The Terror Threat this Year

For John, BLUF:  Intelligence Agencies are now loooking out and seeing terrorists threats to the US and Europe emerging in Afghanistan.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

U.S. Commander: ISIS in Afghanistan 6 Months Away From Foreign Attack Capability

Here is the sub-headline:

‘They can do an external operation against U.S. or Western interests abroad in under six months with little to no warning,’ says the Army general in charge of regional operations.

From US News and World Report, by Reporter Paul D. Shinkman, 16 March 2023.

Here is the lede plus four:

The Islamic State group branch in Afghanistan will be able to conduct terrorist attacks in Europe and Asia within six months, the top U.S. officer for operations in the region told Congress on Thursday.

“They can do an external operation against U.S. or Western interests abroad in under six months with little to no warning,” Army Gen. Michael Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The general later specified that the group known as ISIS-Khorasan or ISIS-K could potentially conduct attacks in Asia or in Europe. It will have greater difficulty attacking the U.S. homeland directly, he said in response to questions.

U.S. intelligence offered a similar assessment of ISIS-K’s ability to attack the U.S. in October 2021.

The potential threat posed by the group, whose brutal acts became more prolific in the final years of the U.S. involvement in the conflict, has become a renewed matter of attention as lawmakers scrutinize the extent the U.S. can still conduct counter-terror operations in Afghanistan after fully withdrawing from it.

Som 20 years and 2429 US Dead (and 46,319 Afghan civilians dead) we are six months away from a potential terrorist event on our soil.  This does not smack of a successful outcome.  It will be worse if there is a terrorist event in the near future.

A planning question for both the Department of State and the Department of Defense is what should be our reaction to a terrorist event out of Afghanistan?  Included in that should be the White House National Security Advior (Jake Sullivan)  Some prior planning will tend to suppress hairbrain ideas thrown on the table at the last minute.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Does Society Help Shape IQ?

For John, BLUF:  Is the Author correct?  I don't know, but it is worth considering.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Connecting the dots the experts won’t

From The American Mind, by Ms Helen Roy, 31 Agust 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Flynn effect and its reversal are topics of scientific inquiry by which, should you find yourself inching toward politically incorrect conclusions, cancellation looms ominously.

In 2016, in a systematic literature review of all major accounts of the post-seventies IQ plummet across Western countries, Edward Dutton of the Ulster Institute for Social Research concluded that the best explanation for the dawdling of the Western mind had both environmental and genetic components.  The industrial revolution’s technological advances, he argued, precipitated massive gains on IQ scores “by establishing an environment which compelled us to think in a more scientific way, compelled us to become more educated, and saturated us with knowledge, information, and novel problems.”

But industry simultaneously brought “dysgenic fertility” practices.  It precipitated a decline in fertility, especially for wealthy people, and those with weaker genetic material were able to survive and themselves procreate whereas they would have died in previous centuries.  Dutton determined that the Flynn Effect is best explained as temporary superficial adaptation to new forms of education which disguised postindustrial genetic degradation for a period of time—until the truth of dysgenic fertility could overcome the effects of the new educational environment, a reversal which he identified as the negative Flynn effect.  These conclusions, as well as his other forays into forbidden areas of scientific knowledge caused several problems for Dutton, namely his disaffiliation from the Ulster Institute.

This article asks if sociatal changes post 1970s might have impacted IQ.  The author suggest no-fault divorce, more women in the workforce and day-care for pre-school children.  These are issues worth exploring.  The tradeoffs may well be worthwhile.  However, acceptance of the change in IQ should be with full knowledge of the pluses and minuses.

Who are the people in Lowell who might best kick off an exploration of this issue?  Are there political constraints on people getting off the approved path to look into these kinds of issues?

One quibble.  The writer tags then Governor Ronald Reagan with no-fault divorce.  The legislation came from State Assemblyman Jim Hayes, of Long Beach, a devoted Father.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

China as Culprit

For John, BLUF:  Five Eyes is a term for the Intelligence cooperation amongst the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bombshell 'Five Eyes' Western intelligence dossier claims China lied about human-to-human transmission, 'disappeared' whistle-blowers and refused to help other countries prepare a vaccine for coronavirus

Here are the sub-headlines:

• A leaked 15-page dossier from the 'Five Eyes' intelligence alliance says China's secrecy over the pandemic is an 'assault on international transparency'
• The US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand intelligence agencies have exposed a series of cover-ups It claims Five Eyes found a 'deadly denial of human-to-human transmission'
• Researchers who tried to raise the alarm have been silenced or disappeared and evidence of the outbreak was destroyed, it adds
• Report shows China refused to hand over virus samples to develop vaccines and censored its internet
• China also allegedly censored virus news on search engines from December
• The leaked files show the nations have evidence the virus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology
• Here’s how to help people impacted by Covid-19

From The Daily Mail, by Reporters Rachel Sharp, Jack Elsom and James Tapsfield, 2 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus five:

China lied about the human-to-human transmission of coronavirus, made whistle-blowers disappear and refused to help nations develop a vaccine, a leaked intelligence dossier reveals.

The 15-page document drawn up by the Five Eyes security alliance brands Beijing's secrecy over the pandemic an 'assault on international transparency' and points to cover-up tactics deployed by the regime.

It claims that the Chinese government silenced its most vocal critics and scrubbed any online scepticism about its handling of the health emergency from the internet.

China has roundly come under fire for suppressing the scale of its early outbreak which did not afford other nations time to react before the disease hit their shores.

Five Eyes - the pooling of intelligence by the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - laid bare its scathing assessment of the Xi Jinping administration in a memo obtained by the Australian Saturday Telegraph.

The smoking gun file claims to have found evidence the virus spawned in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, close to the wet market China says it came from, and unearths 'risky' research on bat-related diseases stretching back years.

Yes, this is sensationalism.  It is The Daily Mail, after all.  However, it is reporting on the kind of thinking one finds in authoritarian regimes.  Maintain the narrative, come what may and keep doubling down.  Truth, or freedom of information or thought, is not a consideration.

This kind of thing can lead to miscalculation and that can lead to conflict, especially when the lying party is also engaged in other international activities, like naval confrontations in the South China Sea.  And here.  And here.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Japan's Reaction to the Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

For John, BLUF:  We hear about how the Allied nations, in WWII, cracked German and Japanese communications codes.  Less known is that they were listening on us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

(Special Post for August 15 - Part 1) Japan's General Staff Office Knew About Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombing in Advance and Did Nothing, According to 2011 NHK Documentary

From EXSKF, 17 August 2013 (five years ago).

Here is the lede plus three:

There is an NHK documentary that was aired two years ago on August 6, 2011, on the anniversary day of Hiroshima atomic bombing.  I was unaware of this documentary until I saw a tweet a few days ago that had the link to a blogpost by Councilman Koichi Ohyama of Minamisoma City, Fukushima on September 25, 2012.

Mr. Ohyama's post from one year ago quotes the NHK documentary's announcement from two years ago, which says that the top officers of Japanese imperial army knew in advance the impending US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and did not do anything.

Atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been described (at least in Japan) as "beyond expectation" (just like the Fukushima nuclear accident) and "surprise attacks" with no pre-warning by the US, who used to dump leaflets in Japanese from the planes to warn civilians of impending attacks.

But NHK says the top military officers in imperial Japan knew, and did nothing.  The military essentially was the government during the war.

This is an interesting two part story.  The Second Part can be clicked on at the end of Part One.

It is interesting to see how denial prevented the Japanese leadership from reacting to the attacks by the SILVER PLATE B-29s.

The other interesting thing to learn is that the Japanese were doing a pretty good job of tracking Allied communications and drawing useful conclusions.  This is a caution for the future, or for the present.  One should be careful in believing that one's communications are secure.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Following Interests

For John, BLUF:  I wonder if those who went before us are not quite as ignorant and rigid as we think they were?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Patriarchy paradox: how equality reinforces stereotypes

From The Times (of London), by Science Editor Tom Whipple, 15 September 2018.  Yes, this is a bit moldy and I am a bit slow in blogging about it.

Here is the lede plus three:

We all know what is meant to happen when the genders become more equal.  As women smash glass ceilings and open up education, other differences should disappear too.

Without the psychological shackles of being the second sex, women are free to think and behave as they want; to become physicists or chief executives, unfettered by outdated stereotypes.

Yet to the confusion of psychologists, we are seeing the reverse.  The more gender equality in a country, the greater the difference in the way men and women think.  It could be called the patriarchy paradox.

Two new studies have again demonstrated this counterintuitive result, meaning it is now one of the best-established findings in psychology, even if no one can properly explain it.

Or maybe the researchers are going with assumptions that are just flat wrong.

Perhaps equality provides the opportunity for women, and men, to beam off in the direction they wish, rather than the direction society has been pointing them.

Be warned, there is a pay wall and no freebees.

Why do we assume that, given the different functions of the two genders in perpetuating the human race, the two genders have identical interests, insights and abilities?  This is not to say that one area belongs to one or the other gender.  However, there might be tendencies and interests that diverge.  I wonder how many people we have harmed, to some degree, because of our beliefs about what is and isn't proper for children growing up?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Chancellor Merkel v the German Intel Community

For John, BLUF:  Even if an agency styles itself the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, it should not run roughshod over the elected political leadership.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

German spy scandal exposes deep divisions in Merkel government

From Reuters News Service, by Mr Paul Carrel, 14 September 2018.

A longish article, here is the meat of it:

The rift opened up in October 2015, when Merkel put her chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, in charge of Germany’s response to the refugee crisis, with Emily Haber - a diplomat - acting as point person in the Interior Ministry.

That chain of command effectively shut out the security services, which couldn’t get face time with Merkel.

“That totally frustrated these people ... they were horrified,” said Alexander.

So, it isn't just in the United States were the Intelligence Community appears to be at odds with the leader of the elected government.

In this case it is Chancellor Angela Merkel and Hans-Georg Maassen, chief of the BfV intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (German:  Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz or BfV).

Regarding the event that exposed this problem, here is a view from Mr Rick Moran and the magazine American Thinker.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Proposed CIA Director to be Grilled Today

For John, BLUF:  This is a very important issue, because it is about accountability in our secret services, which in turn reflects on accountability in the Deep State.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is about the nomination of Ms Gina Haspel to be the next Director of the CIA.  She is an Intel Progressional, who has worked her way up to be the Deputy Director (and Acting Director).

Gina Haspel and the Elusive Shadow of CIA Torture:  A Response to Ben Wittes

From Just Security, by Professor Steve Vladeck, 9 May 2018.  Mr Vladeck is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Just Security and Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.

Here is the lede:

At Lawfare, Ben Wittes has a long post up titled “Why I Support Gina Haspel—Despite a Big Reservation.”  It’s worth reading in full, because it makes about as strong a case as can be made for Haspel’s confirmation for folks who are, to put it precisely, less than enthusiastic about the wisdom, morality, or legality of the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program—in which Haspel played a major role.  (For those, like President Trump, who see her role in CIA torture as a feature, not a bug, well, that’s another matter.)

Yes, this is about the fact that in the wake of the 9/11 Attacks we went with torture to obtain the information we wanted on our enemies.  We have since come to the conclusion that it was illegal and immoral to torture people for information.  There are those who would argue that it was also ineffective.

The Senate hearing on Ms Haspel begins today.

Part of what this is about is sweeping history under the rug.  Another part is if having sinned once, one is forever denied absolution.  That is, is atonement possible?  The way we are pulling down Civil War statues in this country, one wonders.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Corbyn Sides With the Other Side

For John, BLUF:  If only Ms Clinton had been elected this wouldn't have happened.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Seumas Sticks to Line, Refused to Condemn Russia

Here is the sub-headline:

May Slams Corbyn Over His Refusal to Condemn Russia.

This is from Guido Fawkes, at his Blog, Order-Order, on 14 March 2018.  It has embedded video of the Prime Minister condemning the Opposition Leader.

Here is the lede plus one:

Theresa May slammed Jeremy Corbyn for his lack of support over the Russian spy poisoning crisis. The Prime Minister told Jezza:

There is a consensus across the backbenches of this House. I am only sorry that this consesnsus does not go as far as the Right Honourable Gentleman, who could have taken the opportunity as the UK government has done to condemn the cuplability of the Russian state.

To his face.  It was, after all, Prime Minister's Questions.♠

But, back to Jessa (Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn).  He has refused to point a finger at Russian President Putin in the attempted murders of two Russian Expatriates and the incidental poisoning of a British Police Office.

There is this, further down the blog post:

In this type situation Guido would normally expect the leader of the oppostion’s spin doctor to back pedal in the Lobby briefing huddle that follows, he would “clarify” and nuance the wording. Emphasise the more conventional parts of the argument to soften the inevitably hostile headlines coming tomorrow. When that spin-doctor is Seumas Milne however it seems there was to be no compromising on Putin’s line. Under intense questioning he refused to say that the Labour Party’s leader accepted the Russian state was at fault:

The government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don‘t. However, also there is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly. So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.

The reference to "a history" refers to the run up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, when the UK supported the United States Government regarding accusations of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.  There was, first, The Butler Review, and then in 2009, The Chilcot Inquiry.♠

There you have it.  The Labour Party in the United Kingdom is officially in President Putin's pocket.  There is a lot more evidence for that than there ever was for President Trump being in collusion with the Russians.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  President George H. W. Bush said, "I count my blessings for the fact I don't have to go into that pit that John Major stands in, nose-to-nose with the opposition, all yelling at each other."
♥  For those hoping to see Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrap up soon, the Chilcot Report started in 2009, with its appointment by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and ended in 2016 with a public statement by Sir John Chilcot.  Speaking of sinecures.

Those Pesky EMails

For John, BLUF:  I think SecState Clinton was careless in caring for classified information and folks around her covered for her.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Former Intel Watchdog Says Hillary's Allies Threatened Him Over Email Probe

This Pajamas Media item is by Ms Debra Heine, 28 November 2017.

Here is the lede plus three:

A former government watchdog says Hillary Clinton's campaign threatened retribution against him and his loved ones when he raised concerns about classified info on Clinton's private email server while it was being investigated in 2016.

“There was personal blowback.  Personal blowback to me, to my family, to my office,” former Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Fox News' Catherine Herridge on Monday.

He said the Clinton campaign even put out word that it planned to fire him if Clinton won the 2016 election.  Democrats in Congress also mounted what he thought looked like a coordinated campaign to intimidate him.

McCullough, an Obama appointee, became inspector general after "more than two decades at the FBI, Treasury and intelligence community," Fox News reported.  He explained how the probe was quickly politicized and his office marginalized by Democrats in Congress.

Oh goody.

My view is that if you are not paranoid about classified, you shouldn't be handling classified.  An example—when I was the Squadron Intelligence Officer for the 525th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Bulldogs—"You Bet Your Sweet A__ I Am") I went into work one Sunday and when I left the base I turned around and drove back on base, unlocked the squadron front door, unlocked the Intel Office and rechecked the safe, relocked the Intel Office door, relocked the squadron front door, then went through my steps in my mind and then reentered my car and drove off the base and went home.  Like I said, paranoid.  And we didn't have any SAP stuff, as mentioned in the article.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Three Times the Speed of Sound

For John, BLUF:  There were some real technical wonders back in the 1950s and 60s.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Vietnam, the CIA, and the World's Fastest Aircraft

The sub-headline:

As the SR-71 went public, these pilots flew its lookalike in secret.

David Freed Air & Space Magazine October 2017.

This is the story of the Lockheed Skunk Works A-12 OXCART. Here is the lede plus three:

During the selection process for pilots to fly a top-secret mission, Ken Collins was told to report to an apartment in Philadelphia, then locked in a room for six hours in complete darkness.  A loudspeaker would periodically order him not to doze off. He didn't.  "I can only assume that I must have passed," Collins says.

Collins, 88, a retired Air Force colonel, was among six hand-picked Air Force fighter jocks who overflew North Vietnam at Mach 3 on high-altitude photo-reconnaissance missions for the Central Intelligence Agency.  He flew a spy plane so hush-hush its operations remained classified for decades.  The top-secret project for which Collins had volunteered was code-named Operation Black Shield, and it was based in the Nevada desert.  Deceptively nicknamed "Oxcart," the supersonic Lockheed A-12 aircraft he piloted was the single-seat predecessor of its ultimately more famous, two-man virtual twin, the SR-71 Blackbird.

The A-12 made its first flight in 1962.  Lockheed's Kelly Johnson hadn't designed the A-12 for Vietnam, but Vietnam was the war it was born into.  Johnson had created the airplane in response to the CIA's need for something that could fly faster and higher than its subsonic U-2, another Johnson-designed reconnaissance airplane, which the agency had relied on since the mid-1950s to provide high-altitude photography.  The A-12 was unlike anything anyone had ever seen.

"You didn't wear it like you did a fighter," says another pilot who flew Black Shield missions, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Francis J. "Frank" Murray, 86, of Gardnerville, Nevada.  "You were stuck way up in the nose, with a monster behind you."

One of the names mentioned in the article was Mele Vojvodich Jr., who was my wing commander in the early part of my second tour in Southeast Asia.  He commanded the 388th at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base.  But, before that, after flying in the Korean War, he was "sheep dipped" into the CIA to fly the A-12.

Regards  —  Cliff

This is Disappointing

For John, BLUF:  Maybe Candidate Trump's victory convinced the Democrats walking the corridors of power that some malignant outside force must have been at work.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reminder: Susan Rice Lied About Her Role In The Obama Admin Unmasking Scandal

Back on or about 4 April 2017.

This is a report from The Federalist, written by Mr David Harsanyi, 14 September 2017.

Very disappointing, although I suppose she thought she was protecting the family jewels of US Intelligence by not revealing the "unmasking" of members of the Trump Team, post election.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

How China Sees Us

For John, BLUF:  We are still of value to, and a thorn in the side of, China.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"The U.S. is Sick":  How a Chinese Analyst Might View the United States

But still very much alive.

To be frank, it often looks like The Cipher Brief is part of the "take down Trump" crowd, but this item seems fairly balanced.

This look at how China may view the United States was provided by Mr Michael J Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA, speaking as the mythical Mr Wang Yong, an Analyst at the Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, the analytic arm of the Ministry of State Security,.

It is a pretty interesting look at both the US and China.

Regards  —  Cliff

Officials Speaking Anonymously

For John, BLUF:  It goes on, but there needs to be some pushback in the name of ethics.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Exclusive: U.S. plans to test THAAD missile defenses as N.Korea tensions mount

By Reporter Phil Stewart, for Reuters, on Friday, 7 July 2017.

From the article:

The officials who disclosed to Reuters the precise nature and timing of the upcoming test spoke on condition of anonymity.

So, is this a good leak or a bad leak? Is this an authorized leak or an unauthorized leak?

Who can tell? I think it is a good leak, an authorized leak, but maybe not. The art of propaganda is to mix in those discordant themes along with a lot of banal truth.

I am probably naive, but I think DC needs a new set of ethics, which would include the idea that one does not “leak” but rather stands up and stands behind what one says.

What is gained by the anonymity with regard to this article? Little I can see, except maybe a staff type or even lower level leader speaking out of school so as to curry favor or to get around a leadership they either don’t like or don’t respect.

If we really believe in transparency, it being honest, we need to stop the leaking and start standing behind what we are willing to say and keeping our mouth shut if we are not willing to be named the source.

Regards  —  Cliff

Destructive Leaking

For John, BLUF:  No good is coming from this kind of leaking, unless the leaker(s) want the Sampson Option, which will hurt their head when the structure collapses on them, and us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Deep State Leaks Highly Classified Info to Washington Post to Smear President Trump

I had flagged, last week, this Breitbart article by Reporter Kristina Wong, back on Monday, the 15th of May.  I had a chance to talk to Ms Wong this last Saturday and found her to be intelligent and insightful.  Only today did I make the connection, otherwise I would have asked her about it in detail.

Here is the sub-headline:

Current and former U.S. officials, supposedly concerned that President Trump had shared some “highly classified information” with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S. last week, leaked that information to the Washington Post in an article published Monday.

The next paragraph is:

However, the report admits that it is “unlikely” Trump broke any laws.

This seems like some sort of insanity.  There is highly classified information, that a US Newspaper puts out there for all to see, based on the fact that the US President saw fit to mention it to the Russian Foreign Minister.  Maybe the President was warning a nation that is a de facto ally in the war on terrorism.♠  But, now, thanks to a selfish and self-centered leaker, and a cooperating media, it is out there for all to see, including terrorist organizations, although I am not sure terrorist organizations couldn't have winkled this out on their own.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  A friend of mine wrote this morning:  "Most people agree terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians to create fear for some political goal.  Or something like that.  Meaning attacking a foreign occupying force is not terrorism.  Now acknowledging that does not constitute an endorsement of it."

Intelligence Cooperation

For John, BLUF:  Think ECHELON.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

BOMBSHELL: Fox News Sources Say Obama Used Brits To Spy On Donald Trump

It is The Daily Wire and Mr John Nolte.

Here is the lede:

While the American Intelligence Community (IC) plays "not us" when it comes to claims that the Obama Administration spied on President Trump (when he was both a candidate and President-elect), Fox News has learned that in order to avoid a paper trail, fingerprints, and pesky little details like the Bill of Rights, President Obama circumvented all of that by requesting the British spy on Trump.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Quiet Coup

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I lose it about the Democratic Party Establishment.

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

From The Old Gray Lady and the team of reporters, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman and Michael S Schmidt.  The dateline is 1 March of this year.

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Three anonymous sources?  Three former American officials who are afraid to be named because they are trafficking in classified information?  If they were real whistle blowers they would go to their agency's IG or talk to friendly Democratic members of Congress.

Yes, and The Old Gray Lady is out trolling for leaks.  This is a screen capture from today:

So, it looks to some of us that the Democrats, lead by Former President Barack H Obama, are working to overthrow President Trump.  And, for good reason.  President Trump is disruptive.  He stands up to Democrats (and the Main Stream Media).  He stands athwart history, in a way Mr William F Buckley, Jr, put it:

A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

And, it is especially embarrassing that the Dow Jones keeps on going up and up.♠

It is my hope that the Democrats are just going to beclown themselves.  On the other hand, the alternate view is that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is trying to restrict gun ownership just for the purpose of allowing a Democratic Party Coup and preventing a counter-coup from the Republicans, the Conservatives, the Libertarians, the Americans.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Even Nobel Laureates are being proven wrong by the Dow Jones, and President Trump.

Intel Community Sharing Your Data

For John, BLUF:  You probably thought this was going on anyway.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Surprise:  At the End, Obama Administration Gave NSA Broad New Powers

This is PJ Media and the author of the 15 February 2017 article is Mr Michael Walsh.

Here is the essence of the situation:

This story, from the Jan. 12, 2017, edition of the New York Times, was little-remarked upon at the time, but suddenly has taken on far greater significance in light of current events:

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

Why, if he thought Mr Trump wasn't such a good guy, would President Obama relax our Fourth Amendment protections as he walked out the door?  I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Election Meddling

For John, BLUF:  Of course other nations will have in interest in our elections.  We are who we are.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Clinton says foreign leaders privately offered to endorse her to “stop” Trump.  Shouldn’t the IC also investigate what else they might have tried?

The author is Law Professor Charlie Dunlap, JD, and the publication date (at Duke University's Lawfire Blog) is 15 January 2017.

Here is the lede:

Americans are rightly (and almost literally) up in arms about the intelligence community’s (IC) report that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Professor Dunlap then goes on to point out that others offered to intervene in our election or may have actually intervened.  For example, the Italian Prime Minister back in March 2016.♠♥

Here is how the Blog Post wraps up.

Again, we need to continue a deep dive into Russian activities – Americans understandably see Russia as a threat – but we ought not to naively assume that they were the only country who might have wanted to shape the outcome of our election.  Only by having all the facts out in the proverbial sunlight can we build an architecture that helps ensure that the outcomes of American elections are free of problematic foreign influences.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Which is only fair, given how, after WWII we stuck our oar in Italian elections.
♥  Not just the Italians.  Mrs Clinton said, at the time, "I am already receiving messages from leaders ­– I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump."

Sorting Through Fake News

For John, BLUF:  Don't trust fact checkers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Edward Snowden:  Don’t Rely on ‘Referee’ to Censor ‘Fake News’

Here it is, Breitbart and Reporter Lucas Nolan, giving us advice from NSA Whistle Blower Edward Snowden on dealing with "fake news".  Of course there is "fake news" and there is "fake news".  If you are just making things up for clickbait then you are doing face news.  For example Mr Marco Chacon, doing it to earn a living.  On the other hand, there are reports that are incomplete and subject to interpretation.  If my spin is different from you, is my news fake?

Here is the paragraph Law Professor Ann Althouse excerpted.  Mr Snowden is on target here:

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee but rather because we as participants, we as citizens, we as users of these services help each other.  The answer to bad speech is not censorship.  The answer to bad speech is more speech.  We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting very popular.”

For sure, the last thing we need is Government as some sort of information gate keeper.  Almost as bad is for large private agencies to assume the role of gate keeper.  Sure, we have editors and publishers, but they tend to have small fiefdoms.  On the other hand, Facebook and Google are large organizations with broad coverage.

While Mr Snowden is still on my private list of bad guys, he is surely correct here.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

IC Refuses to Brief Congress♠

TRIGGER WARNING:  Wherein I talk about Mrs Clinton losing the Presidential race.
For John, BLUF:  The Intel Community is politicized.  The goal is to minimize that politicization.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Intelligence officials refuse to brief House panel on Russian hacking

This would be a requested Thursday, 15 December briefing by the DNI, FBI and CIA Directors (respectively Mr James Clapper, Mr James Comey and Mr John Brennan).

The article appears in USA Today, written by Ms Erin Kelly.

So, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Daughter, Christine Pelosi, an Elector from San Francisco, California, is calling for a "Day Pass" so the 538 Electors can be briefed on the latest intelligence, the Administration itself is not willing to update the US Congress.

I hope this is just great theater.  I hope it doesn't lead to the further politicalization of intelligence, a topic touched on by Prof Joshua Rovner at War on the Rocks.♥

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  IC would be Intelligence Community.  The 16 separate intelligence agencies, united.  They even have their own official seal.  There are several Department of Defense Agencies, plus CIA, and several cabinet departments, such as State, Justice, Treasury, Energy and Homeland Security.
♥  Regarding previous acts of politicalization, I do think it has existed for quite a while.  As a bonus, the US Intelligence Community has messed with the elections of other nations, including Italy.