Training Talent: DILIGENCE: Geneva, Switzerland

Talented investigators are, like analysts, forever learning.  

I describe some colleagues in this way:  They've reached the top of their craft and the top of their profession, yet, they are "like kids at Christmas", excitedly learning anew, incessantly. The monthly trainings with them fuel us with enthusiasm for excellence. 

This week, I had the privilege to lead talent, once again, in Geneva, Switzerland with "Diligence"; an investigative company led by experienced intelligence professionals described as:  

"Diligence is an Investigations Company specialising in complex cross-border inquiries. Our focus is to understand people and companies, whether as part of a due diligence before the fact or to help seek the resolution of a dispute. To gather information we read, talk, listen and watch."

With this, they hire the best and brightest, and they train, and train and train. 

Their clients' expectations are met in successfully completing complex investigations.  Their commitment to training reflects their commitment to success.  Their rich backgrounds and powerful resumes reflect the depth of their work, yet, as described above, leadership both prizes and reflects the same trait that I admire in colleagues:  childlike enthusiasm for learning.  

The CEO's presence in the training was both inspiring and empowering.  Young intelligence analysts and investigators get to witness, first hand, what excellence looks like, how it conducts itself, and what strength in humility sounds like.  As a client in need, this would give me confidence in the company to fulfill the pressing needs of complex cases.  

Many of the investigators in the seminar do not speak English as first language.  This allows for broad international investigations, cultural understanding in strategy, and necessary contributions to "team" critical for success.  Management prizes "team", not as a slogan, but as a necessity. 

Over the years, I have had some rather unsatisfying experiences with paid translators.  They are expensive, time consuming and do not understand the nuances of analysis, nor  its need for accuracy.  It is almost easier to use the block translation of google.  

With Diligence, analyzing an anonymous statement for a client  I was privileged to work with a well led,  dedicated team of professionals with essential backgrounds.  The input had one of whom shared his insight into the difference between formal and informal French, which proved crucial.  Another, due to his own training, was able to spot a Russian expressions used, which furthered us towards success.  This team was led by an intuitive expert with a legal background, pulling everything together for success.  

While detecting deception, the analysts' quick minds were already processing content analysis, while some were in the psycho-lingusitic profile.  Why?

Because she, in her mind, was preparing what questions a subject would need to answer. 

This is strategy. 

They seek to "know people."  

This is "due diligence" they offer, and lead by. 

Knowing and accepting human nature is the key to success in Statement Analysis as a tool employed in completed investigations.   Whether it be multimillion embezzlement or fraud, or security vetting, the insight into human nature, through the words chosen, brings results. Each complexity - layered aspect of an investigation is met by questioning and listening.  

It is a privilege and an inspiration to work with the professionals at Diligence. 

**************************************************

For information on Deception Detection training, along with the advanced psycho-linguistic profiling, please visit:

Hyatt Analysis Services

We hold both seminars, and training done in your home, buttressed by live, online training. 




Companies and individuals in need of investigations, forensics, business intelligence, security, assistance in international commerce, and other such intelligence gathering, would do no better than entrusting their needs and concerns to Diligence with offices in Geneva, London, New York, Moscow and Brazil.  

You will encounter excellence.  

Lenny Dykstra Statement On Theft and Vandalism

When one is accused, we listen carefully for the denial, and using Statement Analysis techniques, we can learn the truth of what happened. 

Here is an accusation against former New York Mets star Lenny Dykstra.  

He is accused of trashing a hotel room, and attempting to steal towels and bedsheets.  He is also accused of stealing the receptionist's sunglasses. 

Dykstra spent 6 months in prison in 2012 for various forms of bankruptcy fraud and has been a known drug addict.  

Here, Dykstra gives a "statement analysis confession" of his activities and he allows for a psycho-linguistic profile to emerge. 

Dykstra, 54, checked into the Hotel ZE in Southampton on Friday for two nights with a young brunette.

Guests complained on Saturday about noise and marijuana smoke ini the $1500 per night hotel. 

Owner Zach Erdem said, “You could smell the marijuana throughout the hotel . . . They were ordering a big bucket of ice and extra towels every few hours. At 3 a.m. Lenny called down, and my brother went to the room, knocked, and he was invited in by the girl who was fully naked.”

He continued:  “When Lenny left, there were open bottles of vodka and Jack Daniel’s, stuff everywhere. The cleaner saw [drug baggies], she said it was the worst room she has seen. He left a suitcase and a bag behind and a note to ship them to his home. But there were no sheets, pillowcases and towels left in the room.”

Erdem called Dykstra’s pals to open his suitcase, which contained 14 towels, pillowcases and bedsheets. In a laundry bag were 10 pairs of ladies’ shoes, a marijuana pipe and the hotel soap dish. “On the way out he also stole my receptionist’s sunglasses, we have it on video.”

Dykstra denied the claims, said media.  


Instead, we find a "statement analysis confession" of his theft:

He slurred, “What? No! I didn’t steal anything. The stuff is still at the hotel. There was no maid service, towels and sheets were piling up, so I put it all in a laundry bag for them. I did them a favor and they call it stealing? This is ridiculous. Was I doing drugs? Absolutely not.”

Besides issuing an unreliable denial, by using one unnecessary word, "still", he reveals his intent to steal. 

Of the sunglasses, he continued, “Nobody took anybody’s glasses. They are saying the room got trashed like Keith Richards. It’s all lies.”

Does Lenny believe himself to be a "nobody" even while name dropping a celebrity?

Surveillance video showed him stealing the glasses.  

Next, he addresses his own impotency:  

About that naked woman, he said, “I might have had 10 women in the room, might have had 15, might have had 20. Actually, the only thing I had in that room was my d - - k in my hand.”

For training in Deception Detection visit www.hyattanalysis.com 

His statement without the NY Post editorializing:

“What? No,  I didn’t steal anything. The stuff is still at the hotel. There was no maid service, towels and sheets were piling up, so I put it all in a laundry bag for them. I did them a favor and they call it stealing? This is ridiculous. Was I doing drugs? Absolutely not.”

1.  He answers the allegation with a question. 

2.  He answers "no"; whereas "yes or no" questions are "low stress" for deception. 

3.  We count every word after "no", as a need to explain that is related to deception rather than reliability.  

4.  The Reliable Denial must have 3 components and only 3:

a.  The pronoun "I"

b.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't"

c.  The allegation specified.  

"I did not trash my hotel room" is a good example. 

"I did not steal the sheets or towels."

Any deviation from this formula = not reliable. 

5. The additional word:  "still."

This is an unnecessary word and it is an indication of motive. 

"The stuff is at the hotel", itself, is unnecessary, but he offers it as proof that he did not steal it.  Yet, that is not what he said. 

He said, "the stuff is still at the hotel."

The word "still" is not only unnecessary, it addresses the element of time. 

Lenny's intention to have it sent to him is here admitted.  

6.   The Good Guy:

Lenny portrays himself as the "good guy" here, even claiming to have done them a favor.  

This shows the need of portrayal of good, which is weak.  

For one who did not steal nor intend to steal, there is no need to be portrayed good or bad:  there is a psychological "wall of truth" that is protective.  

Its absence causes him to need many words where just a short sentence would have sufficed. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

Lenny Dykstra was intoxicated with both alcohol and drugs.  He stole sunglasses and he intended theft of hotel items.  He caused damage to the hotel. 

The profile that emerges:

Lenny Dykstra feels now like a "nobody", as he identifies himself as. 

His boasting of large numbers of women is not only a tangent (change the topic of information) but another confession of sexual impotency (see his last sentence). 

Where his mind produced these words in less than a millisecond of time, we find our accuracy.  

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.

correction: 

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."  

Indeed.  

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."

Why?

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 until...it was "fact."

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

Racism 

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.

Cowards.

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.  

Why?

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.

Why?

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?"