know. At least when peering into the ivy corridors of philosophy and ethics, that is.

Whereby we came to this exaggerated public acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative “life-style”, whether or not it be the result of tangled DNA, was much of a mystery to me until I read Dr. Judith Reisman’s law review article, “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, introduced by this quotation:

The press can both stimulate public opinion and miseducate it . . .
The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive, and judiciary. One would then like to ask: By what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible.
–Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Harvard University Commencement, 1978

But there’s nothing better than being “top-ranked” when you’re also considered “gay-friendly” by the press, is there? Disney boycott, anyone? Fat chance.

Ciao.

One lesson I’ve learned from my past fifteen years scouring the internet is that the “TRUTH” doesn’t seek you out and simply show up in your email in-box. I’ve had people get totally pissed at me because I burst a bubble or two of theirs found bobbing upon the cybersea with the other flotsam. And it’s also why I don’t pay much heed to most of the undocumented stuff that washes in over my internet transom – unless I can independently verify it from sources more substantive than relatively obscure web sites or the mainstream media.

After having gone through this process on a multitude of occasions, I’m convinced that most of the emails floating around the internet that seem conservative and are also erroneous, if not flat out false, are the work of progressives/leftists or even RINOs, and are designed to confuse readers, i.e., you and me, by telling us what we wish to hear or believe. Deception and misdirection have always been the hallmark of Communists, fascists and all tyrannical forms of politics. Consider this excerpt from a recent posting by Michael Ledeen:

The Desert of Mirrors: Who’s Really Who in the Middle East?
Posted By Michael Ledeen
On February 2, 2014 @ 10:401

[snip]

I don’t know the answer (although I think that the keys to unlocking the mystery are probably in the Iranian and/or Russian archives), but it reminds me of one of the greatest of all grand deceptions, the Soviet-created “Trust” just after the Revolution. That was organized by the Soviet intelligence service, which created a phony opposition movement whose “leaders” contacted Western governments with offers to topple the Bolshevik regime. The “Trust” leaders provided the Western strategists with secret documents, and even assassinated Soviet officials in order to establish the bona fides of the Trust. The West bought the deception, and funded the Trust, giving the Soviets money, knowledge of Western plans, and the ability to manipulate Western anti-Soviet operations. The Trust’s most celebrated victim was the British official “Reilly Ace of Spies,” who was lured to a meeting, arrested, tortured, and executed.

So, that’s how it’s done. And the Communists/Marxists/leftists/progressives, as well as fascists and other forms of tyranny, including Islamists, have been at it ever since the dawn of politics. So, why not American political movements? Left or right? And why not on the Internet?

When a person or organization in the public eye gets too close to spotlighting the truth, you can be certain the establishment will strike back. Consider what was done to Sarah Palin and what is being done to the Tea Party by both leftists and the likes of Fearless Talking Head Karl Rove. Below the radar of public scrutiny there seems to lay an army of anonymous writers pumping out deceptive, misleading and self-replicating infobots sent out en mass to confuse the ranks of conservatives and others holding traditional American values.

Yes, the truth will make you free. But getting at it is only one problem. Not swallowing artificial bait is another.

Ciao,
Dennis

There are a 300 million stories in Gulag America, from Reason here are four of them:

Peretz Partensky, 80-Year-Old Eugene Mallory, 13-year-old Andy Lopez and 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston

Another Grim Reminder Why It Is Always Dangerous to Call the Cops
Brian Doherty
Feb. 14, 2014 8:56 pm

It’s a crummy lesson, alas crummy police officers keep teaching it. Circulating around social networks this week–the first person account was written by a friend of a friend of mine–is this grim (and long) tale from Medium.com.

It’s about how when Peretz Partensky called 911 when he stumbled across an injured biker on a San Francisco street, it led to him being shoved, tackled, kneed in the temple, having an existing elbow injury exacerbated, cuffed face down on the street, his hands stomped on, arrested, told he “was going to be a problem,” denied medical attention, stripped and shoved into solitary confinement, then let out the next day. When he went to court he had his charges summarily dismissed.

cont’d. . .

Police Shoot, Kill 80-Year-Old Man In His Own Bed,
Don’t Find the Drugs They Were Looking For
Zach Weissmueller
February 13, 2014

In the early morning hours of June 27, 2013, a team of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies pulled up to the home of Eugene Mallory, an 80-year-old retired engineer living in the rural outskirts of Los Angeles county with his wife Tonya Pate and stepson Adrian Lamos.

cont’d. . .

California Pols Blame BB Guns, Not Militarized Cops
Steven Greenhut
Feb. 14, 2014 12:00 pm

SACRAMENTO — One of last year’s heartbreaking stories involved 13-year-old Andy Lopez, who was shot to death by a Sonoma County deputy sheriff in October after the deputy spotted him carrying a realistic-looking pellet gun. Deputy Erick Gelhaus said he called on Lopez to drop the gun, and shot him seven times as the boy turned toward the officer with the barrel of the gun rising.

The shooting continues to spark discussions about the proper use of force by police officers — especially after Lopez’s parents filed a lawsuit alleging that county officials “were long aware of the propensity of defendant Gelhaus to recklessly draw his firearm and to use excessive force.”

cont’d. . .

And the ever popular classic. . .

Kathryn Johnston: A Year Later
92-year-old woman’s death has done little to curb
the use of paramilitary police tactics around the country.
Radley Balko
November 23, 2007

It was one year ago this week that narcotics officers in Atlanta, Georgia broke into the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.

They had earlier arrested a man with a long rap sheet on drug charges. That man told the police officers that they’d find a large stash of cocaine in Johnston’s home. When police forced their way into Johnston’s home, she met them holding a rusty old revolver, fearing she was about to be robbed. The police opened fire, and killed her.

Shortly after the shooting, the police alleged that they had paid an informant to buy drugs from Ms. Johnston’s home. They said she fired at them first, and wounded two officers. And they alleged they found marijuana in her home.

We now know that these were all lies. In fact, everything about the Kathryn Johnston murder was corrupt. The initial arrest of the ex-con came via trumped-up charges. The police then invented an informant for the search warrant, and lied about overseeing a drug buy from Johnston’s home.

cont’d. . .

Ciao,
Dennis

Where were you on 9/11 when you first learned of the terrorist attack? Like the Kennedy assassination and the Challenger explosion most Americans old enough to have witnessed these events have them permanently seared into their memories. I was watching the north WTC tower smoke-‘n’-burn on CNBC when the second plane came in to strike the south edifice. At that moment I realized how childish my view of the world was. Idealism waned. Confidence in my opinions essentially evaporated along with the Twin Towers. ‘Twas time for major reprogramming and reeducation.

Fortunately, the internet now made possible access to a seemingly infinite range of information resources that I could use in my quest for the “Truth.” Unfortunately, I soon realized how not-so-full-spectrum political journalism obfuscates more than it illuminates. However, my quest began to gain traction when early on I discovered the work of Steve Emerson and David Horowitz. My confidence in the integrity and enlightening insight of these two individuals has been consistently reaffirmed over the intervening years, a primary reason being that these men were calling spades, spades long before the twin towers came a tumblin’ down.

Mr. Emerson is the producer of the 1994 PBS documentary “Jihad in America.” In testimony given prior the millennium changeover and before both houses of Congress, he details the names of individuals and organizations engaged in the Islamic subversion of the United States. Surprisingly, many of those names appeared again when Bush II reached out to reassure Muslim Americans that they were not to be held accountable for the actions of a few Islamic radicals.

This was my first indication that the GOP, in general, and the Presidents Bush in particular, did not fit my concept of patriotic, America-first Republicans. Since then, this view has been reinforced many times over to the point that I now see the establishment GOP as essentially progressive-Lite. Certainly not even “middle of the bird” as comedian Pat Paulsen once described political moderates. But it was through Steve Emerson that I was first set upon them.

David Horowitz is a self-confessed red-diaper baby and ex-Communist whom I also happened upon shortly after 9/11. His writings revealed to me for the first time President Clinton’s treasonous give-aways to the Chinese, Hillary’s anti-military White House shenanigans, and the Democratic Party’s coddling of openly Marxist Congressmen. And, as with Mr. Emerson, my trust in what Horowitz says has been frequently reinforced. What he wrote before 9/11 has proven most helpful when evaluating the works of Obama, his administration, and his Congressional cronies of both parties.

Emerson and Horowitz are among several writers I’ve followed whose insightfulness has been confirmed by subsequent events. Their perspicacity is not simple happenstance, but rather the result of deep, personal experience and not-so-wishful thinking – which brings me to my friend Heinz.

Heinz was born in 1934 in what would later become East Germany. During WW II, a bomb dropped by Allied aircraft left a large crater very near his house. He was shot at by German troops while tossing a few chunks of warmth-giving coal from a train loaded with the stuff. These were only a couple of his wartime (mis)adventures.

Post-war didn’t prove much better, what with his having ended up on the east side of the Iron Curtain. In 1955, having told only his mother, father and the brother who was going with him, Heinz headed for West Berlin. With only the clothes on his back, he walked to freedom through Checkpoint Charlie into the American Sector. From there he made his way to the United States in 1958 and his future career as an electrician working in Detroit’s auto industry.

Heinz is retired now. Both he and his wife collect their social security and pensions. They live quite comfortably, though his wartime experiences have left Heinz unable to watch an air show with its diving planes, and now finds barley inedible since he ate far too much of it during the war.

He has no plans to move outside the U.S. But, like George Mason U. Prof. Walter Williams, Heinz thinks that young persons might seriously consider emigrating. This isn’t the America he fled to. What he thought he had left behind has reared its ugly head right here in the U.S. During a recent conversation Heinz shook his head while commenting on the current political atmosphere in the United States, “… and the people here say they can’t understand how Hitler came to power?”

So, who would you prefer to believe? The talking heads on television? Those who extol the infinite virtues of socialism? Celebrities and LGBT aficionados? Michael Moore? Oprah? Karl Rove?

Or should you more seriously consider the insight of a man who has lived under heel of both the Nazis and the Communists?

Ciao.

You could be short-changing yourself if you don’t take the 7m10s to watch this:

Tricky Dick was a piker compared to the Chicago-gangland bred Obama Administration. But I can understand where they’re coming from. And they’re doing a bang-up job of exceeding the subversiveness of Slick Willie’s good works. What troubles me more are all the anonymous bureaucratic worker bees who are “just following orders” when they willingly push others under the wheels of our tyrannical Federal Juggernaut. We reside in a gulag camouflaged as democracy. We get to elect our jailers so they treat us a smidgen better than they might otherwise.

One hell of a woman is Ms. Engelbrecht. Wonder what the Dems will come up with to trash her?

Ciao.

The recent Eastern U.S. outbreak of record-setting frigid air has added a new term to the popular lexicon: ‘Polar Vortex.’ Weather Channel meteorologists explained during a mid-freeze broadcast that, strictly speaking, the use of this term in conjunction with the recently passed cold snap is not technically correct. However, these same meteorologists continued by pointing out that the then simultaneous above-normal temps in Europe negated any anti-climate change indications associated with the non-relevant polar vortex blip.

Those living in Scandinavia prefer to use the term ‘glow-ball vorming’ rather than ‘climate change.’ This was pointed out a number of years ago by a fellow who called himself ‘The Diplomad.’ In a short post on his now-defunct blog describing the topics of conversation during a diplomatic dinner he rankled:

The topics of discussion were, of course, the USA, Bush, our obsession with warfare, and our avoidance of the Kyoto Treaty. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, you’ve read The Diplomad rants on this stuff before, so I won’t go into great detail about what was said. You know it all. I don’t have to tell you . . . well, maybe just a little bit. It’s kind of funny, or at least it seems that way to me as the clock sweeps past midnight.

A very nice elderly Scandinavian lady diplomat (we’ll call her Inger — not her real name) and The Diplomad (TD) had a short conversation that went something like this (Note to new FSOs: This style of conversation is not approved by the Foreign Service Institute and should only be attempted at home, and when you’re absolutely sure nobody will hear you):

Inger: Ve are very vorried about glow-ball vorming. Vhy aren’t you vorried about glow-ball vorming?

TD: Huh? You’re worried about worming? Your government is worried about worms? Like with a dog?

Inger: Not vorm, vorm! Glow-ball vorming! The vorld is getting hat!

TD: Oh, global warming. Hot, yeah. It’s bullshit and you know it . . .

There was, of course, more said about Kyoto (I’ll have more in a subsequent posting) but that sums up the level of discussion on “glow-ball vorming.”

Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The World and The Diplomad

Nine years on we are still arguing the point with most of the discussion centering on anecdotal evidence based upon such things as polar vortices and above average temperatures somewhere upon the surface of the planet. One would think the cold bits would climatologically balance out the hot bits but that’s not how climate science politics works. And, as oxymoronically indicated by Dennis Miller on the O’Reilly Factor when he said “this global warming is freezing me to death,” personal observation should be disregarded.

What should not be disregarded is the real science. Herewith is an extract of a scientific paper on the question of just how anthropomorphic are the presumed current “changes” in climate. The introduction and summary should suffice to give one a clear idea of the core contention between the Climate Change Faithful (CCF) and the Quantitative Science Radicals (QSR). What follows discusses the only quantifiable physical observations that can be conducted to test the validity of the computer models on the effect of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere.

If you read this I can assure that you’ll will know more about the subject than Al Gore does. Or, at least, more than he’ll admit to. Will this qualify you for a “Peace Prize”?

Ciao,
Dennis

P.S. Thanks goes to my sister Liz for the Dennis Miller quote.
P.P.S. Does anyone have Jon Stewart’s email address?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY
Int. J. Climatol. (2007)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

By David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

Copyright 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
KEY WORDS climate trend; troposphere; observations
Received 31 May 2007; Accepted 11 October 2007

1. Introduction

A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’ From a study of several independent observational datasets Douglass et al. (2004b) confirmed that the disparity was real and arose mostly in the tropical zone. Also, Douglass et al. (2004a) showed that three state-of-the-art General Circulation Models (GCMs) predicted a temperature trend that increased with altitude, reaching a maximum ratio to the surface trend (‘amplification’ factor R) as much as 1.5–2.0 at a pressure (altitude) about 200–400 hPa. This was in disagreement with observations, which showed flat or decreasing amplification factors with altitude.

In the Douglass et al. (2004a) study, only three observational datasets were considered, and the number of models was limited to the three most widely referenced. The present study includes all available datasets, and an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- sponsored model inter-comparison project using the ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ (20CEN) forcing includesmodels from almost all the major modelling groups [Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI, 2005)]. The number of observational datasets and models constitutes a significant increase over the Douglass et al. (2004a) study, and thus, it is appropriate that a new analysis be made.

Santer et al. (2005) recently investigated the altitude dependence of temperature trends during the satellite era, emphasizing the tropical zone, where the characteristics are well-suited for model evaluation. They compared available observations with 19 of the models and suggest that any disparity between models and observations is due to residual errors in the observational datasets. In this article, we consider the observational results in 22 of the models that were available. As did Santer et al. (2005), we confine our study to the tropical zone – but we reach a different conclusion.

In Section 2 we describe the data and the models. In Section 3 we show that the models and the observations disagree to a statistically significant extent. In Section 4 we discuss efforts that have been made to resolve the disparity, and we summarize in Section 5.

[big snip]

5. Summary

We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.

In summary, the debate in this field revolves around the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface. What is new in this article is the determination of a very robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations which disagree with trends from the models.

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

Received an email today (hat tip to NYC Dan) suggesting that I read a posting at Pajama Media by Roger Simon titled, “What if it’s All True?” Mr. Simon’s query was prompted by a Washington Post article regarding the President’s uncle Onyango “Omar” Obama and his assertion that Obama resided with him on occasion while attending Harvard Law, said assertion being contrary to what Obama has up until now claimed. However, according to the Boston Globe, as of Thursday, Obama now acknowledges having lived with his uncle. Regarding the controversies surrounding Obama and his Presidency, Simon concludes:

But that’s only one area of accusation. What if they were all true – or, if not all, say thirty, forty or even fifty percent? What if this were actually demonstrated while he was still in office to the degree that the standard spin that all politician(s) lie no longer applied? What if we could prove that it had gone well beyond that, beyond Nixon and Clinton far into the realm of an invented man? What would that mean, exactly? Should his opponents rejoice? Would a new era and truth, beauty and prosperity be upon us?

Not likely. Great damage has been done. Consider for a moment that whatever theories we have about Obama, whatever prevarications and deceptions of which we are aware or unaware, are known equally to our adversaries – the intelligence agencies of China, Russia and Iran. Even if they were too dumb to figure it out for themselves, which they’re not, they read our newspapers and blogs.

These totalitarian – or near totalitarian, depending on how you want to parse it – states depend on lies for their existence. In Obama they have found a partner in crime, a semblable, as Baudelaire would say. They are currently exploiting this. In all likelihood our world will never be the same. This is no cause for celebration by any American.

Yes, “all politicians lie”, “great damage has been done”, and there is “no cause for celebration” because Emperor Obama now stands naked before us. Our foreign enemies figured us out long ago, long before most of us were born. The most serious problem we have is that for the most part we have not ferreted-out and discovered who our domestic enemies, including sundry dupes and puppets, really were and are. Politics appears to be the field of battle, but that is only one killing ground in socialism’s war against America. This war is a cultural, spiritual, economic, pseudo-scientific, legal, moral and philosophical dismemberment of Western Civilization. If you think Communism, in all its manifold manifestations, disappeared with the “collapse” of the Soviet Union, you may wish to reconsider – quickly.

This little tirade, in and of itself, will not convince anyone of anything or change any minds. I’ve spent thirteen years digging, discovering, and digesting before deciding that I have some idea of what the hell is really going on. My ignorance is still great, but hopefully not misleading, and certainly not complete. Mr. Simon is correct, but he has only scratched the surface of what lies beneath.

Ciao.

Correspondent Elaine B. writes:

To quote Judge Judy, “If something doesn’t make sense, it must be a lie.” Maybe the pieces are starting to fit together.

It may be awhile before we learn where Edward Snowden of NSA whistle-blower fame will end up finding sanctuary, but we do know he started out in Hawaii. Hawaii is the most liberal/leftist state in the Union, and it is the purported American wellspring of our current Fearless Leader, Obama. Also, there is a sizable ethnic Chinese community resident in our 50th state. That may sound racist to some. However, it’s no secret that the Chinese Communists will, if necessary, use threats against an ex-pat’s family members still living in China to extract “cooperation” from those beyond their direct reach. With America’s penchant for diversity and political correctness when hiring being what it is, well, the family connections of a prospective employee may not be thoroughly considered during the security clearance process.

Gordon Chang is a columnist for Forbes magazine and the author of The Coming Collapse of China. His recent article for Gatestone Institute, “Tinker, Tailor, Snowden, Spy”, offers some interesting details regarding the damage that Mr. Snowden has managed to inflict upon the United States:

• China may have helped Snowden gather information from the National Security Agency. Sources in the American intelligence community suspect the famous “leaker” was really a “drop box,” receiving information from others in NSA who were working for China. His job was to act as the courier.

• This would explain how Snowden could possess information to which he did not have access. It is possible he figured out how to bypass barriers in NSA’s systems, but it is more likely he had help.

• Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports that the FBI is investigating whether Snowden obtained documents “from a leak inside the secret FISA court.”

• Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has suggested Snowden probably had an accomplice in the NSA who gave him information.

• Beijing may also have encouraged Mr. Snowden to leave Hawaii. One of Mr. Chang’s sources indicates that Chinese intelligence, either directly or through FBI personnel working for China, tipped Snowden off that NSA investigators were closing in on him.

• In his interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden turned over documents that contained detailed technical information about NSA activities, including specific Internet Protocol addresses surveilled.

• The Chinese did their best to make sure that American officials did not get the opportunity to interrogate Snowden. The last thing they wanted was for the U.S. to have the opportunity to learn the extent of China’s penetration of the NSA and the FBI in Hawaii. Therefore, they ensured he left Hong Kong before the city could “surrender” him.

• Chinese Ministry of State Security agents had been in contact with Snowden while he was in Hong Kong and probably obtained all they wanted from his four laptops and one thumb drive.

• Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports that U.S. officials say Russian and Chinese intelligence operatives obtained access to, in the words of Gertz, “highly classified U.S. intelligence and military information contained on electronic media” held by Snowden.

Edward Snowden is obviously not Chinese. But it would be very interesting to know how many ethnic Chinese, whether or not residents of Hawaii, were involved in what appears to be a spy ring that includes persons working for the NSA, FISA court and FBI. Snowden is a nicely suitable front man, if that is what he was, precisely because there’s not an obvious ethnicity link in the way there is with Maj. Nidal Hasan when it comes to the Fort Hood executions. But then, that’s work place violence and not espionage. If you think I’m reading too much ethnicity into this L’affaire Snowden business, be advised that this is not the first time such a suspicion has occurred to me regarding using out-of-the-way Hawaii for espionage purposes.

As production of the F-22 Raptor wound down, the decision was made to send many of the aircraft to the Air National Guard rather than active Air Force squadrons. As far as I know, this was the first time an aircraft new to the inventory went directly to ANG units. The first such F-22 assignment was to the 199th Fighter Squadron in Hawaii. I was puzzled. Not just by the fact that the latest aircraft in the USAF inventory were being essentially retired to ANG units, but also, why Hawaii? Then it struck me. What better place was there for the Chinese to study the aircraft? I wondered if they would end up having one disassembled in an isolated hanger stuck somewhere on Hickam Field of Pearl Harbor fame.

I know this is all wild-eyed speculation. But if the Chinese have NSA/FBI guys-‘n’-gals in Hawaii working for them, why not Air Guard personnel? Probably nobody would pay much attention to the goings-on in our Pacific Paradise. At least not until Edward Snowden showed up.

For more see “Killing the F-22”

Ciao.

P.S. Don’t forget about Wen Ho Lee

Recently received the following as part of a newsletter from Military.com:

Secret Move Keeps Bin Laden Records in the Shadows
Jul 08, 2013
Associated Press| by Richard Lardner

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. special operations commander, Adm. William McRaven, ordered military files about the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout to be purged from Defense Department computers and sent to the CIA, where they could be more easily shielded from ever being made public.

The secret move, described briefly in a draft report by the Pentagon’s inspector general, set off no alarms within the Obama administration even though it appears to have sidestepped federal rules and perhaps also the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

An acknowledgment by Adm. William McRaven of his actions was quietly removed from the final version of an inspector general’s report published weeks ago. A spokesman for the admiral declined to comment.

Now, about Smokey:
The next day I get this from fellow River Rat Terry S.

Economic Warfare Super Panel – William Scott
Published on Aug 13, 2012
Economic Warfare Institute at American Center for Democracy
www.econwarfare.org & www.acdemocracy.org
July 9. 2012

[8m47s but the gist may be had in the first 2m38s]

Wonder what else there might be in that Osama bin Laden “treasure trove”? And why is the Administration covering up for al Qa’eda? Or, are they just a bit late closing the barn door?

“Edward Snowden, where are you? Have another job for ya!”

Ciao.

Should someone tell the Muslims? About Mohammed, that is.