Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The Clean Break Strategy, 1996

UPDATE, August 18, 2024
Well, I cannot find the video below.  Perhaps YouTube memory-holed or 86'd it.  But this article by Cynthia Chung is excellent.  In it, she's got a photograph with the caption, 

1917, On December 11, 1917, General Allenby walked into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city which would last until May 15, 1948, one day after Israel was proclaimed a nation on May 14, 1948.

The man makes some very interesting points.  ISIS is threatening to attack Hamas.  ISIS attacks all of Israel's enemies?  Wow.  Had not thought of this before.  This guy lays it out.  ISIS never attacks Israel and is supported by Israeli Air Force and gets treated at Israeli hospitals.  They have attacked Hamas in the past.  The mask has fallen.  Proxy forces in Al Queda and ISIS have worked hand in glove with intelligence agencies, particularly Mousad.  The same spy network that was related to hijackers.  200 Israeli spies were caught and arrested.  Mossad agents lived next door to Mohamed Atta in Florida.  Veteran's Today?  Who are they?  Israel is all over 9/11, all over the Iraq War, but no one can talk about how racist the Israeli government is.  Jews can't be racist; only white people can be racist. Calling out Zionists as racists gets you labeled a racist.  Covert Mercenaries of Zion.  ISIS is CMZ. They attacked Syria which was written out in policy papers called The Clean Break Strategy: first, take out Iraq, then Syria, covert mercenaries for the Zionists.  Plain and simple. Mondoweiss has more on the The Clean Break Strategy and the Iraq War, but this might offer a point-by-point analysis of the document.  Karen Kwiatkowski has an interesting take on the Clean Break Strategy.   


 

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Win the Battle; Skip the Rhetoric: A Personal Testimony
Site Member - May 28, 2015

The following message was posted at GaryNorth.com Non-Specific Q&A Forum.

City Board Below is some advice directly applicable to the office environment that comes from my experience as an appointed city board member.
Situation:

I am on a local Board of Adjustment which adjudicates variances and special exceptions to city building ordinances. It is appointed and I receive no pay.

Last meeting, a petitioner had most of his front yard paved with the exception of some very nice landscape architecture surrounding. He is a grandfather who has a disabled grandson in a wheelchair who stays with him a few days a week. The excess paving is to allow a wheelchair accessible van to deposit him right at the front door without having to navigate grass and narrow sidewalks. It is also to give him a playspace since the local playground is inaccessible to him. The rule broken was that only a certain percentage of the green space can be paved and was exceeded in this case.

The petitioner is allowed to present his case, followed by board questions, and then debate and voting on the petition. My debate had a little rhetoric-- "... a foul overreach of the nanny state..." The city planning bureaucrats and the chairman were angry at this.

The board rejected this petition on a 6-3 vote: 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Variances require a 2/3 majority to pass. As the yard was already paved, the owner will now have to remove 19% of the paved area to be in compliance with the code or sue in civil court.

Lessons Learned:
Logical arguments aside during debate of which I made some, it occurred to me that it is not the vote which angers the bureaucrats or board members with political aspirations-- it is the rhetoric. I could vote any way I please each month-- even if I were the sole vote on one side of an issue-- and it would be no big deal if I said nothing during debate.

Following a quote by Hans von Seekt through William Lind, "The deed is the thing." From my perspective, the vote is what matters-- not the intent, the words, or the effort-- only the action. I wouldn't pay any more attention to someone else's rhetoric than I would expect him to pay attention to mine. And yet this is flipped on its head when dealing with people who care more for appearances and form than substance.

What I should have done (some of which I did):
Argued that the city may be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Argued that no licensed civil engineer with a specialty in water resources performed a study showing that the excess paving will adversely affect neighbors. Argued that this situation constitutes a unique hardship and referenced the city attorney's guidance on what constitutes a hardship. Questioned the city staff on who owns the storm drains (obviously the city) when they argue that it is the homeonwer's responsibility not to overload the storm drains in areas with drainage problems. Questioned city staff on what sort of study was done on drainage issues.

I'm not sure the rhetoric was called for--but in this case I thought that the city bureaucracy's actions were so egregious that it was warranted. I found that the audience was smiling and nodding when I was talking. There was visible anger in the room when the board rejected the petition. On the other hand, the rhetoric may have pushed one or two board members to vote against me rather than the petition.

Application to the work environment:
If there is ever a divisive issue that is going to be discussed by a group, do not participate in the discussion. Lead or follow up with action. If you have information that will shape the decision, share it with the manager in written form later on without commentary-- facts only. If there is an action item, volunteer to take on those with which you can shape the outcome. If you know the issue inside and out before the meeting, share a factual descriptive summary before the meeting to shape the discussion. If asked questions during the meeting, answer only with facts. 

If asked to speculate, offer only that there are several possibilities and then get back to the facts. Remember, "The deed is the thing."

If you have to battle:
You may eventually have to take a stand on a divisive issue-- but do so sparingly. You may have lots of ammo-- but only a very few elephant bullets. When you do need to use one, first put forth your logical arguments and then launch the rhetorical salvo.

Colonel John Boyd said that war is fought at three levels: the moral level, the mental level, and the physical level. The moral level trumps the mental level and the mental level trumps the physical / tactical level. You can win at the physical level but if you lose at the moral level, you lose the war. This is so because even if tactically superior, if you do not have the moral high ground, he will see you as evil and will continue to fight you even if he knows he will lose in the end. Make sure that when you go rhetorical or have to battle, you have the moral high ground.

In this case, I lost tactically with three votes opposed but should this turn into something bigger, I think that the city council would not be happy to be known as having appointed a board that "opposes accessibility for handicapped children in private homes." My spidey sense tells me that the mayor would quietly tell the city manager to never let this kind of code violation get tagged again. If it goes to the newspapers, I have the moral high ground.

Also be aware that in today's highly conflict-avoidant, passive-aggressive society (especially in white-collar circles), most people have never really faced real opposition to anything and won't know how to deal with it. They won't see it as opposition on an issue but will see it as a direct confrontation. They will go immediately into fight, flight, or freeze mode. The group will be shaken as they haven't often seen a spectacle like this and are uncomfortable with the conflict or the prospect of having to choose sides. Socially speaking, taking a principled stand in our society is tantamount to being a social disruptor.

If you lose:
Be gracious to the victor--don't seek or plot revenge. Just prepare for the next battle and get on with your business. Be aware that even though your adversary has won, it may have come at such a high cost that he will still be against you. In this case, the city bureaucrats were publicly embarrassed and the chairman perceived a threat to his authority or political future. And most importantly, make sure that you can afford the price of being on the losing side.

Concluding:
Be aware of when to take a stand or not in a divisive issue. Know when to use dialectic and when to use rhetoric. Know that some types of people will be swayed by one and most people by the other. And most importantly, make sure that you can afford to be on the losing side if you take a stand.



Thursday, April 23, 2015

Friday, January 9, 2015



This is absolutely damning to the Clintons.  Where will they hide?

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

DETAINED 19 DAYS AT INTERNAL CHECKPOINT



Be sure to read this and this and this to find out more about the Martinze-Fuerte Supreme Court decision that competes with the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.