Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Understanding the Language of Donald Trump

To understand any language, you must be familar with context. The context will help you:

a.  gauge levels of defensiveness and its cause 
b.  accusations impacting language 
c.  regional expressions

I often say that the favorite word of President Donald Trump is the word "very."  

The word "very" is a signal of a reference point.  Its use tells us:

The subject (author/speaker) is using comparative language.

It is considered "weakness" in Statement Analysis.  Yet, "weakness" does not necessitate deception, nor does it necessitate inappropriate usage.

 It signals to us that more information is needed to understand its use.

We recognize "weakness" and ask, "Is this appropriately weak?"

"I think I may have accidentally locked my keys in the car"

It is the same with passivity in language.  Passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility.  When one does not know identity, for example, the use of passivity is appropriate because it is truthful.

"A rock was thrown from the crowd."

This conceals the identity of the person who threw the rock.  If the subject does not know, the passivity is deemed "appropriate."

This need of additional information is sometimes satisfied in context.
This need of additional information is sometimes satisfied in knowing the speaker.
This need of additional information is sometimes satisfied in the interview.  It sometimes shows a need for more questions, though answers are not always given.

Less than two weeks before the 2016 election, I was teaching deception detection at the FBI National Academy.  A particularly attentive  law enforcement official asked me,

"What is the difference in the deception of Hillary Clinton and the deception of Donald Trump?"

Note within his question was the presupposition in the deception of both. 

Before I had the opportunity to answer he offered me his understanding.  He said, "Hillary lies but Donald is a bull***ing negotiator." 

He was essentially correct in his classification of the "quality" of deception of both.  

There are three elements need to be recognized  in understanding the language of President Donald Trump:

1.  The Language of Negotiation
2.  The psyscho-linguistict profile (of which negotiation is key)
3.  The Narrative of Media and its defensive impact 

A "psyscho-linguistc profile"  is the result of applying Statement Analysis techniques within a statement to learn the subject's

a. background,
b. experiences in life,
c. priority or priorities
d. dominant personality traits

All four elements are from the subject's own language; not from body language, nor from activity, nor even from any diagnostic tool previously used.  It is limited specifically to language. 

Language is how we are known one to another, as the only creatures created with sophisticated communication skill. 

Unlike other creatures, we are sophisticated in not only communication, but in fraudulent communication, or deception.  

This is strictly limited to the statement (s) made.  It is a scientific discipline within itself.  It may be later used with psych evals, polygraph results, evidence gathering, and so on, but it must stand on its own.

How accurate is it?

Its accuracy is seen in its ability to identify the author of an anonymous threatening letter or email.

If someone receives an anonymous letter threatening violence, death, terror, extortion, and so on, the psycho-linguisitc profile that emerges will give enough identifying traits and characteristics so that the recipient and law enforcement will know who wrote it and can take appropriate action.  This includes ransom notes, "hate" statements, and terrorist threats.  It will assess the threat level and focus the investigation carefully.

It is a powerful tool in Advanced Analysis.  It takes much dedication and time to learn.

Statement Analysis has the highest success rate in deception detection.  This is due to the rapid processing of language.

The brain, with an internal dictionary of more than 25,000 words will go into this dictionary, choose what information to yield, what information to withhold, which words to use, which words to not use, where to place each word next to each other, what tenses to use, which pronouns to use, and so on, all in less than a micro second of time.

When one is deceptive, this extreme process is disrupted as humans seek to avoid internal stress of lying.  It is the basis for the polygraph and the voice layered stress analysis.

But beyond other forms of detecting deception, once deception is indicated, Statement Analysis gleans information in the content. This allows the investigator to know not only that the suspect is lying but what really happened and the priority of the suspect. Then, the words are analyzed in deep comparison, to know the dominant personality traits of the subject.  This is useful, often critically so, to investigators as they strategize not only the investigation, but the interview itself.

President Donald Trump is the "subject" of this article.

1.  The Language of Negotiation

Donald Trump is a negotiator.  He is not a politician.  This has deep ramifications for those who wish to understand and discern.  It is likely that if you are reading this article, you are interested in truth and in discernment, more than narrative.  Villains are often not as villainous as we believe, and heroes not so heroic as we wish to believe.

 Donald Trump is the single most written about person in the world today, with media in almost universal agreement about his words.  The recent violence in the United States is a good example.

Context: The media portrayal is a powerful influence on the language of Donald Trump.  

One racist violent organization attacked another racist supremacist organization, with the assistance of a professional (paid) violent fascist organization.

A 20 year old schizophrenic had his car windows smashed out  
and drove his vehicle into the protesters killing one and injuring others.  

 President Trump condemned the violence. 

This was met by universal condemnation in main stream media and by celebrities as he recognized that not everyone there was racist or anarchist.  Some went as observers and some went to stop the tearing down of statues.

He not only spoke the truth, but he spoke what was on his mind.  

The universal condemnation (including calling for articles of impeachment) represent the context of defensive posturing in his language.  This will warrant a wider exploration. 

This goes to our psycho-linguistic profile, part two, experiences and part four, personality.    Trump is not a politician, in experience, though he is one now and does not have a history of experience in how politicians choose their words to reflect appearance.  Personality wise, Trump says what is on his mind and thus far, has rarely stayed to script.  

This increases the flow of knowledge for analysis and those interested in truth.  Rather than analyze a prepared statement, we see the reliable free editing process in play.  

A politician carefully chooses his words because of a single motive:  appearance.  ("apparent")  This means that the politician is concerned on how his words will appear, as his or her priority.   This motive may even be top priority, or it may be a subsequent priority. 

The 20% Rule:  Understanding Deception in Negotiations  

President Trump uses the language of negotiation which is inherently deceptive, via missing information.  

A negotiator cannot be successful if he does not withhold information.  The priority is key:  

Is the priority the negotiation results? Or, is it political appearance?

There are many professions in which the language of deception is indicated via missing information.  

A medical professional is under confidentiality standards.  At any time, his language may signals of deception via withheld information.   If said information is important, that is, is on his mind, and he deliberately avoids it, there will be a signal of sensitivity.  If the information is not on his mind, there is no signal because, simply, he is not concerned about it.  This is a powerful element of Statement Analysis that can reveal exploitative motives, for example, in someone applying for a job.  If the applicant is planning on making an attempt at obtaining money through fraudulent claims of discrimination, for example, this planning or "motive" is likely to show up in the language if they speak or write enough.

A police officer, an attorney, a social worker, a psychologist, and other professionals routinely use language indicating deception.  When an important or pressing case is handled, it will weigh upon the mind of the subject, even when in unrelated conversation.  It is human nature.

The language of negotiation, itself, can be classified the same way:  deception presupposed.

At any given time, someone who is negotiating a business deal has language that is, at minimum,  20% above the truth and 20% beneath the truth.  This is a form of deception.  We look for the priority and priorities (motive) within the statement.  

Motive:  The negotiator wants something. His or her target is a higher priority than how his words will appear to others.  He will praise his opponent to reduce psychological resistance.  He will appear as supportive, not so that a 3rd party (audience) will have a favorable opinion, but to obtain something from his target.  

To get this "something", whether it be a sale, or concession, the negotiator's language will deliberately seek a different varied marks. 

Donald Trump's experiences have been predominantly in real estate and business negotiation.  He was a failure early in his career and later a success.  It is almost impossible to hear or read anything from him that does not contain some element of this in his language.  He has been shaped, for 70 years, in this manner.

"He is a very very good person."

"This guy, you'll see, is very very smart." 
"This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen!"  

This is not the language of one who's life experiences has been in politics. It is language we are uncomfortable with coming from a politician.  
 His language reveals an acute void of understanding of concern of perception outside that politicians have intuitively.

In other words, he says what he thinks, even when he is wrong.

This produces the many "twinge worthy tweets" we see.  

Experience influences language.  Not only does the experience of negotiation influence him, but so does the New York culture influence his language.  Some are offended by non-politician language. 

"Thank you, ma'am" is something  routinely heard from police officers raised in the Southern part of the United States. 

Recently, we took a trip to New York where it was comical for me to watch the face expressions of my kids while they listened to me talk with New York City police officers.  Their language is uniquely NYPD. 

Defensive Posture Impact:  Incessant Allegations of Wrong doing in the context of Offensive.   

The media response to Trump is incessant condemnation.  Whether it be a "breaking news scandal" that his wife did not hold hands with him, or the latest politician calling for impeachment; it is endless.  The backdrop of this is a generation who have been taught to be "offended" by anything they disagree with.  This feeds into the media frenzy.  

"Irish Need Not Apply."

My parents and grandparents carried some scars of prejudice when they came from Ireland to the United States.  My aunt, a devoted school teacher in Brooklyn, was coerced into selling her home by threats of violence by  blacks,  of whom she had taught many of their children.  While her black friends were both ashamed and empathetically supportive of her, she had to move from where she loved living.  At this time in America,  politicians and race baiters had stirred up hatred.  She was a victim of racism, but knew that life was unfair, and had taught her students to not allow anything to derail them from advancing themselves.  She knew that to claim victim status was to be stagnant and that the solution to racism was not found in politics.   She did not hate black people; she hated the politicians who got elected by undermining her work as a teacher.

Today, black on black crime is the leading cause of death of young black males.  70% or more black males are raised without fathers.  The established political parities created this void,  so it is predictable that they would employ deception and blame this, not on their de-incentive and family destroying policies, but upon racism, particularly targeting police. 

The brashness of New York culture is in the language of Donald Trump, including inappropriate jokes.  

Media routinely insults him; personally.  This produces a defensive posture, as well, that sometimes becomes offensive.  

When someone personally insults Trump, he personally insults them, using the same language.  It is unbecoming.  

Politicians most all do it, but not as Trump does.  

The politician, concerned with appearance (primary motive), wishes to return the insult (secondary motive) and does so,  in a more sophisticated passive aggressive way.  Analysis of such can, indeed, uncover racism, especially via projection,  because while making statements, the politicians' volume gives us much to work from.

Passive-aggressive insults are a form of deception; as they feign civility, while seeking to insult. 

Trump's language:  coarse, inappropriate, and insulting.
Politicians' language:  sophisticated, appropriate sounding and insulting.  

Many people find the insults inappropriate, but if forced to choose, they prefer the outright, as it is, in the least, more honest. 

Main Stream Media and Narrative

If you wish to understand the language of Donald Trump, you must understand his language of negotiation, his lack of political experience, his cultural brashness and the defensive posture of the language in light of Main Stream Media.  This short video compilation is worth viewing to grasp the context of defensiveness and attack: 

You can know what Donald Trump is thinking by listening to him or you can simply reverse what MSM is reporting.  

Even when he changes his mind, like on Afghanistan, he spoke the truth.  Those who want no involvement there may not like it, but listen to him:

My original instinct was to pull out — and, historically, I like following my instincts.  But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office; in other words, when you're President of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David, with my Cabinet and generals, to complete our strategy.”

He faces constant opposition via deception and hypocrisy. We have learned that there is nothing short of "I resign" that will satisfy the narrative of MSM.  

Example:  He wanted to limit Islamic migration to the United States until vetting was done.  The  strategy chosen was deliberate:  use the exact same travel ban that Barak Obama used.  

The result?  Elite globalist condemnation and federal judges ruling against it.  MSM concluded "racist" and "Islamophobe."  No such protest took place under Obama.  This, too, increases the defensive posture as every statement becomes a response to an allegation of wrong doing. 

North Korea, Iran and Russia:  The Language of Negotiation 

This, too, must be viewed in light of the opposition from media, celebrities and the elite.  

Target Audience:  Appearance

Readers here knew Trump was not starting a nuclear war:  they listened to what he said rather than what MSM said that he said.  He was negotiating, first with China, (both +/-) and then he specifically threatened North Korea with extreme force, seeking, not to please 3rd party observers, but to influence China to get North Korea to back down.  Unlike what media reported, he wanted peace.    

Headlines were often false about Trump's statements on North Korea.  I recently had written on the blog a message that said that POTUS was not, as the headlines stated, starting a nuclear war.

"Fire and Fury" was the language of a negotiator making a threat.  It is what he does consistently:  he is negotiating.

He praised China (negotiators do this with the primary motive in mind:  getting what they want).  When this did not work, he threatened China economically.  He praised China first (go 20% north with praise) and then threatened (now go 20% south with economic threats).  

He was deliberate.  

China makes a great deal of money from North Korea and does not mind NK's threats against the US.  China does mind, however, losing money.  When praise (20% north) did not work, Trump threatened economics (20% south) along with hyperbolic language of destruction if NK attempts to harm the United States. His primary motive was not appearance to voters (political) but to avoid war. 

Media portrayed this consistently with "Trump to start World War III" and destroy civilization.  "A madman!" said one of the world's leading exporters of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When North Korea backed down, the media went relatively silent as their headlines disappeared.


Russian collusion.  "MSM reports "my collusion" with Russia. Fake News!"  

I posted this tweet several weeks ago.

"my collusion."

By using the quotation marks, he references another's speech; not his own. 

Pronouns are instinctive.  They are 100% reliable.  We take what is ours and we reject what is not ours.  When he used "my collusion", the use of 6b tells us he is assigning a different meaning than what is normally understood. 

Example:  "I think he is a "good" man." 

The word "good", having quotation marks, indicates the author is giving a new meaning to the word "good"; often the opposite, or sarcasm.  

Voters Feared Hillary Clinton's Corruption. 

"Clinton Cash" was not answered by the Clintons.  It seemed to settle into a "all knowing" or "wink wink" among political and media elite.  

In other words, they looked the other way. 

But there were so many accusations that to not counter any of them suggested that anyone other than Hillary Clinton would be better for America. 

 It was a series of allegations that did not enter the carefully prepared language of Clinton.  The strategy was to ignore it.    It outlined specific and sophisticated criminal activity that exploited the Haitian and African peoples as well as what may exposed  one of the most powerful criminal enterprises in American history at the highest level of government.  Literally, America was for sale to the highest bidders to the Clinton foundation, including known terrorist supporters and the Russian government, who, upon making a significant donation to the Clinton Foundation, received favorable decisions from the Clinton State Department. 

The media uses this backdrop in the attack:  ignoring criminal behavior while attacking that which is may not end up being a story.  

Donald Trump's plain language:  "crazy" and "insane" with the question, 

"are you crazy?"  

The Iran Deal to lift sanctions and pay Iran millions in the form of various currencies was presented to the American people wrapped in admitted and boasted deception.  It was "Wag the Dog" except with the producer not murdered but alive and well, boasting about how stupid Americans were.

"We couldn't send Iran a check" was a deceitful statement by the Obama administration, with the "Iran" deal in which the United States has enabled an Islamic nation, which issues regular threats against the US and Israel, to develop the capabilities of making good on their religious promises to annihilation.  We used dollars, rubles, pounds, etc, all readily used without electronic footprints, to further what Iran tells us they wish to do:  destroy. The deception was not "schmoozing" but was a betrayal of Israel, of whom the Obama administration spent US tax dollars interfering with the election in an attempt to influence it.  

The world is a much more dangerous place with a nuclear Islamic Iran.  

Islamic Migration and Trump's Language

Islam is a supremacist criminal ideology with religious aspects, that prescribe and praise coercion and sexual violence.  Politicians began, in earnest with 9/11, to lie about it.  

12 September, 2001:  "Terrorists hijacked a peaceful religion."  George W. Bush

By using the unnecessary word, "peaceful", to describe a "religion",  (which presupposes peace) Bush showed, in statement analysis, the necessity of such.  He was deceptive.  

9/11 not only cost thousands of lives, but it cost billions of dollars and the power of this ideology has completely changed how we live our lives; from delays and intrusive searches to Islamic terrorism to Jewish school children needing armed escorts each morning. 

"A few random lone wolves."  Obama

As to date with this article, there have been 31,595 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11.  

Media Collusion and Treason 

The language of Donald Trump must be understood in context of collusion.  

Obama promoted Islam and endangered the United States, Israel, and the world with this ideological position on Islam.  He routinely was deceptive about it, including Benghazi, and telling us that the confession of the Islamic terrorist in Orlando was false. He bold faced said that "Muslims were part of the founding fathers."  This is not a slight-of-hand deception; it is the fabrication of reality.  

 When an Islamic killer confessed, accurately quoting his religion and justifying his action, Obama told us that he knew the killer's "real" motive more than the killer.  He attempted to use the politically correct "homophobic" element with colluding CNN interviewing the killer's "boyfriend." Statement Analysis of the "boyfriend" showed deception:  he did not speak from experiential knowledge about the killer.  Later, the FBI confirmed:  the Orlando Muslim was not a homosexual, did not belong to gay dating cites and chose the gay bar because his religion told him to.  Further split between on-the-ground investigators who seek truth, and the politically connected and narrative driven above them.  

To explain away how obedience to the Koran in killing infidels, including homosexuals, 

Barak Obama used sophistication but was deceptive. 

Trump used simple language and asks rhetorically, "are you crazy?"

The former was praised; the latter condemned.  

"This is very very bad.  This is crazy.  They don't know who they're letting in there. She's nuts!"  Trump (speaking of Merkel suspending all statutes and inviting "all" to enter Germany in 2015.

Compare this unsophisticated language to a much more sophisticated wording of taunting one's masculinity:

"It appears that Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans."  Obama. 

This became an embarrassment when citizens in Germany with iPhones showed the videos of what "widows and orphans" looked like:  80% to 90% male, age 18 to 30.  

Trump used unsophisticated language and whether you agree with him or not, his meaning was plain and truthful.  He had no intent to deceive.  He said that letting in without vetting people who hold to Islamic ideology is not sane nor rational. 

With Obama, you have:

a.  The avoidance of identifying if they are genuine refugees fleeing war,  landing in the first safe country or not;
b.  The use of insult to taunt, revealing the need to insult. 

Here is a Statement Analysis Lesson regarding unnecessary words that is important. 

                                 Dismissive Insult

When something is unworthy of discussion, it is dismissed.  
When something is worthy of discussion, but one side wants it dismissed, it uses the language of dismissal. 

The language of dismissal is unnecessary, making it very important to us.  

One dismisses, while the other talks about it, showing a "need to dismiss." 

One is reality, the other is the verbalized perception of reality.  

No one says  "cigarette smoking causes cancer is settled science!"

Why do we not hear this?

Because it is settled. 

To call it "settled" science is unnecessary and would raise doubt.  Remember what Statement Analysis teaches about unnecessary words; they are doubly important. 

A few scientists working for the tobacco industry were dismissed from the discussion.  They were not dismissed verbally; they were dismissed, literally.  The few that tried to protect tobacco industry found no interest in their studies.  There was no need for calling them "killers" and "nazis" who "hated" the public.  The few research papers they produced were scrutinized and dismissed.  They were not verbally dismissed with insults or taunts; their ideas and hypothesis were dismissed.  

Consider "white supremacists", by definition, are those who do not seek to promote equality of their race, but supremacy.  In such supremacy, they must hate other races.  This is inherent in supremacist ideology:  someone must lose.  

The NAACP, in promoting its race, historically, has had few fringe supremacists, but they were quickly seen as persona non grata.  

Just how many white supremacists are there?

Remember, a "nationalist" is one who loves his county.  The new "buzz term" is "white nationalist"; one how is now equated with the neo-nazi or neo kkk.  

How many white supremacists, that is, those who seek to promote their race over others, are there?

If you listen to CNN, they are upwards of 50 million.    

In Germany,  any group who disagreed Angela Merkel's immigration policy were labeled "nazi", as well as other typical moral condemnations.  There was no debate on what was best for Germany:  if you did not agree, you were irrational and immoral.  

Analyze the Need to Insult by Frequency and Intensity  

Consider this a slightly off topic observation of language just prior to the 2016 US Presidential election.  

Need for dismissal taunts and insults:  Most of us admit that we were surprised by the election results. If you look back to August, September and October 2016 you will note:

1.  Large crowds at Trump rallies
2.  Small crowds at Clinton rallies
3.  MSM Camera angles intended to conceal both the above 
4.  Journalists giving standing ovations to Hillary Clinton while insulting Donald Trump, and Trump insulting journalists for unjust coverage. 

5.  Polls universally reporting a landslide victory for Hillary.  

But there is something else that readers of Statement Analysis should look back on, date, and consider. 

Note the insults by Barak Obama in September and especially late October of 2016. 

 Not only was there an increase in the volume of insults by Obama, but in the quality of the insults, as well.  

The insults grew, became more personal, and even dismissive.  In this, as each day passed, issues were addressed less and less until, just prior to the election, they almost disappeared entirely from Barak Obama.  

In October of 2016, Barak Obama almost entirely ceased talking policy differences, and his insults increased to the point of attempted dismissiveness of Donald Trump

Main Stream Media stayed with him each step of the way.   

Every supporter of Donald Trump was a white supremacist or black  "uncle tom."  

Every supporter of Hilary Clinton was an educated feminist or a refined beta male who has learned the toxicity of his masculinity and was wise enough to vote for a woman.  (even as MSM condemned sexism). 

Hillary Clinton condemned the policies of her husband's administration and changed her life long view that marriage was between a man and woman, instantly, when it became popular, and MSM did not address it.  

The "good" and "evil" used was the same the Nazis used, beginning in their invasion of Poland and their execution of Polish officers and intelligentsia.  

Hillary was the "good" and Trump was the "evil" in this "religious like ideology" that had long ceased to be a democratic process covered by journalists.   

The analysis showed that the need to insult overtook all else, and that  it reached the highest level of weakness in the need to mockingly dismiss Donald Trump as a human being, which quickly spread to the wholesale mockingly dismissive portrayal of anyone who did not intend vote for Hillary Clinton. 

Obama knew that the polls were deceptive and Hillary might lose. 

The pollsters later defended themselves saying that Trump supporters were too ashamed to admit to the pollsters their support from Trump.

This, too,  was deceptive in the anonymous polling that was conducted along specific geographical lines to reflect favorably for Hillary.   

Analysis Conclusion:  Barak Obama knew.  

He knew there was no voter fraud to favor Trump.  

He may have been one of the few Americans not shocked by the results. 

This is why (among other reasons) he called Hillary and told her to concede, rather than contest the election. 

Islamic Immigration and Donald Trump's Language 

The Islamic apologist mayor of London said "get used to it."  He has said he, himself, will not welcome Donald Trump but will "educate" him in the "great religion of Muslims."  


France' elite  said "no walls! as boundaries are now "sinful" in the new religion.  

As a result, they must now build barriers to protect.  The language has changed from "Walls" to "barriers" but the meaning is the same.  The meaningless word change is is labeled "progressive", or "that which makes progress."  

England put up "journalist covers", that is, visible barriers to keep journalists from seeing the "refugee children" as they came in for processing.  This was because many were 18-30 year olds; not 16 year olds.  

Trump called the lack of vetting and deception of the elite  "insane."  We consider that which goes against human self-survival to lack sanity.  

Trump:  "this is insane!" as he was mocked by Sweden, who has more than 55 Swedish owned territories that are under Sharia; lost to the police and to Sweden. ("No Go Zones")

There, the rape of Swedish women (children and even boys) is epidemic, and female genital mutilation and physical assaults on "New Swede" wives are the norm. Feminist Sweden is the single most dangerous place for a female in the western world.  Yet, they mocked Donald Trump as "stupid."  

 Female Genital Mutilation:  this barbaric practice is done to ensure that the female victim does not experience sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.  Human sexual intimacy, one of life's blessed comforts, is routinely denied them, yet Western politicians cover for the practitioners fearful of being called "racist" even though race is not an element of it. 

Trump's words were not sophisticated, and they were ridiculed, but what might  the victims of FGM think of his words? 

What do the rape victims of Cologne and Sweden think?

What do the women who dye their hair dark and do not go out at night due to de facto implementation of Sharia  think of his words? We know what politicians and media think; but what about victims?

Many citizens think it is, in fact, a lack of sanity.  Yet, what did MSM report?

Main Stream Media:  "Trump is Hitler!"  

"Trump insults Sweden!"

"Trump ignorant that Sweden is the humanitarian superpower of the world!"

"Trump cannot get his facts straight."

"Trump is Islamophobic."

Trump rhetorically asked if Angela Merkel was insane for making an open invitation for "all" to come to Germany.  

The European Union had specific governing principles  (rules, laws, statutes) to define what a refugee is, and which specific nation should give refugee status.

Migrants, terrorists, welfare seekers and others paid much money to  the human traffickers, under the NGO status of the EU in one of the most corrupt and inhumane practices we've seen since WWII.  

Who is insane?

The European Union had rules.  These rules defined what a refugee was and when tens of thousands of fake Syrian passports were manufactured and sold, it made little difference to Merkel.  When these "refugees" had their feet land in a safe country that was not Germany, this too, meant little to her.  

Angela Merkel overruled all the standard agreements  and publicly announced, "we'll take them all.  We can do this."  

German citizens had no choice, and no voice in the matter as with one announcement, she forever changed their country.  

"Islam is a part of Germany" she said.

The ideology of Islam is a thousand times more lethal than the Nazis ever dreamed.

Where has this lawlessness led?

Merkel is currently working with the European Union  to coerce and punish sovereign countries, including Poland and Hungary,  into taking Islamists into their countries, against their wills.  Her "religion" demands that she is the moral high ground and Victor Orban is the "sinner" or "infidel" resisting Islamic migration.  

She gave the very public invitation and now seeks punitive actions against those who disagreed with her and do not wish to be responsible for her actions.  She opened her borders and now demands other countries do the same.  She employed techniques to target her own people and silence disagreement, including through Facebook.  

Recently a journalist put a historic photo up and got arrested for it. 

A journalist used a 1942 photo where the "Grand Mufti" was shaking hands with Adolph Hitler.  The German court gave him a 6 month jail term for "inciting hatred" against Islam.  The prosecutor said that although it was a historical picture, readers might not know it.

Is this "sane"?  That is, "rational" or "reasonable"?

Should it be criminal to disagree with Angela Merkel?  

When Trump says, "this is crazy" regarding the open border invitation of unvetted peoples who hold to an ideology that calls for destruction of the West, is this the language of a "5 year old"?  Is this the language of one "not sane"? 

Quality of Deception 

Some deception is worse than other deception.

"You're blue hair looks...nice" has lesser consequence than,

"Read my lips:  no new taxes" which has lesser consequences than

"We are slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions by giving them millions..."

There is a marked difference between deception in a "yes or no" format; deception via missing information, and the outright fabrication of reality.

Negotiation Language praises.

This is an area to both understand, and to consider as frequently disingenuous and fluid.  It is part of the overall inherent deception of negotiation.  What is difficult to grasp:

Is the praise genuine or is it part of negotiation?

When someone is in Trump's favor, , "this guy is a very very good man", as Trump, unconcerned what appearance may be, and how main stream media will interpret, as he is concerned about what he can get from this "very very close friend" in a negotiation.

Negotiators often turn just as quickly when they do not get what they want.  It gets nasty and the difference between Trump and politicians:

a.  Trump says it out loud.  This is another "twinge" portion for his most ardent supporters.  They say they prefer this to the deceptive praise-backstabbing that politicians use.  At least, they say, "he does it to their face" so to speak.

b.  Trump's language is coarse. 

He intended to negotiate with Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin.  He did what a "schmoozer" does:  "let me tell you, this guy is very very smart."
He was signaling a willingness to reduce tension between two nuclear powers by complimenting their leader.  

This is how Trump became a billionaire in real estate.

What did MSM report?

"Trump is America's Putin."
"Trump praises the man who kills..."
"Trump secretly supported by the Kremlin." 
"Trump in collusion with Russia to destroy Europe."  

What if Trump had said, "I understand Putin is KGB and is a monster who cannot be trusted"?  

Media would have declared "Trump seeks nuclear war with Putin." 

There is a time to stand up to evil and there is a time to wait.  When Ronald Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union, it was part of an overall strategy to make the world safer.  

Years later, George W. Bush tried to employ the same language with his "axis of evil" talk that led to escalation without resolution.   

Trump sizes up his opponent in negotiations and has had, after early deep failures, decades of successes. 

It is what he does best:  negotiation.  This is why we "add or subtract 20%" to whatever he says if it is in negotiation.  This is a rule of thumb in viewing the language of negotiation; it should be a base to follow and adjusted according to the person and context.

The lack of political experience is evident in turn over.  He is being betrayed via illegal leaks and personal ambition.  The lack of dealing with Washington will have to be overcome or it will overcome him.  

That he retorts to insults with insults makes people cringe but it is, in human nature, not wise.  Marco Rubio's language reveals he still smarts under "Little Marco" ridicule from the debates. The same with the language of John McCain.  This is why those close to him have sought to stop the tweeting.  

It is counter productive.  

The entire media and culture of celebrity stands against him. Let's go back to "collusion" of which he took ownership of.

I recognize that some people did not so much vote for Donald Trump as they cast their vote against Hillary Clinton terrified over what could have been. 

The pathology difference between Clinton and Trump  is extreme.  

 I recognize that the claim that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote may not be truthful, either.  Even without the wide spread voter fraud and the importing of non citizens and using government funds (welfare) to bribe voters, if a recount was called, the write in ballots of the American military would have been counted.  This may change the overall number significantly.

I have written analysis on Donald Trump from years back.  Those who wish to read so may.  Those who read main stream media sometimes write here belligerently demanding more coverage.  They have all of media, all the time, with a single minded narrative to follow.  The media and elite will not report fairly what he says or does.  I use twitter to inject the sarcasm of such:

POTUS:  I condemn racism and violence of all.
NYT:    President aligns himself with White Supremacists
CNN:   President refuses to condemn racism.

POTUS:  The Paris Agreement is not fair to the Untied States
CNN:     Trump begins the destruction of the planet
OBAMA:  Trump is cowardly (standing up to 156 nations and the scorn of the media and elite) 

POTUS:  NK will regret starting a war with the US
Wash Post:  Trump signals nuclear war imminent

Those who wish to know truth cannot continue to support main stream media.  The "random acts of journalism" are in deed, random and rare.

I am a constitutionalist, meaning that I believe we are all better off with a very limited government and no government involvement in our social lives; leave us alone.  We will work things out.   This is where the divide is most extreme. Politicians stir up hatred and divide, for short term gain.  Gone is the art of debate and civil discourse.

Freedom is rapidly diminishing because of this.  History suggests that humans will go very far in submitting to tyranny, but eventually they reach a limit and violence breaks out.

We are now seeing increase in violence and rhetoric coupled with deception that is reminiscent of the late 1850s, except with a dramatic change.

It led to the deaths of more than 600,000 while England ended slavery without bloodshed.

Today, ignorance is not coupled with emotion as it was then, but now emotion is considered  to "over rule" truth, itself.

It is become a religious with its own acute zealotry.  It has its "saints" (social justice warriors) and its "infidels" (everyone who disagrees with the ever changing narrative).  The targeting of those who disagree is far and wide, further exposing its ideological  weakness.  

The religious zealotry is seen in contempt for the rule of law as the new "believer" is "above the law."

Law breaking becomes a "moral" necessity and one in which politicians now boast rather than fear arrest.  Unthinkable a decade ago, it is now a popular mirroring of countries in disarray.

Does Donald Trump's language show a hatred of foreigners?

Frequently reported in media, the term used is "xenophobe" to describe Donald Trump's "America first" policy.  That a leader of a country would put his country first was an expected.  In 2009 America, in this "religion", one who stands for his country is "an infidel" worthy of condemnation.

In Chicago, illegal aliens are those who entered the United States illegally; that is, they held the laws of emigrating to the United States in contempt.

They then receive free money and are reminded which politician made this possible. Hence, the politician profits from this.  This is a historically new trend in migrations of peoples where countries entice movement.

As beginning in lawlessness, the violence has increased.  Politicians there routinely break the laws they feel that they are morally above, no matter what law abiding citizens think, nor what the consequence is of having unvetted people living among them.

Then, should someone break a law they agree with, they are incensed and demand justice.

This, too, is not new.  This is "every man to his own tent.  Every man to himself" where every one does what is right in his own eyes.

The resultant chaos and anarchy destroys civility. When Trump addressed the victims of criminals who entered the country illegally, he was said to have "irrational fear of foreigners" and "hates" Mexicans.  

Rather than lawfully change laws, the religious zealotry is seen in its lawlessness and mob rule, no different than the Taliban or ISIS when they enter a town and use violence and destruction to send their message.  It is fascism while titled anti-fascism.  Now, MSM is praising them as "victims" of Trump and "white nationalists." 

The Psychology of Lawlessness 

When someone runs a stop sign, if caught, they are ticketed.  If they do this again, they are ticketed again.  If they are then caught with an expired registration, they are ticketed again  If this continues, their license to drive will be suspended; not for running a stop sign or failure to register:

it is suspended as a "habitual offender."


This is because the person is recognized as holding the rule of law in contempt and represents a danger to society.  Society fears the mentality of one who will not live by the rules.

Rather than work, lawfully, to make changes, they take matters into their own hands.  This leads to violence.

What is the reference point?

Since they cannot appeal to the rule of law, they appeal to emotion.  If you disagree, you are labeled "racist, xenophobic, sexist..." etc.

Donald Trump:  "I'm gonna build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it."  

Fences make for good neighbors.  We lock our doors of our cars and we lock the doors of our homes at night.

A country that is without a border ceases to be a country.  By building a wall or physical barrier, those who wish to move to the United States can still do so, but  lawfully.  
"widows and orphans" fleeing Syria 

  Security through walls, check points, vetting, etc, is to keep the oath of office of President  in protecting American citizens. This presupposes defining who is an American citizen.  Barak Obama skirted the laws, gave stand down orders to border agents and dramatically increased Islamic migration to the United States. To stop the possible vetting of Islamists,  he said,

"we do not vet people by religion.  We are better than that."

It was a faux moral cloak over what he had done:   We learned that 98% to 99% of his migration was Islamic although the Christians were being persecuted.  Obama refused to call it "genocide."  

Walls keep out those who attempt to circumvent laws.

What did MSM claim about Trump's desire to restore and uphold the existing laws on migration?

MSM:  Donald Trump hates Mexicans.

The followers of MSM parroted this, as did celebrities was "fact."

There is nothing in his language to support this.  There is nothing in his language to suggest this.


Racism is not  defined in main stream media other than, "if you disagree; you are racist."  Future generations will wonder at what they see of us in our race to be the most moral or the biggest victim.  When one race is given preferential treatment, another race is discriminated against.  Because politicians change the language does not change the reality; only the verbalized perception of it.

Someone from Mexico who wishes to emigrate to the United States can fill out the appropriate paper work. If someone has been convicted of rape in Mexico, he is a rapist.  The only way he can enter the United States is illegally.  The only place he can go and not be deported, if found, is a "sanctuary city."  There, he will receive money his hands have not earned, and is free to  rape again.   This is why we have laws.  Yet, Rahm Emmanual claims that he is so moral that he will defy the federal government and not allow illegals to be deported.  He has no fear of being arrested. American citizens from Mexico do not want illegals in their neighborhoods any more than any person would, but MSM will never interview them. 

Donald Trump will speak out plainly and MSM will report to either narrative predisposed readers, or undiscerning ones and say, "look how he hates poor Mexicans."

The need to editorialize within a sentence is not lost on readers here.

In his inaugural speech, Trump called America to unite and turn away from identity politics which have so severely divided us.  It was a strong speech which was inspiring.

MSM reported it as "frightening" with one calling it  "Hitleresque" and signaling "the end" of the world.

This was heard by millions of people; including those who have been convinced that their cause is a "moral" cause, so that when violence goes without condemnation,  it is encouraged.

Guilt by Association 

This is another deceptive technique that can help you get to the truth.  You are encouraged to listen to the actual words of Trump regardless of whether you support him or not.

You are encouraged to compare his words to what media reports his words are.

You are able to see that this is not a man who has life long political experience in carefully choosing his words for appearance sake.  Like him or dislike him; agree with him or disagree with him, you can know what he is saying and where he stands.  If he is persuaded to change his mind, you will see this as well.

What we are not seeing, however, is the outright intent to deceive the American people in order to put forth an agenda, as we did under Barak Obama.  Politicians lie, and most of these have to do with unethical business and finance.  With Obama, it was different; it was ideological, not pragmatic. 

Trump is restoring jobs to the United States.  This is his agenda.  If you disagree with it, at least you can see what it is.

If you despise the crude language of "everyman" and the personal thin skinned tweets, you may know that he is who he is, rather than a deceptive appearance of what he is not.

July 2017:  "Millions will die without Obamacare."  

Fear mongering is a tool of the deceptive.  

But is lying morally wrong? 

Leftism as a Religion 

In this new "religion" anyone who identifies by his own country is now a "bad" person.  Why?  Because Hitler put Germany first and killed because of it.

Think of the reasoning:

Hitler was a socialist (government control) that put his nation first.  "National Socialism."

Today, leaders are socialist but "international" socialists.

Guilt by association is a form of deception.

For example, Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore, all vegetarians are Nazis.

This absurdity is done daily (and hourly) by MSM and actually helped get Donald Trump elected.

I like to watch the videos of Ben Shapiro.  He debates anyone in colleges (and television) who will take him on.  I've yet to see him lose a debate.


The college professors who fill their students' young minds with "leftism", which says that anything that existed yesterday is wrong today, solidify the divisions caused by politicians.  They are cowards.

They rally the students against truth, stifle free speech but when it comes time to show their mettle, they hide.

The college professors will not  debate Ben Shapiro; they leave it to their students to either be embarrassed by logic, or to shout Shapiro down.

Ivy League school professors will not debate him. The very "champions" of our nations's most expensive schools, not only refuse to stand up to the diminutive Shapiro, but use emotionalism to create a violent and dangerous atmosphere to block him from speaking.

This is the United States 2017.

Shapiro is called "hateful", a with "white privilege",  a "white supremacist" and even recently, an antisemite.

He's an orthodox Jew.

Those interested in language would do well to watch a few videos of this young man debate.

He is  critical of Donald Trump but does so reasonably; going after issues, for the most part.   A recent tweet said that the problem with hyperbolic language is we can't tell when "he really means it."  

In Statement Analysis we view and classify the hyperbolic language not only as a gauge, but to establish a baseline and context. We are able to use it to get a clear view of projection. 

 Shapiro was referring to the  "fire and fury" tweet which was specifically designed to be heard in China and North Korea.  He wanted a solution that did not require death and destruction.

This may become unavoidable as the 3 recent administrations' weakness increased North Korea's aggression, but Trump's priority, as seen in his words, is a peaceful resolution.

The Religion of Tyranny and the Religion of Contrarianism 

The "leftism" has long abandoned the Democratic party, where once ideas were hotly contested in civil debate.  Today, anything reasonable, logical, or even that which is successful, is decried in the religion of contrarianism and emotionalism. 

Narrative driven parents are having their 5 year olds "choose" their sex and claim that disobedient children are "more creative" and they are not "obedient dogs."  

 They set up their children for a life of failure by convincing them the there feelings rule everything and everyone, while bringing despair to the teaching profession.   

This is enticing to those who have a need to be "special" and "morally superior" to others.  Its end will be an increase in spending:

Criminal Justice System, courts, jails, prisons;
Social Services, therapists, counselors, special education
Pharmaceuticals; prescription medication to alter undisciplined children's behaviors.  Reasoning with a two year old and giving him control produces anxiety.  The world is scary enough for us as adults; watch what it does to 5 year olds when they rule over their households by their temper tantrums.  

Teachers:   overworked and underpaid teachers will now have to find new ways to control their classes as the "non obedient non pet dog" disobedient child disrupts class.  He or she becomes the one that teachers often lament over, and sometimes end up avoiding.

All because the parents are "progressing" to absurdity under this new religion where everything from "yesterday" is bad, and the reverse of everything from yesterday is now "good." 

They've got their "good and evil" set up in many cases in the exact opposite of the Ten Commandments; the basic governing foundational rules of Western civilization.  

Ask yourself, "When did it become morally wrong for an American to fly an American flag?"  The question is specific:  "when", meaning time.

When was it wrong for a German to be proud of being German?

in light of the video of Angela Merkel's disgust as she pulled down her own flag? 

This is the "new" religion: 

The "nationalist" is the sinner. 
The "internationalist" is the saint. 

Why are people who were not even alive during national socialism told it is wrong to now wave a German flag?

To listen to Barak Obama and MSM: 

"When did police officers all suddenly hate black people?"

We listen to George W. Bush and the incessant narrative of MSM: 

"When, after 911, did Islam suddenly become "the religion of peace"  instead of the religion of slavery, rape and bloodshed?

Recently, a spokeswoman for "Black Lives Matter" said that "logic was racist."  

She said that logic and reason were being "used by white supremacists to subordinate peoples of color."  

From his first days in office, Barak Obama's racism was projected in his attack on police.  It continued throughout his tenure, increasing in boldness and action. Before knowing any details, the  police were always "evil" and the black criminal was always "good", even "like a son" to him.  

Thus,  the language of racism as seen in consistent projection.  

 People who were never slaves were victimized by people who never owned slaves, as a covering for political destruction of people, neighborhoods and even cities.

Suicide rates among whites increased as "white privilege" became a new "buzz phrase" of ridicule of those with lesser pigment who were now, due to the color of their skin, "guilty" and "bad." 

When police confronted a man in Boston, Obama immediately labeled it "racist."  From there, the war on police was set in motion, making a dangerous but necessary profession, underpaid and understaffed, even more odious and life threatening. 

It indicated his own projected racism. 

 David Duke, Al Sharpton, and others project their own personal racism into their language, and seek to profit off the emotions they stir, no matter how much damage they cause. For 8 years, Obama did the same.  

The result:  innocent cops gunned down.

"Hands Up; Don't Shoot" was a lie.  It did not happen.
"Cops killing black males" was, and is a lie.

This is why BLM had to decry reason and logic:  statistics do not care for our emotions.  Facts do not yield to the narrative of politicians.  

The result?  An America more divided now than in more than 150 years with routine calls for the president to be assassinated.  Even Obama supporters says there would have been  arrests had Americans said this about Obama.  

Cops who now fearing being called racist are under-protecting black neighborhoods where the innocent Americans (with dark pigment) are in harm's way.

This is racism in action.  Ask the innocent victims in predominantly black neighborhoods if this is racism.  

Black police officers are targeted and "Blue Lives Matter" condemned.  If you think black cops are exempt from the war on cops, see Baltimore.  

Maxine Waters says Donald Trump is a "racist."  She said Ben Carson was a white nationalist.

When a black Dunkin Donuts worker refuses to serve a police officer a cup of coffee, the nation's youth take note as it is splashed across headlines.  

CNN, NYTimes and others portray this as "heroic" and "the resistance movement."

It puts law enforcement lives in jeopardy, which puts innocent citizens' lives in jeopardy.  

It is a "lose-lose" proposition, but it does give some the short media exposure they crave.  

Maxine Waters and others are calling for Donald Trump to be impeached over the recent violence by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and White Supremacists.  


Because he did not condemn "all" the violence enough to satisfy them.  When he said, "I condemn all the violence" repeatedly, he did not, according to the narrative, say "all."  

Trump told the truth.  Not everyone there was Antifa, BLM or White Supremacists.  

Some went to stop the tearing down of historical monuments.  

Religious Piety and Devoutness  

The new religious must be consecrated and devout.  They must uphold narrative above all else. 

If a white women "feels" like she is a black woman and wants to get tax payer dollars for being black, pigment, science and truth be damned:  the narrative says she must be black. 

If a man steps up and says "I an Abraham Lincoln." Will New York's mayor threaten a $250,000 fine and 6 months in jail for not addressing him as "President Lincoln"?

There is little reason for the narrative driven to study statement analysis or even read  here.  There is condemnation for anything  and everything the narrative disagrees with. The condemnation is not logical, nor is it analytical.  It is an emotional consecration to a religious ideology that is supremacist, just like ISIS and the Taliban.  This is why tearing down monuments of history is shared among them.  

Misogyny, in criminal analysis, is frightening.  

Yet to listen to the narrative, lyrics that inspire 15 year old males to rape and assault females is "inspiring culture" while an inappropriate joke is of national security concern. It all depends on the pigment of the speaker.  

The narrative driven has most all media, Hollywood, celebrities and the praise of the same.  The need to attack the small minority of disagreement speaks to the need to discredit dissension.  This represents the weakness of illogic, as well as displays the potential danger that come from usurpation of truth by emotion.

The narrative driven cannot analyze.  Analysis is based upon truth; not perception.  It is "analytical" rather than "emotional."

Racism, that is, the hatred of anyone based upon race, is something that is of a deep, personal religious theme for me.  It is in my religious ideology,  an offense against my God and against mankind.  It is illogical and it is immoral.

In my years  I have met many people via interviewing.  I have met very few people that did not feel the way I do about racism.

Some that I have met were raised in racism and were conscious of it in their own lives and spoke about it.  I have always respected them and to date, treasure the memory of some heart-to-heart discussions of such.

I have met a few racists; not many, but the racism is so insidious that it left an impression upon my memory.  The few that I met held to personal hatred.  It was not the white or black culture they disliked.  To have a strong opinion on cultural outworking is not racism.  There were parts of my Irish culture my parents despised but it was not a personal hatred of Irish people or descendants.  Of the few racists I met, the hatred was intense and it was personal.

Most all I have met and interacted with felt very strongly that racism is an offense both spiritually and personally.

One woman would not let her niece date a white man.  She and I talked at length about it and I understood her point.  At that time, 30 years ago, and where she lived, she feared for her niece's safety and happiness.  Yet, under a broad and non-contextualized stroke, she can be portrayed as racist. We often joked about it, and she wished things were different, but it was her perception of reality. She loved her niece more than she cared about being labeled.  

To listen to the narrative of Obama,  Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton (not Bill, who upon pleadings from black leaders,  toughened drug laws which Hillary praised then, but condemned in the campaign as racist), millions and millions of white Americans have secretly communicated one with another to hate blacks.  They conspired in every industry in American business to keep this hatred going for more than 150 years.  They taught their children how to whisper, communicate the hate, and not get caught. 

Then, it spread to police.  

Police, all across the nation, have a secret hatred of black people.  Even black police secretly hate black people and they shoot them whenever they think they can get away with it.  

In business, even when a qualified black person showed up, the conspiracy was so powerful that it cost companies billions of dollars by hiring lesser qualified non-blacks.  

Then, by some strange form of deception, they desired to hire blacks in sports and in the NBA, they've gotten millions of white people to silently conspire to make it appear like there is no conspiracy, by attending basketball games. It is a conspiracy to prove there is no conspiracy, so goes the narrative follow through.  

This bizarre racist ideology is as illogical as it sounds and it is racism that belies one's own emotional intelligence and reveals the personal hatred held.  

"All white men are rapists!  Just look at the different colors of our skins!"  Al Sharpton said this.  

Barak Obama invited him to the White House many times over.  

The Deplorables

This is not the first time in history entire peoples were considered "bad influence" upon an ideology. 

Beginning in earnest after the invasion of Poland, Heinrich Himmler's work was to eradicate the "negative influence" upon National Socialist ideology, beginning with surrendered Polish officers and eventually rounding up Jews. 

When a political belief turns religious like zealotry, violence begins.  

History is repeating itself revealing the danger of our educational system's refusal to teach history outside of leftist narrative; hence, the tearing down of monuments in ignorance. 

With the leftist narrative being essentially contrarian, no matter what President Trump says, the mantra of MSM will continue with "racist, hatred, phobic, and Nazi."

Citizens are afraid to speak up.  They are divided their offices, and some are divided in their own homes.

Donald Trump is not a racist.  Whether or not he is qualified or talented enough to be president of the United States is a different question.  He is not a racist.  A racist is disqualified by virtue of the illogical hatred of racism. 

Donald Trump is not a xenophobic.  He is an American and he is fighting for America and he expects other countries to do the same. 

How does one reason with the religion of leftism when leftism despises reason?

Anything leftism does not agree with is "hate speech."  This Marxist ideology became main stay beginning in 2009.  In just 8 years, race relations have been deeply destroyed.  When the language betrays them, they change the language.

"Build bridges; not walls!"

This is said by the same elite who are building barriers to protect the Eiffel Tower. It is to demand borders be torn down, but not their personal walls of safety in their homes.  This came to a head in Paul Ryan's reelection.  Safely behind armed walls, he would not allow for the same for other families.  His wall may have cost more than a house in crime torn Chicago.  

Note the targeting of historical monuments in the United States; not through legal means, but through violence, coercion and mob rule.  Here, leftism and Islam are working together.  When Wolf Blitzer reported the Islamic attack in Spain, he first asked if this was a "copycat attack" like in the United States.  It was deception as he knows there are no Confederate statues in Barcelona.  It was absurdity to support narrative; not news reporting.  

Wolf Blitzer is telling Americans what Donald Trump said.  

If one politician has the right to negate, suspend or break a law or statute based upon her emotional opinion, what does that say about mobs?

If pro lifers are offended by abortion clinics, should they be permitted to destroy the buildings?  Or, must they seek democratic and lawful means to stop abortion?  

Should they be as free as Rahm Emmanual to pick and choose which laws they can break? 

Can they follow the example of Antifa and employ violence, only to be alleviated of guilt by MSM? 

Trump tweeted, "what's next, Washington?"  It did not take long for statues of Washington and Lincoln to be targeted.  

In this religion, since everything yesterday is immoral, will movies from Hollywood's Golden Era be banned or censored?  These movies are "offensive" to the leftist religion in their portrayal of "sexism" and the "role of women" and "family", and so on.

Fred Astair, Ginger Rogers and Cary Grant all racist phobes?

Already, TCM hosts apologize for many of these movies in their introductions,  which is ironic since people subscribe to their channel because they like the movies of yesteryear.

The descent into madness (irrationality) is picking up traction.

The language of Donald Trump has not revealed racism, white supremacy, misogyny, nor Nazism.  Nor has it revealed hatred of Mexicans, Muslims, or anyone else.   It has revealed crudeness, thin skin, negotiation skills, political ignorance, and being overwhelmed.  

We also do not have certainty as to where he stands, as several of those close to him oppose what many people believe was his position in the election cycle.  

Words like "Nazi" and "racist" are losing meaning as they are used to describe anyone who upholds logic, reason, mathematics, civility and freedom.

To Hillary, these people  are "deplorable" but to media, they are to be deplored specifically for being "nazis, islamophobes, hateful, supremacists," and so on.


Because they disagree.  They are the "infidels" of the ideology of emotion and must be punished.  

To the Soros funded Antifa, the religion of emotion is the impetus for lawlessness and violence.

How far can they go before tangible defense takes place?

How far can MSM go?

How far will the leakers go, in damaging the security of the United States, just to satisfy this moral narcissism within them?

How many police officers are going to die because of the racist deception employed and promoted by Barak Obama, Black Lives Matter, and media?

There are things that Trump has succeeded at.  There are things he has failed at. There are things he said he would do, and has failed, thus far and there were things he said he would do, and has. 

There are promises that appear to be kept, broken and in some cases, possibly discarded.  Time will tell.  

He has leftists within his inner circle.  

There are things about him that I respect; there are things about him that I do not respect.

I hope he continues to restore respect for law enforcement.  This is because respect for law enforcement is respect for authority and it is a form of child abuse to remove this natural barrier and it is to destroy lives.

The 12 year old black boy who is taught to hate police is going to have a difficult time with authority in general, including his school teachers.  This is both child abuse and it is betrayal.  When he is told that police officers are out to shoot him because of the color of his skin, he is being lied to at a critical point of development with a trauma producing terrifying deception.   In life, he is about to experience an increase in testosterone that will meet this deceptive fear and anarchy.  

Lawlessness and testosterone will now mix.

11 police officers gunned down in Detroit fueled by anti police rhetoric, so far this year, according to their chief.  

Black Americans are suffering because of the projective race baiting and exploitation that we had, in earnest for 8 years.  

The anti police message not only cost police lives and endanger them today, but put innocent citizens' lives in danger due to the "Ferguson Effect" in our cities of risk.  

Deception has its cost.  

The college kids who are told to turn violent so as not to hear something that upsets them are going to be running our nation soon enough.  How will they cope with supervisors and bosses who seek profit and don't care about their feelings?

The young children who are trained to be  "not obedient children" and who are told to "choose your own sex" at age 5 are going to overwhelm our social services and criminal justice systems, as advancements in science may be spectacularly hindered by illogic. 

The entire generation who demands everything be given to them for free, is going to find that eventually, the basic laws of math cannot be negated forever; someone must produce and someone must pay.  Politicians feed into this. 

Perhaps if we elected only those who have leadership qualities forged in the challenges of military experience, we would not have the pandering to emotion.  Military training, in particular, seeks to bring self control to new heights; overruling emotion and even instinct.  

Those who now are filled with false "righteous indignation" are are being funded to protest and agitate, will, one day, have to get a job.

Their useless social construct college degrees, of which they will later complain as "pay inequality!" will not pay the bills; especially for those who have come of age in a time where overall wealth and abundance has become the norm and their entitlement high.

We must exercise the very element that separates us from animals:  the ability to reason.

This new "religion" with its  zealotry and fanaticism is most dangerous because it not only combines tyranny with emotion, but it is also divorced from reason.

There is, therefore, no bottom or reference point from which we can judge or predict.

If you wish to understand the language of Donald Trump, listen to him. Like him or not, listen to him, just as you would any subject, and watch the actions that come from his words.  

1.  Listen to his own words.  You've read here because you know something about the system of deception detection or are interested in discernment.  

2.  Compare what he said to what media reported that he said. 

3.  Judge Context:  ask, "is this negotiation language?"  If so, note deception, with likely 20% hyperbolic, or 20% minimization, in the least, added.   

4.  Look for his priority in his language.  Ask questions. 

According to his language:  

What does he want?
What does he seek?
Why is he saying this?
Why is he saying this now?
Why does media editorialize simple language?
Why the need to misstate his words?

Note this, particularly, with the word "very" and other adverbs to identify context of negotiation language.  

4.  Note the need for labeling, in particular, "racist" and seek truth from his own words.  Note the employment of dismissal, often seen in insult, ridicule or any other attempt to hinder the flow of information.  

5.  Note the psycho-linguistic profile dominant traits including:

a.  negotiation deception noted 
b.  thin skinned inappropriate replies and tweets of insult 
c.  success fueled narcissism 
d.  priority 
e.  lack of experience in politics/trust 
f.   crass outspoken 
g.   categorize deception by quality 
h.  patriotism 
i.   the ability to fight and not give up (thus far) 

6.  Note that whatever needs to be defended by silencing is inherently weak. 

Should President Trump make deceptive statements, they will be covered here.  Exempt is the language of negotiation; otherwise that which is deceptive inherently, would need incessant coverage.  On the smaller statements, see the comments section for brief analysis posted. 

The need to publicly reject racism is an artificial construct.  Whether it be white supremacists or antifa anarchists shouting "death to all cops!", the game of "who will condemn them the most?" is for appearance sake; not for reality.  

To read MSM's "The Atlantic" is to learn that the lunar eclipse, itself, is racist.  

Blaming Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barak Obama for North Korea's nuclear abilities will not stop the death and destruction from occurring. 

Blaming Barak Obama for Iran's nuclear abilities will not solve anything. 

Donald Trump has inherited an extremely divided nation, a divided world, and a time of great danger for mankind.  

He may either be forced to take decidedly difficult action upon the two rogue nations, or he may seek to pass it on to his predecessor.  

The former will continue to bring condemnation from the main stream media and the global elite.

The latter may not be his luxury to own.  

As he watches European no go zones proliferate, will he stand by his campaign promises to halt the spread of Sharia, or will he, too, blame this on others and pass on definitive action?

As western Europe focuses itself on prosecuting free speech and attacking eastern European countries that resist Sharia, how many dead victims of Islamic terror will it take to awaken Europe?

As Trump has chosen the path of now fighting Islam in Afghanistan, as Obama and Bush did, will he fall into the same mistakes they made?

If a nuclear device is used in anger against the United States or its allies, it will be upon Trump's watch that history will cast the blame; not upon the predecessors' abdication of responsibility that facilitated it.  

Donald Trump has inherited, perhaps, the single worst period in the history of the United States.  Media, the global elitists and the Washington establishment are doing everything they can, legally, illegally and unethically, possible, to see that he fails.  

As they report endless hysteria men wearing women's dresses, ISIS like tearing down of statues, and whether or not Melanie is holding her husband's hand, the world moves ever closer to destruction.  

I do not agree with many of the policies and personal statements of President Donald Trump.  

I do not believe the employment and continuation of media deception about the president will benefit our world today. 

 It is a war for freedom, now, and a contention that the truth must be told, whether agreeable or disagreeable, to bring tyranny to an end.  

Welcome to the fight.  

"Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve the freedom of their opinion have always proved themselves intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"


tania cadogan said...

Another excellent post Peter, long and worth the read.
Speaking of white supremecists, are there also black supremecists who want whites wiped out at worse or who want whites stripped of everything property,jobs,money etc pretty much what is going on in Zimbabwe under mugabe where white farmers had their land confiscated and given to favored blacks with the result that Zimbabwe now has rampant starvation and an economy that has tanked as the inexperienced black new owners had no clue how to farm.
How come we don't see blacks demanding the eliminator of whites being prosecuted?
How come we don't see blacks prosecuted for racism when they make racist comments?
How come we don't see Islam it's being prosecuted when they make xenophobic,nationalistic or religious hate crimes?
As an aside, how come we never hear of gays going to a Muslim baker asking for a wedding cake to be made?
I would love to see that going through the courts.
Imagine the furore if the bakers lost and had to bake the cake as had Christian bakers.
Imagine the furore if the gays lost, all the Christian bakers would be up in arms and rightly so.

Given that Islam is a supremecist, sexist,racist,violent ideology that makes nazism looks tame, how come they aren't prosecuted for hate crimes whenever they meet up and practice Islam or read the Koran?

Unknown said...

thanks Peter, this should be mandatory reading in all schools.

"We couldn't send Iran a check" for a guy who holds the record for saying "I" he finds he can bring himself to say it here.

Jo said...

What do you make of the change in pronouns. I, you, we...

Q Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t wait long.
Q You waited two days —
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t wait long.
Q Forty-eight hours.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct — not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.
So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to —
Q So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?
THE PRESIDENT: I brought it. I brought it. I brought it.
Q Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?
THE PRESIDENT: As I said on — remember, Saturday — we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there.
Now, here’s the thing —

rob said...

I loved every word of this! when the real Americans, who do the work and foot the bill for all this, finally get fed up and start a push-back, maybe things will change. I'm thinking that may require a civil war. weren't our forefathers thinking ahead when they crafted the second amendment to say:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well, wonder who will arm that liberal, gun hating 'other side'
One side is already armed, and our gov't has done everything possible to un-arm us. If our police force or military won't perform that duty for them, who will? UN soldiers?
I quit buying professional game tickets a couple of years ago. tired of the crowds, the possibility of some sort of attack, and just the luxury of sitting home on the couch in heated/ac comfort made my decision. In this era of protesting the National Anthem, taking a knee instead of simply standing, no way in hell would I buy a ticket, or a t=shirt or anything else with a NFL logo. The first time it happened, the player should have been told what any employee, in uniform, on the clock, would have been told,' NO, NOT HERE, if you want to keep your job'. Now its a trend. There are more protesting cause Kapernick is facing some push back. Somebody needs to look in the stands and see who are buying those tickets, it's certainly not the BLM and liberal protesters. If I had season tickets, I'd demand a refund. Of course the media would never cover that.

Jo said...

Or use of past tense instead of saying "I condemn......"

THE PRESIDENT: Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

Peter Hyatt said...


The defensive posture is acute. There is a video montage of him condemning neo nazi groups and it is ridiculous as no matter how many times he denied it, they refused to believe him. It is cartoon like as he is pushed to repeat over and over. He speaks for himself and his administration but the sensitivity is extreme due to context.

You and I may or may not like him; he is not a white supremacist, nazi nor racist.

No amount of repetition is going to persuade media off its narrative.


Anonymous said...

Peter, whst do you think about the left accusing people of being hate group sympathizers if they condemn Antifa's violence?

tania cadogan said...

Off topic.

ALHAMBRA, Calif. – The Latest on the sentencing of a California father who murdered his 5-year-old son amid a bitter custody battle (all times local):

11:20 a.m.

A California man who admitted killing his 5-year-old son amid a bitter custody battle has been sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Aramazd Andressian Sr. did not speak during the sentencing hearing Wednesday in the Alhambra branch of Los Angeles County Superior Court.

His estranged wife, Ana Estevez, called him a failure as a father, as a man and as a human being.

The 35-year-old Andressian pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in the April death of his son, Aramazd Andressian Jr., after a family trip to Disneyland.

Authorities said Andressian killed the boy in a plot to get back at his wife. The boy's remains were found in Santa Barbara County two months after his disappearance.

Andressian's attorney said his client pleaded guilty partly to avoid the possibility of prosecutors adding a charge that could result in the death penalty. He has said Andressian told investigators where to find the boy's body.

Authorities haven't said how the boy died.


12:30 a.m.

A California man who admitted killing his 5-year-old son amid a contentious custody battle is scheduled to be sentenced.

Aramazd Andressian Sr. faces a maximum term of 25 years to life in prison at his sentencing Wednesday.

The 35-year-old pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in the April death of his son, Aramazd Andressian Jr., after a family trip to Disneyland.

Authorities said Andressian killed his son in a plot to get back at his estranged wife. The boy's remains were found in Santa Barbara County two months after his disappearance.

Andressian's attorney said his client pleaded guilty partly to avoid the possibility of prosecutors adding a charge that could result in the death penalty. He has said Andressian told investigators where to find the boy's body.

Authorities haven't said how the boy died.

He should never be let out.
Personally, he showed have got the death penalty as should any and all child killers.

tania cadogan said...

Regarding Trump.
No matter what he says or does, haters are going to hate.
The media will not only hate, they will misquote, omit information, "misspeak", deliberately decive and generally shit stir just because he won and clinton didn't.
The left wing are now doing anything and everything to paint him in poor light, mocking him, his appearance, his language, his behavior, his mannerisms and looking for the slightest thing that will paint him in a bad light and make clinton look like a saint and obama look like a god.

The don't realise he is and always has been a business man.
He has learned from his mistakes (mostly) and speaks forthrightly and as he see it.
America is used to politicians, most if not all who have some background in law such as lawyers or have only ever worked in politics and having no experience of real life.
They expect to hear the polite language of diplomacy and skirting the issue and as a result accomplishing bugger all except fat wallets and an expanding belly and they stick their snouts deep into the gravy train, your scratch my back I'll scratch yours, with elections pretty much being won by the person with the deepest pockets and who spends the most (unlike in the UK where there are strict spending limits on how much can be spent per candidate, per party depending on the type of election with expense receipts being demanded and over spending of lying about expenditure resulting in fines, jail time and loss of the election and a by election.
Everyone gets the exact same amount to spend regardless so it comes down to the person with the best policies or who is most believed by the public or those who are to dumb to think for themselves and vote the way their parents, grandparents and so on have voted and who will never vote any other way)

Trump is a breath of fresh air in that he will say what he means even if it means upsetting the locals/media/half the country/ some other country who is hating on America.
I can almost see the delicate snowflakes a swoonin' on their porches as Trump stands up to north korea(which caused north korea to back down)
Trump is brash, sometimes unlikable, he knows though how business works, how deals work, how power works.

The left, liberals, media will only be satisfied when clinton gets in, any democrat gets in or even if an obama gets in.
I would not be at all surprised if the democrats and liberals aren't thinking of a way of removing the two term limit so they can get either clinton or obama back in.

Anonymous said...

Also, the left, even on places like facebook, are trying to silence people for so much as speaking out against Antifa saying things like "People seem to have this crazy idea that they have freedom of speech with ZERO consequences. Nowadays if youre a piece of shit youre name gets published on the internet." They are trying and succeeding in silencing people using those kinds of threats. Why are people kowtowing to them? Why are people surrendering their 1st Amendment rights to liberals???.

Anonymous said...

People stop looking at the political pens we are all in - it's so much more human than all that. We are much more alike than not.

Anonymous said...

Is it crazy to think that liberals doth protest too much & that they actually are racist? There is an enormous amount of projection going on in their language & I dont understand the need for someone who is not racist to go on witchhunts whereby they accuse everyone of being racist. Its just bizarre unless many liberals are actually racist.

lynda said...

I respect and appreciate your work Peter, along with the time/effort/knowledge that you put into it, and sharing it with all us "beginners". You were the first one that actually had me searching out information on the refugees pouring into Germany and Switzerland,etc. and what has resulted because of that.

Many months ago, I began asking questions about what you thought of this or that in regards to what trump has said. I never name called or slammed another's opinion. I honestly wanted insight into the things I posted because I wanted to understand.

When I would post a pants on fire lie, I would ask, what are we to make of this? Why is he doing this? What does this mean? What is the gain? Is this just a habit? Is he even aware he is doing this? Things like that.

My posts were always deleted, I was surprised. I don't know if it was you Peter, or one of your moderators, but it caused me to stop posting because I got the hint that we were not to question anything trump said.

Peter, you said "Should President Trump make deceptive statements, they will be covered here."
He has made many and you didn't address them, months questions regarding deceptive statements were deleted.

The list is astronomically long so I can't post here...I did take the time to post them before but it was immediately deleted.

I would like to know, when trump says..

I don't even know who David Duke is and then there is video of him previously speaking of David Duke with personal knowledge

I never said, I never met him, I don't know anything about that,...etc. when previous video appears of him saying the exact thing he denies...

I wanted to know what that means! Why is he doing that? What does he gain. Statements that have nothing to do with negotiations..they're just deceptive statements. What does that mean??

When you did your post on McMaster coming out and saying, "I was in the room, it NEVER happened" in regards to "secrets" being told to the Russians, you said it was a truthful statement. The next day, we found out it was a lie, I asked you what did you make of that? Why do you think McMaster said that? My post was deleted, as was the blog where you stated McMaster had told the truth. Why? Couldn't we talk about how McMaster could somehow make a statement that was completely false but everyone believed it? Is he that good of a liar? Is it because he's military and we tend to believe our military leaders? Lots of room for conversation but everything was deleted.

Anyway, I expect this to be deleted shortly based on prior posts I've made but there may be a chance it won't be. There may be a chance that someone will be able to comment on what I've asked.

All politicians lie, that includes clinton and obama and trump but right now, trump is president so I want to know why HE lies. I thought that was what this blog was about. Finding the deception, then the reason for the deception.

Anonymous said...

They act as a hive mind.
They are all over social media hyperventilating about how everyone is racist, if you criticize Antifa then you are a Klansman or a Nazi, if you in any way advocate freedom of speech youre a fascist, if you criticize descration of the American flag, you are an evil racist!
They are projecting. How can someone who is actually NOT RACIST be accusing everyone and their mother of being racist if you say literally anything that is not an exact regurgitation of their violent doctrine? Its absurd.
Anyone who has actually had close friends of other races does not feel the need to accuse everyone of racism bc they actually understand MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT RACIST. Ive had close black friends, Middle Eastern friends and once you get on the friendship level you realize people are people and noone really gives a shit what race anyone is. You dont have to walk around foaming at the mouth hyperventilating aboit how everyone is racist. People who are spouting most loudly how saintly they are are the ones hiding horns. Something is very off with liberals. Also when you are friends with someine of another race you can joke around wuth each other, like my bkack friends would joke around about how white people dance like Jane Fonda & I was like you guys teach me how to dance right & they showed me & now I know how to dance. Ive had Middle Eastern friends and I have teased then abd said "so will your wife wear a burkha lmao" and they think its funny. There is no need for people to walk on egg shells. It is retarded & I feel like liberals are actually racist to be projecting onto other people. People are afraid to say anything because of these liberals.

LC said...

Very comprehensive article, Peter.
As far as the Language of the non-politician Trump - the word "sophisticated" is the optimal descriptive word which separates his speech from the real politicians. I suspect those who voted for him (other than protest anti-Hillary voters) sincerely appreciate his Lack of sophistication & Lack of pure political stance.
While I believe our country needs a change from political climate, I can see why the left-leaning masses construe Trump's unsophisticated comments as Uneducated rants. I have learned to understand his meaning & negotiation style, but think the Opposition party will forever refuse to make any attempt to do so.
This duly elected POTUS will continue to be thwarted in his endeavors, for merely the sake of blocking ANY policy he puts forth, then complain that he is unable to accomplish anything he has promised to do.
I am an unaffiliated moderate conservative, with a few (considered) liberal beliefs. I did not support Obama for President, But I did Not denounce him as my president when he was elected (twice!) For the sake of unity in this country, our elected leaders should be given the opportunity to make policy, based on the constituents who elected them. Voters can show their displeasure or approval in the next election.
The outbursts and violence only relay political unrest to the rest of the world, which leads to degradation of American values of liberty and freedom. I am embarrassed for our country, because liberal violent protests have become trendy.
I wish POTUS would not so readily respond to Every topic, as strength is sometimes better displayed with silence (although it gives less fodder for SA).

Peter Hyatt said...

Peter Hyatt said...

WSJ editor “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

I've never analyzed, nor believe I ever will, a level of defensiveness in a subject that is in POTUS.

The MSM's emotion of hatred is extreme and it is incessant. In history, we have never seen its like; not in 1860 nor in 1918. Even the reporting of Adolph Hitler, during the 30's and 40's, though negative, did not reach levels of personal animosity that we have here.

As to the comments/questions:

Leftism is racism.

It is racism often masquerading in high sounding platitudes, but it is racism. Aiming at one race, it demonizes another. Favoring one, it disfavors another.

It has created an entire culture of crime, depravity and violence, all while declaring itself morally superior.

I know of little more insult than: "you need special books with very low standards because of your race" which is peddled as "social justice."

"Broken English and sexually laden language is appropriate because Shakespeare had different skin color" is another example of racism.

It is embraced by its victims.


Peter Hyatt said...

Other than to insult or taunt, which belies their own weakness, there is no reason for leftists to read here.

This includes analysis of crime.

At any given point, the elements within criminal activity may be "offensive" to their Darwinian advanced sensibilities and emotions. With emotional offense, their religion will demand redress.

Attacking verbally those who disagree reached saturation point and near 100% success. Yet, the election of 2016 showed its failure.

It is now moved to violence.

Eventually, in the pendulum, we will see a leftist president elected. With the level of violence only increasing and the use of illicit means, I fear that the left will then be met with a resistance movement similar to what they are doing now.

We will then be the Third World nation the left wants us to be.


Anonymous said...

lyndaAugust 23, 2017 at 8:55 PM
I respect and appreciate your work Peter, along with the time/effort/knowledge that you put into it, and sharing it with all us "beginners". You were the first one that actually had me searching out information on the refugees pouring into Germany and Switzerland,etc. and what has resulted because of that.

Many months ago, I began asking questions about what you thought of this or that in regards to what trump has said. I never name called or slammed another's opinion. I honestly wanted insight into the things I posted because I wanted to understand.

When I would post a pants on fire lie, I would ask, what are we to make of this? Why is he doing this? What does this mean? What is the gain? Is this just a habit? Is he even aware he is doing this? Things like that.

My posts were always deleted, I was surprised. I don't know if it was you Peter, or one of your moderators, but it caused me to stop posting because I got the hint that we were not to question anything trump said.

Peter, you said "Should President Trump make deceptive statements, they will be covered here."
He has made many and you didn't address them, months questions regarding deceptive statements were deleted.

The list is astronomically long so I can't post here...I did take the time to post them before but it was immediately deleted.

I would like to know, when trump says..

I don't even know who David Duke is and then there is video of him previously speaking of David Duke with personal knowledge

I never said, I never met him, I don't know anything about that,...etc. when previous video appears of him saying the exact thing he denies...

I wanted to know what that means! Why is he doing that? What does he gain. Statements that have nothing to do with negotiations..they're just deceptive statements. What does that mean??

When you did your post on McMaster coming out and saying, "I was in the room, it NEVER happened" in regards to "secrets" being told to the Russians, you said it was a truthful statement. The next day, we found out it was a lie, I asked you what did you make of that? Why do you think McMaster said that? My post was deleted, as was the blog where you stated McMaster had told the truth. Why? Couldn't we talk about how McMaster could somehow make a statement that was completely false but everyone believed it? Is he that good of a liar? Is it because he's military and we tend to believe our military leaders? Lots of room for conversation but everything was deleted.

Anyway, I expect this to be deleted shortly based on prior posts I've made but there may be a chance it won't be. There may be a chance that someone will be able to comment on what I've asked.

All politicians lie, that includes clinton and obama and trump but right now, trump is president so I want to know why HE lies. I thought that was what this blog was about. Finding the deception, then the reason for the deception.

Those are legitimate questions. I have a similar experience here, where initially, I asked questions and was deleted and/or responded to quite rudely. Now, I enjoy questioning in a sarcastic and critical manner. The responses here are similar to before.

The reason for that is this is not necessarily a blog about SA, but one to massage Peter's ego. (One commenter said she felt as if a celebrity had visited when Peter posts.) It's essentially a right wing political blog. In fact, Peter has made the comment in one of his posts that there is no reason for a liberal to read here. ??? Is SA a conservative tool?

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said

"Other than to insult or taunt, which belies their own weakness, there is no reason for leftists to read here. "

......except for an interest in statement analysis?

(Correcting the from mr misquote in my previous post.)

Anonymous said...

No left or right...both have their own agendas. The fight is poor vs ultra rich. No matter black, white, male, female, young or old - we are all enslaved and need to question all of it.

American friends - don't rush to the defence of either side. They both lie for what they need and the rich companies need and have no concern if you are a white supremacist, an orthodox Jew or a lesbian. Do not run to the defence of either.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter Hyatt said

"Other than to insult or taunt, which belies their own weakness, there is no reason for leftists to read here. "

......except for an interest in statement analysis?

(Correcting the from mr misquote in my previous post.)

A leftist, in my subjective use based upon both words and actions, is not seeking truth. Statement Analysis seeks truth.

There is no point in reading or posting here. We seek truth.

In its most ridiculous display, a man wearing a dress or taking a knife to himself is not a woman. He will never be a woman. He can only "feel" like he is a woman because he is not a woman.

To claim he is a woman is to have no interest in truth, of which Statement Analysis is a means of obtaining. To claim he is a woman is to lie. Once this lie embeds in a person, it will de sensitize, grow and spread.

If emotion overrules truth on point A (woman), it will not cease at Point B, C, and so on.

If the desire to placate a god (here, the religion of leftism) in service to the god (political correctness), this person, in order to be devout, must lie.

They hold no material interest in Statement Analysis.

As to the anarchist, "left versus right; there is no such thing", it is to declare there is no truth.

This, itself, asserts to be truth.

Again, the disconnect of those who deny presuppositional thinking.

Truth does exist, as does right and wrong. Limiting it to cultural norms (moral relativism) is what is used to justify Nazi atrocities. The Jews were a major inconvenience to the German national socialists. They were thus killed.

Babies are a major inconvenience in the U.S., so whenever one feels that they are inconvenienced, if they pay money and if they go to someone with a license, they can have the baby killed, too. If they klll the baby without the fee and license, they are murderers.

This while our politicians tells us that migration is necessary due to fallen birth rates.


Bobcat said...

Peter @ 2:33,

More left than Obama? I thought the election of Trump WAS the pendulum swing.

Anonymous said...

Will Lynda's statement and inquiry receive a response?

LC said...

lynda, you might get the answers you seek if you post the Specific words POTUS actually used on your "pants on fire lies".
The whole point of SA is to extract and explain the meaning of the chosen words, and step away from how the words are being falsely interpreted.
This is akin to making a judgement based on a headline or soundbite alone, without reading or hearing the full context.
Tainted ears will produce prejudiced beliefs every time, whether or not there is agreement on the perceived content.
Every single media source provides a slant in how information is presented. It falls upon the public to decipher the truth.......or not.

Anonymous said...

I agree with many points made by Peter, though not all.

Statues of civil war icons (not necessarily heroes) hurt no one. Robert E. Lee is dead and is no longer a threat to them. So why the ridiculous childish tantrum throwing?

Having spent more time in a civil war cemetery than many, and hearing old tales passed down, much of the civil war was actually white on white crime-even after the war ended.

And, those statues mean more to Virginians than say people in California, Montana, etc. It is their rich history and part of their tourism. It's like trying to strip Salem, Mass of occult items.

ESPN has no faith in its fans as they barred Robert Lee (Asian) from announcing fearing backlash. Perhaps sports isn't too educational either.

The education system is lacking as most those in attendance are like the KKK priest who burned crosses and what have you...young and wanting to destroy things and people.

BAck to Trump. Headlines read: We didn't know it had gotten this bad.

How bad could it be when only empty water bottles thrown, tear gas dispersed and only three people injured.

It is clear they've lowered the requirements for journalists.

Anonymous said...

Thats good advice LC. Maybe she'll provide some Trump statements. I'd like to see them

FormerTopixReader said...

I think your L O N G explanation/excusal for Trump lies teaches us another rule of statement analysis.

Anonymous said...

I feel that I have fallen into an alternate universe where someone I really respect has lost their mind.

I get the points you are trying to make but some of your statements are just wrong. What is Islam? What is left? What is right? What is up? What is down? It is just words. Words are not the meaning you know that.

Anonymous said...

Sorry former topixreader that wasn't in response to you.

You know what else though. Vice LA difference! I am very much enjoying the discussion. I feel you may want to segregate me as leftist. I'll tell you what I am. I believe in people and their abilities to love, to forgive, to accept and to adapt. I believe we need to look after everyone. I believe that no one is better than anyone else.

You're scaring me folks.

Anonymous said...

Which statements are wrong?

Anonymous said...

I believe that no one is better than anyone else.

What does that mean?

Anonymous said...

This statement is wrong:

I believe that no one is better than anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Why? No one person is better than anyone else.

Bobcat said...

Quoting myself...

Peter @ 2:33,

More left than Obama? I thought the election of Trump WAS the pendulum swing.
August 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM


I hope and pray we can move forward in the next three years.

Trump is gruff, brash, braggadocious, etc. etc. but he is also focused and smart, and will make our country safer and financially healthier as long as enough politicians don't stand in his way.

The leftists will never be happy, and Trump knows that. It's not the President's job to make leftists happy. It's to keep them safe so they can whine and complain without fear of terrorist attacks.

MSM is a joke.

I shudder to think if the pendulum swings harder left in the next election (harder than it did getting Trump elected) and we end up with someone more left than Obama.

Anonymous said...

Islam is a supremacist criminal ideology with religious aspects, that prescribe and praise coercion and sexual violence.

This statement is not true.

Anonymous said...

Your statement defies basic sensibility. A violent, evil 19 yr old, arrested 13 times who recently murdered a stranger who was walking along the sidewalk in his neighborhood during the middle of the day is the same as everyone else? No better? No worse? Thats a screwed up paradigm.

Anonymous said...

Opposition to Trumps agenda is with his own adopted R-party. They publicly disavow him. Publicly ridicule him and refuse to cooperate.

Anonymous said...

You are welcome to a dictatorship if that's what you want. You cannot run a country like a business.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has a place and not one person is any better than anyone else.

People are frightened of things they have no concept of and do not understand. Judge lest ye be judged?

Anonymous said...

At 333pm.
Its true, just because you say its true? Its definately and obviously untrue, however much you wish it were true.

lynda said...

"LC said...
lynda, you might get the answers you seek if you post the Specific words POTUS actually used on your "pants on fire lies"."


I created a painstaking, word for word, post regarding a few of the pants on fire statements a few months back with questions I had

It was deleted. I was deflated after that. It took alot of time to accurately put that post together as I did not want any misquotes. When that was deleted, I tried a couple more times by posting questions regarding statements he had made and those were deleted also. Even if Peter hadn't of answered, there are many knowledgeable SA people on here and I was hoping they would chime in on what they thought but the deletions happened pretty quickly so I didnt' get any responses

I will try again to post when I get off work today some specific, word for word, statements

Anonymous said...

I hope you get an answer Lynda.

aNoNyMoUs said...

A country CAN be run like a business.
A school system CAN be run like a business.
A Healthcare program CAN be run like a business.
These large conglomerations have widespread waste and corruption. If they are streamlined and compartmentalized, they could become successful and fair. These sectors are so far out of control now, they are imploding.

Anonymous said...

Lynda said...,

When I would post a pants on fire lie, I would ask, what are we to make of this? Why is he doing this? What does this mean? What is the gain? Is this just a habit? Is he even aware he is doing this? Things like that."

Peter is not a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Just say it said...

Anon. 2:59
The two-party system appears to be a farce. The political elites, both Republican and Democrat, seem to function more as a uniparty that actively works against their constituants in order to enrich only themselves. President Trump is pulling off their masks. That is why the "Republicans" are so against him. They actually want open borders and Obamacare because the Chamber of Commerce, who owns the Republican Party, wants those things. Republicans pretend they don't just to get elected. Apparently enough Americans are tired of it and felt Trump was the only one with the guts to try and stop it.

Hey Jude said...

I do not know what Peter's personal definition of 'leftist' is.


Here is a test:

I came out a little to the right of Gandhi on the chart - on the libertarian left - I think maybe it sounds better to say to the right of Gandhi. :)


I like Donald Trump, and I like that he is President - I especially like that he is gauche, and 'unexpected' as a politician, and that he drives the media to such self-defeating extremes. All politicians 'need' to lie or mislead at times, it' would be unrealistic and too idealistic to imagine there ever has been, or would be, a world leader who had never found occasion to lie, distort facts, or withold them. I hope he holds out against his critics and the media and is allowed to prove himself, and to do a good job.

I don't understand US politics, except that some people, at least on social media, seem to divide themselves, and others, into extremes of left and right, which seems unreal, as surely there is some crossing over - those who identify as left/liberal or right must sometimes or in some degree support the policies of 'the other side'? On my FB are quite a few US citizens whose political posts make me think that if they met each other, they would surely have to hate each other. - the level of vitriol from one or another towards leftists, liberals or 'Trump supporters' is perturbing, yet I can't imagine that if they met, they would be hateful or have to dislike each other, just on account of their politics, or even that they would not hold some 'political' interests and ideals in common.

Anonymous said...

Are the libtards saying Trumps Eclipse meme is racist yet? Lmao.
I love liberal tears. Cry b&tches. Cry!

lynda said...

Anonymous said...
Lynda said...,

When I would post a pants on fire lie, I would ask, what are we to make of this? Why is he doing this? What does this mean? What is the gain? Is this just a habit? Is he even aware he is doing this? Things like that."

Peter is not a psychiatrist or psychologist.


I never said he was. Peter has posted excellent case studies and analysis of sociopaths/narcissists/psychopaths/pathological liars. If you read these blogs, he teaches us the WHY and how to recognize certain traits inherent of the above.

Laura said...

Peter, I enjoyed reading your insights into the mentality of the left. I, too, feel they are racist. Its always very interesting reading your take on things.

Anonymous said...

Peter is not a psychiatrist or psychologist.

But SA is about human psychology. Analyzing what people say or write to determine truthfulness and deception.

Anon said...

I think those insulting Peter are just jealous of his impressive intellect and keen use of language.
Peter has a way of getting right to the heart of the matter, kind of like Donald Trump.
I am proud of both Peter and Donald. They are both true American patriots!

Anonymous said...

929 said he wrote jaw-dropping jibberish. Last time I checked that qualifies as an insult.

Bottle Cap said...

Hi Peter,

The Trump tweet you refer to, is it this one?
"After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!"

If so, does it matter that "collusion with the Russians," is in quotation marks?

I could not find any other tweets with "My" and "Russian"

Peter Hyatt said...

Bottle Cap,

I was sent a copy of the tweet with no quotation marks.

Quotation marks assign a different meaning (6b) and it changes the analysis

I will ask the source again and if so, I will correct the analysis.

thank you,


Peter Hyatt said...

Rather than "Peter is great but he is now crazy" posts that are going to be deleted, how about:

1. Recognizing that there is nothing of a political endorsement here and

2. Pick a specific issue in which "Peter is crazy" and post why it is immoral or illogical. Instead of resorting to insults, passive aggressive insults, or spam nonsense, bring up a specific issue.

Lastly, can you produce a statement (or just a subject) of whom greater defensiveness was needed?

I cannot.

I ask this because anything that even comes close will be useful in analyzing research.

This is about truth; truth means learning.

"My collusion"

The copy of the tweet I received did not show the quotation marks so I have corrected my errant analysis.

Although I still believe that each candidates' teams were in contact with other countries as a norm, there is no "fixing" of an election.

I believe the voter fraud uncovered thus far has been towards Clinton, in large number using non citizens, and in lesser numbers, using fraudulent names, re-voting and so on.

I also continue to believe, as I talk to people, and "the dust settles", that many did not vote for Donald Trump, but voted against Hillary Clinton.

Whether you consider yourself open minded or close minded, please watch "Clinton Cash" and listen to the language of accusation.

*Does the accuser believe his own words?


Hey Jude said...

"That he retorts to insults with insults makes people cringe but it is, in human nature, not wise. Marco Rubio's language reveals he still smarts under "Little Marco" ridicule from the debates. The same with the language of John McCain. This is why those close to him have sought to stop the tweeting.

It is counter productive. "

The same so of MSM's insulting and biased treatment of Donald Trump in the run up to the election, and since. They discredit themselves, then wonder why people turn to alternative news sources. What an eye-opener that some seem either willing or ignorant of the possibility that their cheap jibes have potential to destroy the inherent dignity of the office of POTUS through constant mockery of the current holder - it is very short-sighted. There is little to no sense of fair play in so much of the MSM's reactions and wilful misrepresentations. Even journalists/commentators who do still engage in more serious commentary are apt to include some CYA personal denigration, if only in the form of open ended questions. Much of it was always hysterical, and outside what might termed reasonable or fair - that in itself causes some of us to root for President Trump and to hope he proves his critics wrong.

Here, you can make a room fall silent for a few seconds by saying, "Actually, I like Donald Trump, and I like that he is President." I don't think, from my social media, it is something one would say over there. So far, people either pretend I did not say that, ask if I am joking, or inform me that "he is a mad man who is going to start World War III.".

Amongst other things, I like his intention that NATO allies should contribute more realistically, his desire for a good education for everybody, and his intention to create jobs - he cares about his country and people - that he declined his salary should say something about his motivation and good intentions.

I don't doubt he is narcissistic - that doesn't automatically translate to 'malignant narcissist', which slant is so favoured by MSM, FB and Twitter memes. One wonders if some people have read or listened to anything he has said first hand, or even tried to understand where he is coming from.

rob said...

Peter Hyatt said...
Other than to insult or taunt, which belies their own weakness, there is no reason for leftists to read here

They come here Peter because we don't go there. They can't stand for us to have a voice anywhere, even if we are not talking to them.
I would say I disliked Obama and Hillary about as much as anyone could dislike Trump, but unlike the left, I stilled hoped that somehow Obama would do something to make this country better. He did not. He gave us these losers that think their purpose in life is to stir up trouble and silence other opinions. And they can't even do that without people getting hurt, building burning down or interstates getting blocked.
I truly like Trump as President, he calls it like he sees it, he doesn't play every game by the polls (like anyone believes the polls). My 401K is growing at a rapid rate, I see help wanted signs posted on most businesses, on the side on the road, and numerous in full page ads in my local paper. anyone who can't find a job these days, don't want a job.
I have completely stopped MSM, and I have always loved watching the news. I watch FOX, for the first time in my life, if there is a big story I want details on , and get my weather from my phone.
I hope the people on this side, that I feel are just like me, keep stepping up at the voting booths, and turn over some incumbent jobs to newcomers. I personally can't wait to vote against Lindsey Graham, and will vote for a democrat if he makes it thru the primary.
Love this post of yours and the discussion.

Anonymous said...

What do you do to make the world a better place? Im sure nothing. Do you treat women with respect? Im sure you dont.
What is your point? That you hate Donald Trump bc youre envious of his success like most liberals? Get over it!
Trump made a "joke" room talk...get the hell over it, liberals have no right to be the thought police.
Hillary defended a child rapist by A) smearing the victim and saying she had a thing for "older men" despite the fact the victim had been brutally beaten.
Hillary used trickery--transporting useless evidence on her own person hundreds of miles to an expert who tested it in his basement. Hillary knew that the useful evidence had tested positive and was damning of her client but she used OUTRIGHT TRICKERY to con the legal system all for the glory of a child rapist.
Trumps crass comment said in private does not even rate on the scale of evil 1-10 OF WHICH HILLARY SCORES A 10!!!!!
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Trump is the best president we've ever had.

Youre just a typical liberal, another liberal man who pretends he's so sensitive & caring...that you cringe at Trumps mere words...because you liberal are just so sweet & kind. YEAH FRIGGIN RIGHT.
Also, its not "your" country. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymous said...

I wouldnt bother "cringing" at my hostility. Im sure youre not a decent person. Get over it.

lynda said...

I'm out.

I was interested in the SA of blatant lies that trump has told and the reasoning or pathology behind them. I've posted about them before but they were deleted.

After his pardoning of that lunatic, racist, Joe Arpaio tonight, I'm not interested anymore. trump is despicable with this pardon and to me, it shows me exactly who he is now. When you pardon a known, documented, convicted of being a racist and using the law to arrest and torture innocents people (cuz they weren't ALL illegals you know) who has run amok for over 20 years, guess what that makes YOU? Ugh, disgusted by this.

Amyl Nitrite said...

Bill Clinton is a vulgar man. He raped multiple women while his wife threatened them into silence. He visited Jeffrey Epstein's child sexploitation island on multiple occasions along with pedo Carlos Danger/Weiner, his wife Uma, and Hillary. How many pedophiles do you associate with? These people do, and often. Trump doesn't even come close to the perversion and sleaziness that these and their co-horts achieve. I seems to me that the closer we get to arresting and putting behind bars those we have in high office for pedophilia and sex trafficking, the heat is turned on. Your politicians are a bunch of sickos.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is part of a Satanic worship group that meets once a month.
Hillary had spasms from demonic possession.
Hillary didnt really love Bill. She thought he was clownish & silly.
She only gave him her hand in marriage to win a popularity contest.

Anonymous said...

Balyriew and others, I think Peter has made the point repeatedly...why are you here bothering his blog when there are so many other outlets for your liberal drivel?
Although I despise all of humanity, liberals are the mosquitoes of the human race. Pointlessly nipping at others with their meaningless upsets. Over & over we hear it: the self-righteous declaring over & over how everyone is racist homophobic xenophobic transphobic racist based on NOTHING. NOONE really cares what race someone is, what gender, whatever...On a basic level we're dealing with projection where these liberals project their own hostility and close-mindedness onto others, but on a deeper level there is really no explaining the intellectual immaturity & dishonesty of liberals.

Anonymous said...

Regarding statement analysis, could there be any sensitivity located in this situation of sudden translation into English? If you are watching a movie with someone where the characters are bilingual but all the main characters talk in English but occassionally some peripheral characters will speak briefly in the other other language and there are no subtitles and when the movie is almost over the person you are watching the movie with announces "I know what he just said. I understand some of that language...Ive picked some of that language up here and there." And Im like "oh really what did he say?" And then the person tells me what the person said and I say "isnt that interesting I didnt know you were so talented with translation" should I statement analyze that?

Anonymous said...

lynda, I don't believe that your previous posts were deleted at all, as you claim.
I don't think you Ever posted specific quotes that you "worked very hard to organize".
You can't provide a single "blatant lie" of which you speak.

Peter Hyatt said...

I read comments this morning and checked: no deletions, and no comments from "lynda" either posted or deleted.

To Leftists:

With the leftist narrative, readers understand your position. 95% or more sites agree with you.
There is nothing of value for readers here to repetition of your narrative.

It is to say that your "message" is received and all those who disagree with you are of evil intent.

The incessant repetition indicates how personally affronted you are by disagreement. This is all received and understood. You have been heard. Consider valuing your own time at a higher level and contribute elsewhere.

Politics is about policy.

The founders of the US understood human nature. This is why politics was limited to policy, and not to values. Leftists want to address values.


I propose a plan to feed the hungry of Geneva (my current location). In it, locals disagree with the argument, "Peter, that will not work here, culturally..."

They address policy.

If I were to respond as a leftist, I would thus say:

"These people (who disagree with me) do not want to save starving children from certain death, disease, lowered immune systems, because they are greedy and selfish."

If I were to respond to policy:

"Ok, what shall we then do to facilitate this?" presupposing that they, too, wish to feed the hungry (value).

The leftist attacks value, not policy. They "know" POTUS is misogynist, even though their own language shows that they do not know what a misogynist is, and how dangerous one is. They "know" he hates Mexicans, and attack Mexicans who support him.
They "know" the suffering of others, of whom they know nothing of.

In other words: moral narcissism. When we do not share your high view of your self, you attack.

There's nothing to be gained posting here. I've asked Mods to respond accordingly to all such narrative attacks. I'd like to end the controversy and allow readers to be free to express their views without being considered all the evils you, the leftist, ascribe to them.



Peter Hyatt said...

lynda said...
I'm out.

I was interested in the SA of blatant lies that trump has told and the reasoning or pathology behind them. I've posted about them before but they were deleted.

After his pardoning of that lunatic, racist, Joe Arpaio tonight, I'm not interested anymore. trump is despicable with this pardon and to me, it shows me exactly who he is now. When you pardon a known, documented, convicted of being a racist and using the law to arrest and torture innocents people (cuz they weren't ALL illegals you know) who has run amok for over 20 years, guess what that makes YOU? Ugh, disgusted by this.
August 25, 2017 at 9:24 PM

Hence, the superiority of the moral position is so great, that one can no longer engage with those beneath her. One cannot be "wrong"; they must be, as the poster says because she declares it to be so. Those who do not see as she does, are also under condemnation. This is the basis of "safe spaces" where no one disagrees with me.

It also highlights her religion and the fanatical followers. Her god is an angry demanding and often contradictory god; just ask the Yalie ethics and diversity professor who ranted about "white trash."

It is more than just emotion overruling logic: it is blind faith and religious fanaticism.

Interestingly enough, the "end" or result of such is self destruction.

Let's complain that we are over populating and destroying our planet.
Let's complain that our population is dying out.
Let's increase both funding and advertising for abortion and call it an "experience" and a "right."
Let's complain that we need more gay rights, women's rights, and freedom.
Let's complain about child abuse.
Let's legalize pedophilia and call it diversity and cultural enrichment.
Let's import those against such rights - Islamists - to help us with gay rights, women's rights and freedoms.
Let's call a man "woman", a woman "man" and punish anyone who disagrees.
Let's condemn a law breaker, but then praise a law breaker as a hero.
Let's change history to fit our narrative.
Let's be offended at any and everything and see where it finally ends.
Let's compete to see which among us is the most moral and who cares the most.

In the end, came the madness as they hung themselves on their own rope.


Peter Hyatt said...


I am against the involvement in Afghanistan personally, but am using a "wait and see" to learn, first, why POTUS is doing this, and what the goal is. Is it the same mistakes Obama, Bush and Clinton made?

Islam = conflict and the conflicts are 1400 years of consistency due to ideology. Supremacy, in any form, leads to conflict.

I am very disappointed in many of the things POTUS has said and done thus far, while encouraged by others.

The difference is that he is not a traitor to the American people. He is not trying to "change" us.

I support previous presidents (especially Theodore Roosevelt) vetting of Islamists to keep them from America.

The broad study that said 90% of Muslims do not believe in jihad noted. There are many innocent victims.

Yet 10% is 100 million killers. History tells us that the other 90% go along in order to survive. Hence, a nation that yields to Islam (the ideology) eventually falls.

I fear this is what the gloabalists have done. they may have believed that Islam would be swallowed up by the West's successes.

So far, they are wrong AND

history stands against them.

Islam is an ideology that is contrary to freedom; no matter how many agree or disagree with jihad. Muslims born into it are the first victims.


Anonymous said...

sheriff joe broke laws and violated civil rights.

Peter do you think he will run for mayor of Chicago? He seems to be qualified nicely.

TooManyWaWa's said...

Peter said:
Islam is an ideology that is contrary to freedom; no matter how many agree or disagree with jihad. Muslims born into it are the first victims.

This sums up the problem in one statement ! ...This is what terrifies me, as so many people won't see this until it's too late and we're's like being born into a cult that you can never escape as , at best, you'll be shunned from your community and worst you face death for daring to disobey.

I'm in the UK and this weekend we have one of the largest carnivals in London which is totally impossible to police at the best of times..feel sick this morning to think of the carnage that terrorists could unleash in those huge crowds... I'm sick to death of being told to remain vigilant... now they're telling us that paramedics are carrying antidotes in case of a chemical attack... I fear for my grandson's future and blame the weak politicians who take no responsibility for their past irresponsible decisions!

Peter Hyatt said...

When it comes down to it, people ask,

"Why won't the politicians stop this?"

It is because it would mean admitting error. They'd rather destroy than admit error.

Take this to a new level, however, which leads to violence.

For them, they cannot admit policy error. How much worse it is when it is a "values" error?

They never should have been in "values" or our social lives in the first place. By claiming the moral high ground, and condemning all others, they are religious zealots and extremists.

Here is why "all statues must go"

Anonymous said...

Arpaio, 85, who served as sheriff of Maricopa County for 24 years, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for defying a judge's orders that he stop arresting immigrants on the suspicion that they were in the U.S. illegally."

CNBC or main stream media report.

He was not arresting non illegals. He was arresting law breakers "defying" an order from an federal judge who had no legal or moral right to nullify the law.

are there nothing but idiot commentators at night?

Anonymous said...

NOW the lefties want the rule of law????????????

leaked tapes said...

This is the interview they didn't want you to hear! Bri talks about how Heather's family treated Heather when she & Heather went to their house. Denied soup? Called a whore? A slut? Told to go stand on a corner? Some of you can follow evil & hate but I choose to respect Heather. I feel sorry for Heather and what she was put through by those who claim to love & miss her. Check out what Bri's mom & the detective have to say about Heather too.

Anon said...

Oh what a feeling Im dancing on the ceiling!

trustmeigetit said...

This is so well said....

It is amaizing to me...they criticize Trumps mean being meaner and raising to the level of violence while acting like they are better.

I will never understand...

Anonymous said...

Above link is awesome: It shows a black guy going off on Black Lives Matter demonstratirs. Very wise words. I was moved!

Peter Hyatt said...

The critics and accusers miss the point.

I analyze words for deception and veracity but only in a limited manner for this blog. It is advertising for training, while being of interest to those who enjoy it.

I have much to disagree with regarding POTUS. The critics, who become accusers, make it plain what they seek: indictment, not analysis.

With 99% of media in favor of what they believe and stand for, it is not a "free speech" issue; nor "hearing both sides." These are terms the moderators use to delete and SPAM comments. It is time consuming but I have asked them to retain any legitimate challenges (generally void of the language of manipulation).

If a person believes I am, in essence, to be unjust, partisan, etc, why would they even want to learn from me? This is rhetorically expressed to show implicit bias, while revealing manipulative personalities.

"If you were fair, you would not delete..."

I think Sheriff pardon was a good example. The emotion was acute that no analysis would ever be received. This is the power of emotional narrative and commitment.

If someone is so biased and partisan that he or she twists science to fit the narrative (which is the claim), I would not:

a. read them
b. respect the science

This is like Global Warming the "settled" science; or Islam, the religion of "peace." The unnecessary words reveal what is on the mind of the subject.

For others, if you have a statement for analysis, and your motive is truth, post it. We use "OT" and allow Off Topic.

If you just wish to pick a fight, label, and increase the division of our country, post elsewhere... I define "elsewhere" as almost everywhere.


LC said...

Touche' Peter.
I appreciate the moderator's removal of the posts, especially those which are antagonistic - seemingly as the sole point of the comments. If the remarks are caustic, argumentative and degrading, I will try harder to skip a retort.
I understand your use of this blog to promote training, but so appreciate the forum to practice and express concerns and questions.
You are so right about the "power of emotional narrative" interfering with fairness and truth.
The hot-button topics of crime and politics are infused with opinions of the subjects that cloud attempts of analysis.
I'll keep trying to see through the fog.

Anonymous said...

Excellent response Peter! :o) Bravo!

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 4:35 am on 8/26/17 Obama released known terrorists who have killed or re-engaged in militant activities which harm Americans or America's Sovereignty. Were you protesting this? Were you appalled? You probably thought they too have civil rights. Which is laughable!

Anonymous said...

Good work on Trump, Peter !

He has earned all of our support and respect, in my opinion.
I want him to keep on with the business practices, he is getting a handle on the
ungodly mess in dca.
I trust the man.
Talk about emotion? This man loves his country, is trying to help it.

Not sure about afghanistan, too far away, time is on their side, don't see our
country needing to do anything more than show the locals how things could be
better for them, while the choice and the work to succeed is theirs.

Arpaio is too smart to go anywhere near any part of Illinois. He was set upon by bho/holder. Thank you Mr. President, for his pardon.

Karen said...

This was a great read. Honestly, the left just hates him and that won't change. He could cure cancer and they'd still hate him.

Anonymous said...

I believe Trump.
I hear him as sincere.
I see that he is more than capable of doing great things
for our country.
He wants to succeed.
To me, far more positives than negatives.

Why are the newsmakers who call for harm to him not arrested
before they can make threats again and ask for others to take action?
I hear treason when they talk. A crime.

Anonymous said...

off topic:

If Hillary was so intimidated during the debates by the threatening
Donald Trump, how does anyone think she, as president, could have
dealt with some of our more lethal adversaries?

Peter Hyatt said...

If Hillary was so intimidated during the debates by the threatening
Donald Trump, how does anyone think she, as president, could have
dealt with some of our more lethal adversaries?


Point taken. This is emotional manipulation and misogynistic. (entering the leftist dictionary.


aNoNyMoUs said...

The very words used to describe Hillary's interpretation of the debate appearance are suspect.
"Looming"; "Breathing down my neck"; "making faces";
Little-publicized reports show a different perspective on video.
Sure, she was aware Trump was behind her, as they were the only 2 on the stage. Hillary magnified her interpretation to persuade.

Anonymous said...

Whats up with the psycho in MA who strangled & threw a 7 yr old girl off a bridge & she miraculously swam to shore. Should they be opening up some cold cases like the Main South serial killer since they still havent caught him yet? There is no way that that was that guys first offense...sounds more like an organized serial killer who's gotten more depraved & taking more risks.

Anonymous said...

Main South killer left a few bodies on the grounds of a private school, cant remember exactly where but I dont think it is far from where the perp in this throwing off the bridge case had just been hired at a private school.

Anonymous said...

I just googled: Main South killer dumped 2 bodies on grounds of a private school in Marlboro. The bridge perp who tried to kill the 7 yr old had just gotten hired ar a private school in Southboro. Those towns are right next to each other right? I hope the WPD looks into it.

Anonymous said...

LMAO "Snowflake Anthem"

Anonymous said...

Could the big problem in the world not be racism, rather retardation? Funny video: I love the "Queers for Muslims" sign in the background. Theres some kind of perfect comedic set up in this video

Anonymous said...

I created a painstaking, word for word, post regarding a few of the pants on fire statements a few months back with questions I had

"It was deleted. I was deflated after that. It took alot of time to accurately put that post together as I did not want any misquotes. When that was deleted, I tried a couple more times by posting questions regarding statements he had made and those were deleted also. Even if Peter hadn't of answered, there are many knowledgeable SA people on here and I was hoping they would chime in on what they thought but the deletions happened pretty quickly so I didnt' get any responses"

You sound like an intelligent person. As such, it should be clear what this blog is.

First, what it is not: it is not a blog to get at the truth by analyzing words used in statements. It masquerades as that.

It IS a blog to push right wing extremist views held by Peter while massaging his enormous ego.

A bit of advice: always copy and save what you post (for re-posting purposes), because Peter will delete anything that validly questions his views.