A close look at Texas District 21 is a reminder as to why I'm running for Congress.

Why would anyone chose to run for Congress?  Some people really get a kick out of being in a position of authority.  It can be an addiction, especially for people who need constant positive reinforcement.  There are folks who truly enjoy the political process itself, including statistics, advertising, and the adrenaline rush that can come from campaigning.  Polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe people run for Congress as a means to financial enrichment, although a quick review of the requirements to get a successful campaign off the ground make it apparent that access to resources needs to present before the election, not just after.  Then we have the participants of conscience, people who get involved for the purpose of defending the Constitution and protecting our freedoms.  Not surprisingly, everyone claims to fit into the last category, especially during campaign season.

Until I embarked on a book tour to promote the publishing of my memoir, Mukhabarat, Baby!, I had no idea how angry people had become.  After two terms of Barack Obama, I wasn't necessarily thrilled with politics at the time, either, but folks were showing up to my speaking engagements prepared to ask very thoughtful and intelligent questions regarding the actions of both the Obama Administration and Congress.  Because I had experienced the frustration and anger of average Americans first-hand, I can't say I was surprised when an outsider, Donald Trump, won the presidency.  On the other side of the coin, an outsider also gave Hillary Clinton headaches.  In fact, many on the far-left still claim that if the Democratic establishment hadn't manipulated the rules here and there, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee.  From my optic, that's a bit of a stretch, given that Hillary did win a substantial majority of votes in the combined Democratic primaries, but one thing is for certain, just about everyone seems to be pissed off about something.  Although it was unexpected, I was ecstatic when Trump won the election.  I've never claimed to appreciate his elitist background, brusk manner and dismissive attitude, but I sure did embrace the Trump Agenda.  Border security, standing up to law-flaunting sanctuary cities, re-negotiating eight years of awful trade agreements, repealing Obamacare, and respect for our military, police officers and first responders- what a package!  I was ready to see President Trump Make America Great Again.  I was disabused of any notion I had that things would progress smoothly for the new administration almost as soon as Hillary called to concede.

We've got multiple investigations about alleged Trump collusion with Russian efforts to impact the 2016 election with absolutely no evidence, the Washington Post and NY Times publishing leaked, classified information on a daily basis, and a GOP-majority House and Senate that seem ready to impeach their own president, and the Trump Administration isn't even ten months old.  After completing my book tour, I continued to speak to various conservative groups regarding the history of espionage and what I considered abuses of the FISA law by the Obama Administration.  At every event, I was approached and asked to run for Congress.  Conservatives in Texas District 21 have been re-electing Republican Representative Lamar Smith for over thirty years, but I was sensing that patience was finally wearing thin.  Voters in District 21 voted overwhelmingly for the Trump Agenda, and it was obvious that Congress was very interested in making Trump's campaign promises a priority.  Where did Lamar Smith stand on the Trump Agenda?  No one seemed to have a clue, but it was clear that he wasn't looking for an opportunity to stand up for President Trump.  Representative Smith appears content to follow the lead of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and defer to politics as usual.  After discussing the issue with my family and close friends, and keeping in mind the desire for change that was so apparent to me during my speaking engagements throughout District 21, I decided to run against Lamar Smith in the Republican Primary in March 2018.

I am not a politician, and can safely say that I belong to that group of candidates that is running for the purpose of protecting our freedoms, defending the Constitution and the rule of law, and keeping the American people safe from government overreach, crime, and terrorism.  When I first decided to run, I was told that I would need to write myself a check for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or I had no chance of winning.  I did not write myself a check for thousands of dollars, although if it had been possible, I would have.  I retired with a full disability after having been poisoned while working for the CIA in 2001, and like many of you, I live on a fixed income.  Having me in Congress would be a return to Representative Democracy, as I'm not an attorney, nor am I a millionaire.  Everything I have done up to now, I 've done either by myself or with the help of a small group of supporters.  I've learned so much about the electoral process, and I'm convinced that the rules and regulations that exist are intended to discourage "average" Americans from participating in elections.  This reality wasn't a huge surprise, but I have to admit I was shocked when I discovered that Democrats are much more quick to get involved in the causes they feel are important, and much more willing to donate to candidates whom they support. 

In 2018, the Democratic Party will be running a number of Congressional candidates that don't resemble what we've recognized in the past as a typical Democrat.  The Democrats purposely searched for retired military and law enforcement to run in conservative districts, and nationally Democrats have been putting a great deal of money behind these candidates.  One of the announced Democrats running in Texas District 21 is a retired Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran and a Bronze Star recipient, and a graduate of West Point.  I thank him for his service and I appreciate his willingness to get involved in the process, but his politics are way to the left of the citizens of District 21.  I spent my time in warzones, including Iraq and Kosovo, and I've sacrificed for my nation.  I can think of nothing that I would appreciate more than debating this guy, as long as he promises to take of the ubiquitous UT baseball cap he seems to be always wearing.  But his candidacy is a good example of the problem pro-Trump candidates like myself are facing.  He's raised over three-hundred-thousand dollars, including quite a bit from out-of-state donors.  Democrats in California and DC really like this guy.

One advantage I have, which can't be bought, is that I represent the heart and soul of the Texas Hill Country.  I'm from here, and my connection to this community is a source of great personal pride.  District 21- Comal, Real, Bandera, Gillespie, Blanco, Kerr, Kendall Counties, with significant sections of Bexar, Hays and Travis Counties as well, is home to as diverse a group of Texans as you will find.  San Antonio and Austin are two of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation, but travel an hour west of Austin or an hour north of San Antonio, and you will find countless ranches and farms decorating our beautiful hills and river valleys.  Retired military families are a tremendously vibrant and important part of the district, as is Texas State University, one of the largest in the state.  The folks that live in District 21 are honest, hard-working, and generous; they don't have much time for foolishness, and they tend to see government nowadays as wasteful, intrusive and over-reaching, and I'm in complete agreement.  District 21 is one of the most consistently Republican districts in Texas, and if you're from here, you know why.  Families are the priority, and religion is the bedrock of this basically conservative community.  Be that as it may, people are very welcoming to new neighbors, and I've never seen one example of intolerance or racism.  Simply put, the voters of District 21 voted overwhelmingly for the pro-family, smaller government, support for rule-of-law agenda of Donald Trump.  I am much more reflective of this community than my opponents, and as a member of Congress, I will address their concerns and expectations.  Its not so much about us anymore, folks, its about the generations who follow.  Congress has been using their credit card for years, and its just about at its limit.  We must be accountable to our children and grandchildren, and leave them with real opportunities for success and the pursuit of safe, free and happy lives.  

    

Reuters releases a story on the recently-announced Special Prosecutor which clearly demonstrates how close they are to becoming a second-rate distributor of left-wing talking-points.

Link: Reuters has access to people who know "how the White House thinks".

 For decades, conservatives and Republicans have groaned about a perceived liberal bias in the news.  Poll after poll confirms that the great majority of journalists support the Democratic Party, and to be fair, most members of the media have never denied this reality.  During the 1980s and 1990s, those of us on the right had to put up with the media's almost ferocious defense of Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but the public at large seemed to understand the media's inclination to sympathize with liberals.  Some people unforgivably associate conservatism with fascism, and I've noticed many left-wing thinkers like to promote the idea that Democrats are the defenders of free-speech.  In truth, the actions of numerous groups who have been supported by the Democrats in the past, which include forcibly preventing guest speakers from delivering their addresses, call into question the left's true intentions regarding the First Amendment.  Not surprisingly, the media has been all-but silent on the repeated instances of conservatives being denied the right to speak, which falls in line with the less-than-fair way President Trump has been treated by the press.  Since his arrival in Washington DC, the media has attacked President Trump on a daily fashion, and from many different directions.

Taking a chance on public burnout, CNN, MSNBC, and the three traditional news stooges, ABC, CBS, and NBC, take turns printing front-page stories that detail a White House in absolute chaos.  Every third or fourth story, though, reminds the public of Trump's plan to outlaw Muslim immigrants in perpetuity, and to hide the "fact" that he and his staff colluded with Russian espionage to unfairly steal the presidential election from the oh-so deserving Hillary Clinton.  Actually, the media can take full credit for turning a non-story with absolutely no evidence, into an investigation with a Special Prosecutor, which will cost the U.S. taxpayer untold millions of dollars.  The Justice Department has a legal threshold that they are obliged to meet before enacting the Special Prosecutor option; that threshold certainly includes the existence of evidence.  Once this investigation is complete and the Trump Administration is vindicated, we all know that the media will bring up sources who claim that the Trump Justice Department "fixed" the outcome.  Regardless, I want to know which media billionaire big-shot is going to pick up the tab for the cost of an investigation that should never have been initiated.

The fact that the mainstream media is aggressively pursuing an agenda to discredit the Trump Administration is no longer "news", so to speak, to conservative listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.  That being said, the Reuters story that I've linked at the top of the page leaves me both angry and a bit perplexed.  I realize that there are folks on both the right and left who are going to believe the worst of the other side, regardless of the truth, as this is the nature of politics in today's day and age.  The problem of leaks emanating from the White House has become a full-blown crisis, and President Trump needs to appoint someone (Vice President Pence would be a great choice from my perspective, if not, I'm happy to do the job myself) who will focus exclusively, every day, on finding, firing or reassigning persons suspected of leaking.  Heck, why not just can everyone who has "Obama" written on their resume?  Also, keep Jared Kushner and Ivanka as far away from Operation Plug the Leak as possible.  There is no question that life-long Democrat Kushner elbowed his way into getting a few like-minded friends hired, and they may not actually be part of the problem, but I would look at those people very closely regardless.

Reuters claims to not only have sources in the White House who can report on conversations and events, they also claim to have sources who are familiar with how the White House thinks (see link, first paragraph, last sentence).  Are they referring to the White House as a living, breathing creature, or just certain people inside?  How long has Reuter's sources been able to tap into the thoughts of people in the White House?  Shouldn't this be an issue for the Secret Service and the FBI?  In a very bizarre way, things are beginning to make sense.  Since the Associated Press, the United Press International, Reuters, the Washington Post and the NY Times all have multiple sources in the White House, maybe we are dealing with only a handful of leakers, all with the ability to know what Trump and his closest advisers are thinking.  During my years with the CIA, I was not aware that this type of "information collection" was legitimate, but I can't account for what is now acceptable after two terms of Obama.

My tongue-in-cheek comments about Reuters is meant to shed light on the media and their self-authorized efforts to steal information from the Trump White House that is meant to be classified.  Shouldn't the President of the United States be afforded the opportunity to converse with his staff in private?  Why is the media allowed to repeat White House conversations involving the President of the United States?  Since the beginning of this embarrassment, we have assumed that these sources exist, and what they are reporting is accurate.  Since the media has no obligation and certainly no intention of disclosing their sources, how can we be sure that the details being printed in the Post and NY Times isn't all bullshit?  Is it beyond the pale to consider that the media might INVENT something?  Actually, history is replete with journalists doing just such a thing, as both the NY Times and the Post are aware.  In today's over-the-top, angry-left political environment, I have absolutely no reason not to approach everything I hear that has been published by Reuters, the Post or the NY Times, with great cynicism.  I voted for Donald Trump, as did enough Americans to put him in the White House.  He deserves just as much respect from the media in his first term as the Community Organizer got from me in 2008.  

What would we do without celebrities to tell us how to vote and how to live our lives?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the media delighted in reminding everyday Americans that most actors, singers and athletes lean hard to the left politically, and that the arrival of candidate Donald Trump on the scene for the GOP had spun up Tinseltown this year like a kicked-over anthill.  Anyone who has paid even the slightest amount of attention to national politics over the past few decades is no doubt aware that most Hollywood personalities and professional sports stars vote Democrat.  There are exceptions, but they are harder to find all the time.  I hope that the numbers are a bit more balanced than we are led to believe, and that intimidation and bullying keep a decent percentage of conservative voters in the entertainment community from expressing their political convictions, but each election makes me more pessimistic.  The truth is, none of this should matter.  Theater and film actors, directors, writers, singers, technicians, cameramen and movie extras are all entitled to support which candidate they choose, and the same holds true for professional athletes, coaches, and sports journalists.  So why have I wasted a paragraph, restating the obvious?  Because many personalities within the entertainment and professional sports community have decided to take advantage of their access to the press and media, and verbally abuse and threaten the candidate they dislike.  This development has provided me with the opportunity to examine the entertainment community in America today, in an effort to determine what they have accomplished, which makes them feel entitled to lecture the everyday folks of this great nation regarding their respective personal choice for president.

The Entertainment Industry has created, and continues to create, more millionaires percentage-wise than any other industry in the nation.  I don't watch the sitcom the "Big Bang Theory", but I am aware that the two main stars each make more than one-million dollars an episode, with the rest of the cast probably not far behind.  This kind of money seems obscene to me, and I have no clue how much more money these particular actors make from endorsements and the seemingly never-ending percentage earned since the show has become syndicated.  Jennifer Lawrence, one of Hollywood's hottest stars, makes an average of forty-six million dollars annually, Jennifer Aniston clocks in at twenty-one million, Jennifer Lopez at forty-million, and Meryl Streep, the doyenne of the group, brings in a not-too-shabby seven million dollars a year.  On the other side of the coin, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson commands over sixty-four million per year, Matt Damon fifty-five million, Tom Cruise fifty-three million, and Johnny Depp can expect to make forty-eight million dollars this year.  Again, these figures do not include a whole variety of opportunities that are available to famous folks.  Of course, these are estimates that I collected from various websites, including the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and TMZ, but the point I'm attempting to make can be understood without down-to-the-penny details.  Sure, I'm only commenting on the artists who sit at the top, but if you have the skill and charisma to be successful, Hollywood will hand you a paycheck to make all your dreams come true, and this includes the television actors whose names may not be familiar.  When I read that the actors in a recently-canceled, less-than-successful television series each made more money in only one season than I made in my entire career working for the CIA, I realized that the Entertainment Industry truly is drowning in cash.  The companies that create movies make most of their profit from overseas ticket-sales.  Interestingly enough, all that is required to sell out the movie theater in Paris or Kuala Lumpur, is to remind the theater-goer that the film was a huge success in the United States!  The sad American dichotomy that many performers and athletes make more money in a month than most Americans make in a lifetime of work, continues to grow with impunity. 

The average salary of a professional basketball or baseball player in 2017 is over four million dollars annually; the pro football player makes a bit less, at two million.  In the pro leagues, the team owners and the athletes take home unbelievable paychecks, regardless of the particular sport.  Where does all this money come from?  Have you noticed the price of a movie ticket lately?  Have you paid over thirty bucks for a medium Coke, a hot dog and some nachos lately?  Not to mention the two-hundred dollar authentic Dak Prescott jersey and the "official" NFL Cowboys baseball cap, which ran upwards of thirty dollars.  People are willing to pay two-hundred dollars to see the San Antonio Spurs play (the cheaper tickets require you to bring your own oxygen).  I'm a strong supporter of capitalism, so I'm in no position to complain when people make money from the system.  Also, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit, even if its on a three-hundred dollar Green Bay Packers blanket.  I'm hopeful that our economic system will eventually bring some balance to this issue.  I can't imagine salaries continuing to rise for both entertainers and athletes in this fashion, but I guess its possible.  I can't help but think that the average American will reach the point of having to choose between filling up the gas tank or taking the family to a movie.  Maybe at that point some sanity will return to the industry.

I never cease to be amazed at the greed that is regarded as normal behavior in the entertainment world.  Once a performer has become established and successful, there are no qualms about hiring a ghost writer and putting out a book a two.  Successful singers have a habit of sliding over into the acting business, grabbing even more dough while they can still take advantage of their familiarity to the American public and their access to the media.  Athletes have a habit of transitioning from professional sports to the world of motivational/public speaking, which can be very lucrative, especially when Apple, Google, Facebook or Microsoft are willing to pay two-hundred thousand dollars for speaking appearances.  The CEOs of these billion-dollar companies are only interested in finding a familiar face that will impress investors and stockholders who will be in attendance.  Back in the ancient days, when I was in grade school, actors were actors, athletes were athletes, writers were writers, and motivational speakers were non-existent.  I am disgusted with this community of multi-millionaire performers and athletes, who don't hesitate to elbow into other professions, taking audiences and resources away from persons who are singularly dedicated to their craft.  I will never forget when I glanced over the NY Times best-seller list and saw two books written by Bravo "housewives" and a self-absorbed, badly-written effort by Dr. Phil taking up spots that should have been occupied by dedicated, talented, sincere writers.  Successful performers and athletes have an unfair advantage.  They are able to use their access to the rich and famous in the business world and publishing, along with a recognizable face, to put away another million or two with little effort.  At least ghostwriters are doing good business.

Besides being actors, singers, athletes, authors, and writers, many persons within the entertainment community have also decided that they are much smarter than the average American.  They have accepted the obligation to instruct us on how to vote, because obviously the American people can't get along without their guidance.  This particular annoyance would be much less a distraction, if it weren't for the offensive and threatening attitude taken by these "entitled" folks.  Twice I have read that Robert DeNiro wants to punch President Donald Trump, and I can't count how many times the Baldwins, the Streeps, the Kathy Griffins, and the Madonnas have labeled all Trump supporters as Nazis and Racists.  We've experienced this type of aggressive political bullying on the part of the leftist entertainment community before, but never with such self-satisfaction and moral superiority.  And all from people with mansions, property in the Caribbean, secret offshore bank accounts, chauffers, and not one who could guess the price of milk or eggs.  Another new element was the inclusion of the know-it-all, leftist professional athlete (or in the case of the San Antonio Spurs basketball team, know-it-all, multi-millionaire Coach Gregg Popovich).  I was fascinated observing the left, as they struggled to decide whether or not to embrace the Colin Kaepernick "insult the National Anthem" movement (they did).

I'm convinced that Hillary Clinton lost valuable votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida because of the liberal left's willingness to accept America-bashing as part of its effort to discredit the Trump candidacy.  For years the media has painted Conservatives as evil, intolerant, name-calling fascists, and yet the average American voter had no trouble identifying the party and the ideology behind the hate injected into the 2017 campaign.  The mouthpieces for this message of nastiness was no doubt the rich and famous leftists within the entertainment community.  The famous personalities who were happy to go before the camera and label anyone with an opposing opinion a "racist" or a "Nazi" never seemed to end.  For some time I tried to keep track of them, so to avoid watching their programs or buying tickets to see their movies.  After a while, though, it became apparent that I would have to cut off my television altogether, which may not be such a bad idea after all.

Trump denies allegations of innapropriate behavior and identifies the mainstream media as being in collution with the Clinton Campaign.

I'm relieved to see the Trump Team responding aggressively to last week's slew of allegations.  In all, seven women came forward to accuse Donald Trump of innappropriate behavior in unrelated incidents covering a thirty-year time span.  A simple background review identifies at least four of the women as being actively involved with Democratic politics and another as being a donor to the Clinton Campaign.  Unfortunately, it's not possible to erase all the exposure which was allocated to these stories.  It would be like trying to return a fart to its originating location, and asking folks to forget the smell.  The most important question we should be asking ourselves, is what was accomplished by this circus?  Sadly, some voters who may have been undecided will assume that where there is smoke, there is fire, and conclude that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.  What else was was achieved with this well-organized, false, slanderous attack?

As NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, the Wahington Post and the NY Times were running the allegations on a loop, the Wikileaks organization was releasing more emails from John Podesta, the Chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.  Podesta had previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and as a "Counselor" to President Obama.  The Clinton Campaign and its allies in the media knew in advance, as we all did, that Wikileaks would be releasing emails this week.  More emails will be made available over the next few weeks, but what has already been examined should have been the main story on all the evening news broadcasts.  We are discovering why the Obama Administration was so anxious to assist Hillary Clinton in avoiding prosecution.  Emails between Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills remind us that President Obama was also sending emails over unclassified systems.  If Hillary goes down, then Obama mght be called to task as well.  The emails provide a glimpse into the activities of the Obama White House vis-a-vis the unfolding Clinton email controversy, and reveal collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department that demand a Special Prosecutor.

The American people were basically kept in the dark about the latest chapter in the email saga.  Again, thank goodness for Fox News, the only mainstream news resource that instead of strict editorializing, actually presents both sides to controversial issues.  But one against seven are tough odds, even for Megyn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace and crew.  Last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday were all about the "locker room talk" video, and since then its been a steady stream of allegations, with not a hint of journalistic imtegrity present.  Are these the issues that the press keeps telling us that we should be demanding of the candidates?  Hillary Clinton's email scandal is an issue that should be discussed, as are her actions as Secretary of State.  The allegation of a Democratic activist who claims that, thirty years prior Donald Trump lifted the armrest on her first-class plane seat to grab her breast, isn't.  Within seconds I knew this accusation was questionable, because I have flown enough to know that first-class seats have never had moveable armrests.  These allegations are so absurd (one claims innapropriate behavior by Trump at a concert that never even took place) that they wouldn't have survived any decent journalist's smell test.

We have not seen the last of the Wikileaks document dump.  Rumor has it that we will be hearing about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's efforts to find foreign donors for the Clinton Foundation.  We can also expect more details regarding Bill Clinton's "coincidental" meeting with Justice Department boss Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac in Phoenix ("we spent forty minutes discussing our grandkids"...my quoatations).  There is no doubt in my mind that a Quid Quo Pro agreement was discussed between Lynch and Bill, that would ensure no prosecution and the continuation of Lynch's job in a Hillary Clinton Administration.  I just can't accept that Bill Clinton is so stupid that he would have taken the chance to meet with Lynch in this manner (they were almost able to keep the meeting secret) unless something truly important was at stake.  Keeping Hillary Clinton from being prosecuted is very, very important to these folks.  What Hillary Clinton did was against the law.  You cannot knowingly create a method of communication that puts the confidentiality of classified imtelligence at risk.  She wanted to have her cake and eat it too.  The fact that she ordered the destruction of all thirteen of her Blackberries and Cellphones is criminal.  Those devices belong to the American people, and at the time of their destruction, the investigation, in one form or another, had begun.  Destroying devices and bleaching hard drives has one purpose: to cover up evidence.  In this case, I'm sure some of the missing thirty-three thousand emails are involved.

The media has no qualms about agressively disseminating false accusations against Donald Trump; of this we are aware.  Be prepared for a daily dose of this garbage.  We will do our part by ignoring the media and encouraging our family and friends to vote Republican.  The Trump Campaign must also do it's part.  Someone has to get Donald in line.  You can't respond to false accusations of sexual misconduct by inferring that the reason the allegations are false is because Trump would never have approached such ugly women.  Monitoring his Twitter feed would also help.  It's going to be a very rough ride, folks, but we must do whatever we can to bring change to DC.  I will take an ill-mannered businessman with the right ideas on any day, over a corrupt, life-long politician with Marxist sympathies.

Can't Help Myself - My Comments On This Torture Business

Link: Senator Kirk Telling It Like It Is


Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.  Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016.  I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama.  Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority.  This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation.  Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows.  If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you.  But you have to change the process (and law) first.  The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public.  I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding".  Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed.  Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place.  The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees.  I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries.  I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances.  A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation.  I know Waterboarding has saved lives.  It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use.  But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.

I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph.  JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously.  I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh.  I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others.  Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer.  Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome).  I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others.  I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis.  I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description.  But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy.  I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule.  I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction.  I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined.  As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and  thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques.  I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful.  Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target.  The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack.  I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service.  Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.

The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media.  I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back.  How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off?  Where was the CIA?  Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand?  The process has become so predictable.  The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable.  Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate.  Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered.  You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought.  But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.

I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post.  Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC.  But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential".  Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything?  They are so out of their league in this business.  And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts.  Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual.  She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings.  If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings.  Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.

Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there.  The big money is in entitlement reform.  A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform.  Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past.  All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real).  Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research.  Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending.  And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.