Saturday, September 24, 2016

Dependent Words and Deception


In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have  a brother."

Answer:  Two.  We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

How many people are found within this statement?
Answer:  3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.
We have the brother as two. 
Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward lie.  

Let's look more deeply at the response. 


Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.
Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  

Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  

A.  "I learned about it through media."  

This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 

It is not what he said.

"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."

Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  

The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  

This rapid processing means:

The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?

Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 

Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in most every speech given, from funeral speeches that were intended to be about someone other than himself, to any announcement in which success is claimed.  Some journalists have learned to literally count the number times he uses the pronouns "I", "me" and "my" in speeches, suggesting self-aggrandizement and narcissism.  

Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."

"Else" refers to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  This becomes vital in not only seeking justice, but in a case like this, gives insight into personality and experience in deception.  

Mothers of a 8 year olds who come home from school with a touch of trouble recognize this dependent word.  

Most people are afraid of lying to authority.  It is, therefore, concerning when one is bold enough to lie to a police officer.  

What about someone who lies to two or more police officers?  In early Casey Anthony analysis, she showed fearlessness in the event of lying to several police officers, telling them that she worked at a specific company in which she did not.  

They drove her to the company.  

Think about this car ride and why she allowed this to continue.  

She actually allowed them to do so, without interrupting them and saying, "No, don't bother.  I lied.  I don't work there." 

Time elapsed.  

She then got out of the car and walked to the building with them.  

She could have stopped this at any point and admitted the inevitable:  they will see that she does not work there. 

Why did she do it?

This was a very strong indicator of a sociopathic liar; one who lies so often that she lies even when there is no cause to lie.  She lies as she breathes and has become so successful in her lies, that her confidence told her "I'll think of something..." as time elapsed.

Most people would fear lying to a single police officer. 

What about lying to the FBI?  This is now to lie to a federal agent. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  

Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. 

Lastly, think of one who has the utter blind confidence in his or her own ability to deceive and "put one over" (the element of contempt) to...

an audience of 300 million Americans.  

Liars hold the world in contempt.  

They believe the world at large is beneath them, and without the capabilities to discern their words and catch their lies.  

Where one quickly folds and admits lying to a teacher, or a mother, or someone in authority, we should take note of what a tender conscience looks like.  

When another has no fear of being exposed, we are looking at an entirely different display of human nature within personality traits and the language will reveal itself. 


"I will not allow anyone to impugn my record, just because I misspoke a few words..."

Richard Blumenthal revealed himself as 'god-like' with his ability to control others, outside himself, by refusing them the ability to impugn his record. 

He had talked about what it was like for him, as a young man, when he was in Viet Nam, to a group of Viet Nam vets.  

He had never stepped foot in the country of Viet Nam, nor any country near Viet Nam, nor any country that resembled Viet Nam.  He had not left the United States.  

What is missed in this is right within his language when he introduced the word "record."

As a prosecutor, his "record" (note he calls it "my record") of successful prosecutions entered his language while talking about lying, which he minimized by using the word "mistruths" (signaling inability or refusal to take personal responsibility). 

He was concerned about his professional record under the topic of lying. 

How many convictions did he obtain using deception?

We will never know.  

We do know this, however: 

The people of Connecticut read his "apology" (as media reported it) and elected him to office.  


Friday, September 23, 2016

2016 Training Opportunities


If you wish to study deception detection, we offer both seminars and at home training for professional investigators, law enforcement, human resources, corporate America, social service professionals, attorneys, journalists and other professionals in need of deception detection training. 

The courses and seminars both include:

12 months ongoing e support, which allows the student to immediately begin actual analysis, yet without any submission of errors.  

Entrance into live, ongoing monthly training (spaces limited).  This online, monthly live training allows for hands on application of analysis.  This is confidential training and is limited in both enrollment and acceptance.  A new monthly online training class will be opening up for new students.

These trainings are CEU eligible for professional licenses through the University of Maine.  

Seminars are 2 day seminars, they are intense, challenging and are specifically designed for law enforcement, security vetting, employment hiring, etc.   Contact PHyatt1962@gmail.com to register.  Monthly Tuition payment plan available through paypal for all home and monthly trainings.  

                                Training at Home

Statement Analysis

We offer several courses and certification with the first course,
"Statement Analysis" being a complete course, rather than an introductory or "101" course.  It is thorough, challenging and will cover all aspects of analysis and equip the student for deception detection and content analysis.  Textbook, exercises and test submissions.  Tuition is $595 with 12 months confidential support:  you will not submit errant analysis due to this security support from professional analysts.  

 The Advanced Course 

The Advanced Course is open to those with formal training and covers Anonymous Author Identification, Psychological Profiling from language, Language of Sexual Assault Victims, introduction to Analytical Interviewing and other advanced techniques used by active professionals.  Tuition is $895 with 12 months support. This is an extensive course that is large and can be completed in 6-12 months.  

Ongoing Monthly Confidential Training $50 per month, with 25% discount with yearly subscription.  Your training date is the same day each month.  These are 'live' ongoing cases for law enforcement.  

Certification:

Statement Analyst I:  This certification states that the holder is a professional level analyst.  Satisfactorily completion of the Statement Analysis Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training, and recommendation from 3 professionals.  

Statement Analyst II:  This level is of a professional nature where the analyst is equipped for advanced, in depth content analysis, consultation, advising and instruction.  Completion of Advanced Statement Analysis, a minimum of 120 hours of live training, with the submission of thesis paper, approved by 3 professional analysts (FBI, Investigator, Business Analyst or Psychological Analyst).  This certification in advanced techniques for detecting deception will equip not only investigators and analysts, but for instructors in analysis.  

Announcements:  

Coming:  Look for more monthly classes to be offered; 

"Distinctives" course, including 

Personality Types and Language 
Urban Speak
Ransom Note Threat Analysis 
Anonymous Author Threat Analysis 
Mental Illness and Language
Analyzing Through Contamination 

Fall 2016 Schedule:


23 September, 2016   HIDTA Training Phoenix, AZ    (closed)

27 September, 2016 Training (online)  9AM to 3PM EST 

29 September, 2016 Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

17 October, 2016  Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy  (closed)

25 October, 2016  Training (online) 9AM to 3PM EST

27 October, 2016  Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

12 November, 2016 UK Madeline McCann documentary 

22 November 2016 Training (online) 

24 November, 2016 Training (online) 



Peter Hyatt on "Crime Watch Daily":  Ayla Reynolds



Thursday, September 22, 2016

Marion Cotillard Statement

In Deception Detection, we study words, not themes.  To learn advanced techniques, one must understand:  "I am not studying arson, nor am I studying murder, I am studying words."

This is important to remember as we take examples, not only from criminal cases, but in any public communication.  To limit it to criminal will hinder the professional analyst who may be employed in:

Analyzing Employment statements of "he said; she said" disputes that are common; 

Human Resource claims and counter claims. 

Statements with elements of relationship deception.  

At times, these words do reveal elements of Domestic Violence and child abuse.  There is a value in studying any communication that captures an audience's attention.  

To not study the words of athletes, celebrities and others in the news, is to miss an entire section of analysis that will be needed in advanced analysis. 

This is the statement of a French actress named, unofficially perhaps, as a 'corespondent' in a divorce case against actor Brad Pitt.

Why it is newsworthy will have to be explained by another.  Here, the media reported that the actress released a statement in which she  "denied an affair" with Pitt:  

This is going to be my first and only reaction to the whirlwind news that broke 24 hours ago and that I was swept up into. I am not used to commenting on things like this nor taking them seriously but as this situation is spiraling and affecting people I love, I have to speak up. 

Here we have a lengthy introduction by the subject.  She did not say "I didn't have an affair with Brad Pitt" which would have been short and it would have been strong. 

In the introduction, she calls being publicly named in an upcoming divorce as "whirlwind news", in her own subjective understanding of what this means.  

She further emphasized this with time:  "...broke 24 hour ago" which lets us know that she has had time to think about her statement for a day.  

Priority?  She wants us to know that she is not "used to commenting..." and that she doesn't "take seriously" these things. 

However, she used the small word "but" at this point:

She doesn't take these things "seriously", with the use of the word "serious", now set into a form of rebuttal by the word "but" here.  We should consider that this allegation is very "serious" to the subject.

Why?

As a actor, fortunes are made with publicity and in our current culture, any publicity is advantageous, which is why celebrities and publicists often create (and phone in) their own "intrusion" or event. 

" but as this situation is spiraling and affecting people I love, I have to speak up. "

She called the allegation a "situation", and used the word "this", making it psychologically, a "situation" that is very close or impactful upon her.  

She stated that the situation is "spiraling", that is, is kinetic and that this "spiraling" is, indeed, "affecting people."

If she did not have an affair with Pitt, why would this not only be "affecting" people, but with "spiraling", why would the impact be increasing?

Best is to write, "I didn't have an affair with Brad Pitt", leaving her without impetus or responsibility to write anything further. 

She needs to tell the public something because there is an ongoing, escalating impact upon "people" (plural), that she loves.  We now listen to hear who she introduces into the statement first. 

Firstly, many years ago, I met the man of my life, father of our son and of the baby we are expecting. He is my love, my best friend, the only one that I need. 

"Firstly" tells us that logical follow through is intended, yet the sentence is long (emotion).  What is "first" that the public is to know?

a.  Time 

it was "many years" that she met the "man"

b.  The man of her life, father of her son and baby, her love, her best friend, which all point to her, and not to the man.  This is how the man impacts her. 

Then notice the change introduced by one word when it comes to "need"; this man is the "only" one.  

The word "only" is called a 'dependent' word in Statement Analysis:  it works when another word (s) (thought representation) is present.  The man is compared to another who is not "needed."

This is a strong indication that the other man she is considering, is not the father of her children, was not met many years ago, and he is also someone she does not "need" in life.  

This sentence does not work unless she is thinking of another.  This is very close to an admission.  

Secondly to those who have indicated that I am devastated, I am very well thank you. 

She told us of a "spiraling" impact upon others, which has caused her to rebut her own norm and respond, yet she is, "very well thank you", which also, via additional language, tells us she is anything but.  


This crafted conversation isn't distressing. 

Here she reports what the conversation is not; that is, in the negative.  

And to all the media and the haters who are quick to pass judgment, I sincerely wish you a swift recovery.

Here she avoids issuing a denial, instead she has the need to insult those who want to know it is true by calling them "haters" who are "quick to pass judgement"; the judgment that she can answer, but avoids doing so.  

 Finally, I do very much wish that Angelina and Brad, both whom I deeply respect, will find peace in this very tumultuous moment. With all my love Marion Ceci

We note the order of the names, and we note the unnecessary emphasis of "both";
We note that the respect is said to be "deep" and that this "moment" is "very tumultuous" but she does not clarify for whom.  


Analysis Conclusion:

She does not deny having an affair with Pitt;  therefore, we cannot deny it for her. 

She gives indication of the need to persuade, while coming close to an actual admission via analysis.   When taken with the lack of denial, it becomes even stronger. 

The need to speak out comes from impact, while then denying the impact upon self, yet it is she, herself, who communicates.  

The subject also uses the Statement Analysis principle: "I love you" element of public declaration.  The need is to tell a world wide audience of her devotion to "only" one man.  She does not state devotion to one man, but "only" one man; herein lies the key.  The word "only" is unnecessary unless there is more than one man, and given the context of the announcement, it is Pitt.  

The relationship is in trouble. 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Guest Analysis: Valerie Timan Case by Ann Soule

                         Analysis of Luc Tieman by Ann Soule


What do the words we utter say about us? For some, we need lots of words for a picture to begin to emerge. For others, very few. For Luc Tieman, it took 20 words. 

 Luc’s wife, Valerie Tieman was last seen on August 30, 2016 by Luc himself at Walmart. He reported when he returned to their truck, she was gone. He did not report her missing. She was missing two weeks before her disappearance was reported by her parents who live out-of-state. During an interview with NEWS CENTER on Monday, 9/19/16, Luc spoke the following 20 words:

 "Just want her to come out, not be scared.  No one's going to get hurt or cares what she's done." 

 What does his 20 words say through the lens of Statement Analysis? 

1.   The pronoun "I" is missing at the start the sentence.  He begins a statement about his wife by ejecting himself from the sentence!  Luc, the subject, does not want to be psychologically in this sentence.  


 2.  "just" - is comparing something. Is the lesser of what he is considering or what he wanted?  What would he comparing her "coming out" with?  This is alarming. This, too, suggests domestic violence as part of his norm.  

3.  Next, we notice that he does not use her name.  This is to psychologically distance himself from his wife, while she is missing.  

"My wife Valerie" would have had:
a.  possessive pronoun 
b.  title "wife"
c.  name, Valerie

Just as he psychologically disappeared from his own statement, so it is that "Valerie" does not have a name.  To him, she is a non- person and he wants to distance himself from "her"; the non-person that has caused his involvement in this case.  

 Think about this:  He doesn't mention her name. 

It is possible he and the reporter may have been talking for a bit prior to this quote. "come out" - but there is no explanation for us to understand what she must come out of!  Come out? Of where? Is she in something? "not be scared" - this is in the negative of what not be feeling. This is sensitive and it is concerning. 

What would she be scared of. "No one's going to get hurt" - This is the language of Domestic Violence (DV)

Who is "no one"? This is a passive statement. In the negative. "going to" - is this to say some one already did get hurt? "hurt" - Where does the hurt come from? Leakage? Did she get hurt, or did he hurt her?

That he disappears from his own statement, removes her from it personally, and introduces the word "hurt", in a comparison sense, we are looking at someone who likely "hurt" her, or worse. 

I'm worried about this lady. I'm hearing domestic violence. I also hear blaming the victim as he also said but wasn't quoted by him specifically: Luc Tieman said the two were on good terms, which is unnecessary to say, but said she did mention some things a couple days before she went missing that made him worry, including her talking about another man. This speaks to not only jealousy, but he described "her talking" which puts the subtle blame upon the victim. 

The day she went missing, Luc said his wife told him she was going to leave and never come back. He shared a news reports from ABC on his facebook page. He made the following comment below on the post. I underlined a few words. 

Look who he "unifies" himself with via the pronoun "we":  

" Good news!! I just finished today's search with a couple of fine detectives (un-named) for Valerie Joy Tieman and one of the last places i saw her we found a set of (no later than a day old) womans footprints that matched her shoe patrern amd shoe size! they were with another set of male boots in skowhegan, maine. we took photos and will continue survaylence of the AO. 1 · 

What is "good news" about not finding her?


September 16 at 7:46pm Luc William Tieman "And we were talking about bringing in a k9 for tracking. Pray we find her! "

In analysis we call this ingratiating. 
Ann Soule, Statement Analyst I, Licensed Therapist 

This is similar to a father of a  missing boy praising law enforcement and search efforts for not finding his son.

 He also wrote in another post on 9/7/16: “There’s only ONE woman in the word for this man.”

This is similar to declaring his love, publicly, for her, which, within the realm of analysis, is a red flag.

Analysis Conclusion:  He has given us enough signals to know that he has guilty knowledge of what happened to her, and he is involved with Domestic Violence. 

update:  Valerie Timan's remains were found, and Luc Tieman has been arrested in her murder. 


Fall - Winter Training Schedule and Opportunities


If you wish to study deception detection, we offer both seminars and at home training for professional investigators, law enforcement, human resources, corporate America, social service professionals, attorneys, journalists and other professionals in need of deception detection training. 

The courses and seminars both include:

12 months ongoing e support, which allows the student to immediately begin actual analysis, yet without any submission of errors.  

Entrance into live, ongoing monthly training (spaces limited).  This online, monthly live training allows for hands on application of analysis.  This is confidential training and is limited in both enrollment and acceptance.  A new monthly online training class will be opening up for new students.

These trainings are CEU eligible for professional licenses through the University of Maine.  

Seminars are 2 day seminars, they are intense, challenging and are specifically designed for law enforcement, security vetting, employment hiring, etc. 

Training at Home

Statement Analysis

We offer several courses and certification with the first course,
"Statement Analysis" being a complete course, rather than an introductory or "101" course.  It is thorough, challenging and will cover all aspects of analysis and equip the student for deception detection and content analysis.



The Advanced Course 

The Advanced Course is open to those with formal training and covers Anonymous Author Identification, Psychological Profiling from language, Language of Sexual Assault Victims, introduction to Analytical Interviewing and other advanced techniques used by active professionals.  

Certification:

Statement Analyst I:  This certification states that the holder is a professional level analyst.  Satisfactorily completion of the Statement Analysis Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training, and recommendation from 3 professionals.  

Statement Analyst II:  This level is of a professional nature where the analyst is equipped for advanced, in depth content analysis, consultation, advising and instruction.  Completion of Advanced Statement Analysis, a minimum of 120 hours of live training, with the submission of thesis paper, approved by 3 professional analysts (FBI, Investigator, Business Analyst or Psychological Analyst).

Announcements:  

Coming:  Look for more monthly classes to be offered; 

"Distinctives" course, including 

Personality Types and Language 
Urban Speak
Ransom Note Threat Analysis 
Anonymous Author Threat Analysis 
Mental Illness and Language
Analyzing Through Contamination 

Fall 2016 Schedule:


23 September, 2016   HIDTA Training Phoenix, AZ    (closed)

27 September, 2016 Training (online)  9AM to 3PM EST 

29 September, 2016 Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

17 October, 2016  Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy  (closed)

25 October, 2016  Training (online) 9AM to 3PM EST

27 October, 2016  Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

12 November, 2016 UK Madeline McCann documentary 

22 November 2016 Training (online) 

24 November, 2016 Training (online) 

Peter Hyatt on "Crime Watch Daily":  Ayla Reynolds



Lies: Collateral Damage

                                         Lies destroy lives.

In Ferguson, someone lied and said, "hands up; don't shoot."  Statement analysis of the officer as well as eye witnesses showed that no such words, nor motions, existed.  It was a lie that was a convenient lie that met with the position of the political elite.  Black Lives Matters is a terrorist organization that has led to the execution murders of police.  It is based upon a lie.  


In an overwhelming traction, this lie gave fuel to the political elite's anarchist narrative against authority, with police, specifically targeted by the president of the United States shortly after taking office in 2009.  Without knowledge, the president presumed to know that a Boston police officer was in the wrong because he was in a confrontation with a black person.  It was just the beginning.  

60 plus years of single party rule has produced inner city poverty and dependence upon government.  It has assaulted human nature, targeting the drive and initiative of men to provide for their families.  It has destroyed inner city black families in city after city throughout America.  This is why the administration is at war with the family, and seeks to redefine what a family is.  

Rather than admit the fallacy, propaganda has turned to say "police are killing blacks."

The problem with this is that is not true; it is another lie.  

Statistics are still available, on a still free internet that show that children raised in complete families are more likely to complete education, work and not commit crimes, while children born to homes without a father are likely to be sentenced to a life of poor eduction, poverty, and crime.  

Politicians ceased the opportunity to grant to inner city blacks the destructive moniker of "victim status" in which, no matter how much money is infused, inner city blacks kill blacks at a rate incomparable with all other situations.  Instead of admitting the failure of the de incentive programs, the president blamed guns, the tool used in violence.  In cities with the countries strictest gun laws, the murder rates remain the highest. 

From WSJ:

"....fatal police shootings make up a much larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths than black homicide deaths. According to the Post database, in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.) Using the 2014 homicide numbers as an approximation of 2015’s, those 662 white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings. 
The lower proportion of black deaths due to police shootings can be attributed to the lamentable black-on-black homicide rate. There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers. 
Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police."

Poverty is blamed, but then statistics show that these schools and community receive more money per student than anywhere else in the nation.
Police are blamed, which leads to hostilities, incivility, increased crime, and ultimately...more deaths.
Guns are blamed, but then it is cited that these cities have the strictest gun laws in the nation, and that the criminals did not obey the gun registration laws.  
Drugs are blamed but then the "stand down" order is given on the border, where drugs are funneled into America daily. 
We have even seen the fallacy of blaming the naturally recurring weather patterns on the plight of inner city America. 
These deceptions are used by the political elite to appeal to the moral narcissism within voters who's emotion trumps their employment of reason.  
This is yet another form of exploitation just as he turned mental illness into a 'civil right' and has had media fall in step.   
Just as the president knew, when the Islamic killer quoted the koran accurately, pledged his allegiance to ISIS, and went into an Orlando nightclub on a murderous spree, that it had "nothing to do with Islam", so it is he knows that the police are, after almost 8 years of vile rhetoric, the target of wrath.  
He has asked that we "vote" for him, for his legacy's sake. 
A legacy of lies that has divided the nation, while arming her enemies and put us on the fast track to import an ideology that calls for our destruction.  
If you disagree with him, you are racist, suffer from mental illness (irrational fear), and are so morally reprehensible, that you are unworthy of a voice. 
If you exercise discernment, you are, in a sense, "deplorable."  

Police deserve better.  

Even "deplorable" lives matter.  


Monday, September 19, 2016

Barak Obama Statement on Paying Iran in Cash



For the first time in US Naval history, an American Navy boat was surrendered without a shot being fired when the Islamic Republic of Iran confronted two small American boats.  

The sailors were captured, humiliated and the ship boarded and stripped of its technology.  

Hence, payment for hostage emboldens the enemy.  The United States learned this lesson, at the cost of lives, just prior to the Marines landing in Tripoli to put an end to the koranic Islamic hostage and slave trade that was the result of piracy.  

Barak Obama denied this was a ransom for the 3 hostages, but after exposure from some media outlets, the White House admitted that it was.  



     Why the need to deceive the American public?

The United States paid the ransom in cash, with various currencies, landing in an unmarked plane.  The cash payment permits the world's leader in exporting Islamic terror to further fund terrorism without electronic tracing of the funds.  

The State Department released an initial statement refusing to get involved to answer about whether or not money has been wired to Iran.  


After more leaks to some media outlets, they admitted that they had, in fact, wired two large payments of money to Iran.  



The Obama statement: 


"The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn't send them a check and we could not wire the money.”


1.  Please first notice that the "because" is expected within the context as he is there to explain why he gave them cash, including foreign currencies, but the word "precisely" is given to modify the reason why.  This is to limit any other possibilities of "why" cash was given, in the strictest manner. 

The problem?

It should be unnecessary.  

2.  Next note that there is now modify the "strictness" of keeping sanctions in place:  "so strict" which now heightens the preciseness of why no wire transfer was done. This, too, is unnecessary. 

Q.  Why didn't you wire the money?
A.  Because we are not permitted to by sanctions.  

This would end the discussion and would be a strong response.  

Instead, there is a need to call in support, beginning with the reason "why"; which suggests that there may be other reasons why no wire transfer was done, that the subject is presently thinking about, but does not wish to address. 

3.  Now we have another statement, further explaining why.  This confirms that the subject has at least one other reason "why" he paid in cash:  

"we do not have a banking relationship with Iran."

Before we explore these words, we note that it is an unnecessary statement (he already told us "why" it could not be wired) and it is in the negative which elevates the importance.  

Note first:  this is an unnecessary statement, making it, therefore, very important to analysis. 

If the sanctions did not allow for wire transfer, this answer would have sufficed.  Yet, we see hear when a deceptive subject has a need to persuade rather than truthfully report, his own words betray him, no matter how carefully chosen.  

Having "no banking relationship with Iran" would have, alone, been the end of any further discussion, satisfying the original question, "Why did you pay them in cash?"

Yet, it is not the first reason offered, though it would be a complete reason.  

This order of wording reduces the priority, effectively reversing it.  What should have been stated first, should also have been stated only.  

It was not. 

4.  Note the word "that" is used to explain why no "check" (now introduced) with "wire" could be used.  

This was to compound the "reason why" with only the first "because" not seen as sensitive in his answer.  

When the first "because" was given, he gave us a linguistic hint that something was wrong:  he had the need to modify this word, not once, but twice, but then we went even further by introducing an entirely new wording for yet another reason "why" he ordered the payment in cash.  

That the cash is reported to have contained foreign currencies, including the Russian ruble, the expediency of arms purchasing for the exportation of terror has been enabled strongly by the president.  

Deception Indicated

Barak Obama used a writer to help deceive the American people into believing that the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the world safer if they are permitted to build a nuclear facility.  

Like "Wag the Dog" said writer could not help but need credit for his work.  The New York Times expose on Ben Rhodes gives us, in spite of the Times' propaganda and narrative, insight into this world-wide deception.  


I understand that some may argue that the Clinton server was most deliberately unstable so that it would be hacked in exchange for major donations to the Clinton foundation, and that espionage lives may have already been lost and that Clinton's "what does it matter?" attitude remains in tact.  We saw Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch and were held in contempt by all explanations of such a "chance" meeting.  

Yet to understand supremacist ideology, is to grasp that if the Islamic Republic of Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it must use it; either coercively under threat, or actively in accordance to its claims against the United States, Israel, and/or its allies.  

The scope of danger far exceeds the selling of military secrets in the 1990's in exchange for campaign contributions, and the deliberate instability of classified information transferred to a vulnerable server.