Monday, July 9, 2018

•Encourage your child’s efforts to read a variety of materials...

Clemson Program Encouraging Summer Reading
Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:28PM
While many slides are fun for children, the “summer slide” in reading is way less enjoyable – and often detrimental to budding readers.
The summer slide occurs when students, especially those with less access to educational resources, lose some of the academic skills they gained during the previous school year.
To combat this slide, Clemson University’s College of Education and its Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Center have produced a video emphasizing the importance of summer reading. Produced in cooperation with Clemson Video Services, the video is being released in coordination with the July 12 National Summer Learning Day, a national advocacy day emphasizing the importance of keeping kids learning, safe and healthy every summer so that they are ready to succeed when they return to school.
In the video, educators and advocates from Clemson’s College of Education, the International Literacy AssociationDabo’s All In Team Foundation and Scholastic, the global children’s publishing, education, and media company, outlined the import of fighting the summer slide, as regresses in summer reading can be cumulative over the course of several years and cause children to fall further behind.
The video also emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in children’s reading experiences, offering several tips to encourage summer reading:
  • Read to your child.
  • Ask your child to read to you.
  • Support your child’s selection of reading materials that match his or her interests.
  • Encourage your child’s efforts to read a variety of materials – books, magazines, comic books, etc.
  • Help your child participate in summer reading programs in local libraries or other places.
The video is part of ongoing efforts at Clemson to promote summer literacy, including the annual Tigers Read initiative that provides books to children throughout South Carolina to read during the summer. Tigers Read is a joint effort between the Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Center, Dabo’s All In Team Foundation and Scholastic.

Saturday, June 30, 2018

I was thinking like Dinesh D'Souza before Dinesh D'Souza

The following commentary was published on November 3, 2013.  Compare this narrative with that of Dinesh D'Souza in the video that follows (at bottom of page).
Have you ever wondered what an Alinskyism is?
by Norman E. Hooben
Saul Alinsky was is probably the most influential character in American politics during the last half a century. Without getting into his life story suffice it to say that he has injected more hatred for the American way of life into the Democratic Party than any one person. Even Hillary Clinton admired this man so much that she wrote her college thesis about him. Saul Alinsky is famous in the world of liberal academia because his methods fall in line for the ultimate destruction of this Republic. For it was the Communists who took on his tactics to get control of the American educational system...just look at who controls Harvard (John Harvard would be appalled), Yale, Georgetown, UCLA, ...and the politicians they develop.
Alinsky wrote a little red book titled, "Rules For Radicals" and we can list some of them here. But before we do, I can summarize most of the book with one sentence, "Tell them one thing but do the opposite." Most Alinskyites (Alinsky followers) have been doing this since FDR (and before), Johnson did, as did Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. Take FDR for example...during his campaign he was against everything his opponent was for and yet almost all of FDR's policies were that of the guy that lost.
All of the politicians I've mentioned have the ability to preach a good sermon while expressing their patriotism and yet not one of them has ever done one good thing for the Republic for which we (the people) stand. Everything gets progressively worse over the long run (huh, is that why they like to call themselves progressives), especially the national debt and the dwindling loss of freedoms (i.e. by instituting numerous rules and regulations either by fiat, dictates by unelected government agencies, Executive Orders, and occasionally by an actual law passed by both Houses and signed by the president. I might add in this parenthetical space that it would not be illegal to disobey an EO for the president does not have the authority to make laws. You as a citizen have the responsibilty to obey laws and EO's are not laws.)
Now before Obama came onto the national scene the most influential Alinskyite was Bill Clinton who's major agenda was is one world government. He spoke of his new world order on many occasions and most of his legislative wishes were to enhance that outcome; the new world order! While the Clintons were raised in an America that they knew was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and understood that fact while at the same time despising anything to do with organized religions, their Alinsky-like influence on the American voter was accepted because they preached a good sermon. Obama however, was not raised in the traditional American household or neighborhood. His entire life has been influenced by Communists (of which he was a member of the New American Party), Marxists, and Islamists. Obviously he was groomed for the position he now holds and he got their by making use of Alinskyisms...say one thing but do the opposite. The Judeo/Christian definition of that would be a lie. The Clintons understood that. The Islamic or Muslim definition of that would be....aah lets see, anything you want it to mean as long as the desired outcome fits your agenda. And that's exactly what Obama is doing here: ↓ see video ↓

Obama is preaching a good sermon but does not believe a word of it. Remember, Obama does not have a conscience so lying with every other breath does not bother him in the least...he's after one thing; his agenda! Although his agenda includes a one world government absent of all organized religions except Islam. He's even friends with the guy that wants to place the flag of Islam over the White House, but that's another story. Meanwhile I promised I'd list some of Alinsky's Rules For they are:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
By the way, even reporters have trouble getting the point across to a complacent society of voters as evidenced by the following:
Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush’s effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty. ~ See Obama Continues Bush's Sellout Policy
If Corsi would emphasize the point by outright telling his readers that Obama lied instead of using such words as, "a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty"... "Placing the program under the radar of public opinion." Does the average reader voter really comprehend the enormity of such words as "a public relations makeover" or " deflect concerns" ? Why doesn't he come right out and say, "Obama is lying."? And that, my friends, sums up an Alinskyism, say a bunch of words that sound good and nobody will ever know what they really mean once you've said them...confusing huh!

The following video was published on August 12, 2017. Compare what is said by Dinesh D'Souza to what I said above.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

How dare you call them criminals...but, but, but they are! They are! They are! They are!

Thinking out loud…
Regarding the sanctuary cities throughout the United States and the so-called sanctuary states of California and Massachusetts should not the mayors and governors of these places be charged with some kind of criminal behavior? We can dismiss the fact they have not upheld their oath of office but we cannot not overlook the outright disobedience of the highest law of the land; the United States Constitution. If for one moment these criminal politicians think that by quoting the 10th Amendment, that they have the right to do as they please with matters of immigration they forget that they gave up that right in the year 1808. In fact the Founding Fathers gave the states twenty years to decide…twenty-one if you count the year it was written (Just in case you not sure what I’m talking about...the Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788.) Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
That quote clearly states that after the year 1808 only the Congress can deal with matters of migration and not the states…and any fool can tell you ‘cities’ is never mentioned in the Constitution.
Keeping in mind that I referred to these politicians as criminals there’s another area of the Constitution that seems to be overlooked by many.
Article 4, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Think about that for a moment. If the United States is represented by the people we vote into power then it stands to reason that people like Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and all the rest of them are supposed to be protecting us from the invasion that’s taken place at our borders…but no, they are encouraging the invasion and that in itself is treason…reason enough to call them criminals. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Friday, June 22, 2018

TIME Magazine...a picture is worth a million votes (even though it's a lie!)

By Norman E. Hooben

Just as I stated some years ago that John Harvard would be appalled at what happened to the school that he founded based on Godly principles which has now turned into a Communist re-education campus, so to Henry Luce must be turning over in his grave knowing that his once highly respected TIME Magazine has been taken over by the Communists.  This of course would be refuted by the Democrats even though it fulfills the Communist’s long range plans1 to take over the American news media.  Also, it goes without saying that the Democrat Party (…and just to be fair, part of the Republican Party) has Communists in their leadership positions. (By the way, I do not care for the present system of political parties in America.  Instead, I prefer the President John Adams school of thought; none!  We would be much better off with just one American political party where the people controlled our destiny and not two private clubs such as the D’s and the R’s, but we would have to get rid of all the Communists and Socialists first.)
Meanwhile, TIME Magazine has further enhanced its Communist dominated writers and editors viewpoints by hoping to indoctrinate the average American with libelous imagery on their front cover.  They do this knowing that a portion of the voting population will see the cover picture without bothering to read the truth behind the story and thus remember the lie come voting season.

1 The Communist Takeover Of America ~ 45 Declared Goals ~

Sunday, June 10, 2018

The Modern Civil War ...PS: Jack Minzey Rest In Peace

Jack Minzey
I got out of the prediction business when I was so far off it was laughable…the civil war I forecasted for a stated time period came and went without notice and when I ran across it several years later I deleted the entire commentary for fear of being ridiculed as some kind of conspiracy theorist nut case.  Now that I’m older and supposedly wiser I had second thoughts about the conflict in question.  War as I was thinking at the time was a shoot-‘em-up war with people dying on both sides but with my favorite team coming out the winner.  Now none of that happened but the war did in fact begin…and we’re currently in the midst of it right now…without the cannons, bullets, and bombs.  Sometimes it takes someone with an academic pedigree greater than mine to define just exactly what a civil war is; Professor Jack Minzey would be just that! ~ Norman E. Hooben
The following from: Modern Civil War Without Guns — So Far! by Jack Minzey
More than a month ago now, Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises that he has written over the years.

Jack went to be with the Lord, on Sunday, 8 April 2018.

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.  His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability.

This is the last of his works.

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The
Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting; at least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party.  You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country.  But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship; your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the
White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White
House has ‘discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him.  That's how the game is played.  That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary; the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding:  Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you're not a member.  If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, if you aren't in the club, and Trump isn’t in the club, he brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them.  They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt; we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government


Friday, June 1, 2018


“By establishing a people‘s registration (Volkskartei – ID card) we will achieve complete supervision of the entire German people” Herman Göring, 938, quoted in The Nazi Census (2)
“German Jewry did not understand how, but the Reich seemed to be all-knowing as it identified and encircled them… Indeed it was clear to world that the Reich always knew the names even if no one quite understood how it knew the names.” IBM and the Holocaust (3)
 The murderous Nazi people’s register was hugely important in the evolution of ID schemes. It played an integral part not only in the genocide but in identifying and suppressing political opponents.
“By establishing a people‘s registration (Volkskartei – ID card) we will achieve complete supervision of the entire German people” Herman Göring, 938, quoted in The Nazi Census (2)
“German Jewry did not understand how, but the Reich seemed to be all-knowing as it identified and encircled them… Indeed it was clear to world that the Reich always knew the names even if no one quite understood how it knew the names.” IBM and the Holocaust (3)
 The murderous Nazi people’s register was hugely important in the evolution of ID schemes. It played an integral part not only in the genocide but in identifying and suppressing political opponents.

ID Cards – an Historical View
By Nathan Allonby
Global Research, September 16, 2009
16 September 2009
Url of this article:
This is one of two Global Research articles exploring the reasons for the introduction of electronic ID cards, worldwide. Already, over 2.2 billion people, or 33% of the world’s population, have been issued with ‘smart’ ID cards. By 2012, the figure will be over 85%.
These are incredibly powerful systems and their implementation represents a profound social change, yet the public explanations for this project do not seem to add up. Surprisingly, there seems to have been little debate or exploration of the real reasons. To find the answer, we need to dig for ourselves.
The companion article, ID Cards – a World View, tried to assess this from the political and technological contexts of current ID schemes. This article sets out to find what we can learn from historical precedents.
Does history tell us anything about the main purpose of ID schemes? History shows strong recurring themes.
Surprisingly, again and again, the main function has been controlling labour and the workforce, to serve the objective of creating a command economy. Suppression of political dissent has been in second place, although often a ‘close second’.
The Napoleonic identity card was the main ancestor of all modern ID systems. Its main purpose was to hold down wages, by stopping workers moving around to find better jobs and higher wages.
Napoleon transformed the free society of the French Republic into the Empire, a tightly controlled police state.
The Republic had created a degree of freedom unheard of in Europe, allowing free speech and giving workers the right to change their job or go somewhere else. By contrast, in most of Europe at this time, including Britain, the majority of the population lived in various forms of bondage, such as indenture. Unfortunately, in France, a free market and mobility of labour were driving up wages.
In response, the French authorities criminalised industrial action and introduced an ID card for workers, which aimed to do two things: –
i) make it impossible to change jobs without an employer’s permission and
ii) restrict movement, by requiring workers to get an impossible string of visas to move legally.
In 1803, Napoleon’s police chief reinstated the livret or worker’s passbook, used by the Old Regime, updated with new identity features. To get a job, workers had to give the employer their livret ID card. To take a new job, workers had to get their card back, but this required getting their employer’s permission to leave (1). This is a similar situation to human trafficking and slavery in Russia, Eastern Europe or Kuwait today, where gangs control workers by holding their passports.
The card also acted as an internal passport, making it very difficult to move to seek better work or better wages. Moving from one town to another required a set of visas in the livret card. Without these, employment was illegal.
Napoleon’s ID scheme failed to be completely successful for two reasons: –
Firstly, there was a labour shortage, due to the war, which made employers willing to take on workers without a card;
Secondly, the workers had self-help groups, such as the compagnonnages, who helped their fellows find lodgings and employment (1). They helped each other get round the system. These networks also formed the basis of organising industrial action.
The authorities tried to introduce state welfare schemes and employment agencies, to supplant the compagnonnages, but these were only partially successful.
After the retreat of the French Empire, countries often retained the systems of census and control  Napoleon had introduced – they were too useful and efficient to abolish.
Nazi Germany
By the 20th Century, Germany had become one of the most democratic, tolerant and liberal nations in Europe, with welfare, social insurance and a national health service. How did the Nazis manage to transform this into totalitarianism?
“By establishing a people‘s registration (Volkskartei – ID card) we will achieve complete supervision of the entire German people” Herman Göring, 938, quoted in The Nazi Census (2)
“German Jewry did not understand how, but the Reich seemed to be all-knowing as it identified and encircled them… Indeed it was clear to world that the Reich always knew the names even if no one quite understood how it knew the names.” IBM and the Holocaust (3)
 The murderous Nazi people’s register was hugely important in the evolution of ID schemes. It played an integral part not only in the genocide but in identifying and suppressing political opponents. Some of the main lessons from the Nazi scheme are listed below.
1) Registration started first with employment, regulating workers. The Nazis were obsessed with the economic value of workers, with keeping down pay, eliminating strikers, weaklings and those unable to work.
The ultimate aim was to identify productivity as part of Eugenics. One Nazi census organiser expressed this clearly, “The only value of a human being… is his economic value… the monetary worth of human labour productivity” (4)
The Nazis created a Work Book, which in turn created files recording the entire course of each person’s life, including periods of unemployment and so-called breaches of work contracts, aiming to identify not only strikers, but also people who took too many days sick leave, changed their job to get better pay, or showed ‘disloyalty’ to their trained career, by working at something different (5). All of these traits were classified as ‘anti-social’ behaviour.
There was a planned ‘final solution’ for Aryans, based on social behaviour, aimed at the sick, weak and ‘work-shy’ and also the sexually promiscuous, “clandestine prostitutes” and the ‘subproletariat‘ (6) (7). This was only abandoned in 1941-2 as the war turned against Germany.
Murdering middle-class Jews produced an income for the Reich, from their assets, whereas murdering the underclass did not.
2) The file and computer system were far more important than the ID card itself.
The ID card created personal files in an organised, computerised system, designed to gather and classify information, identifying groups of particular interest.
The majority of Germans refused to carry ID cards – Himmler continued to complain about this as late as1945. It didn’t matter – your ID card was part of a system that identified you, silently, even when you didn’t carry it.
3) Census data was crucial to compiling the register. The organisation of the register was derived from census techniques. The computer technology used was developed for census use.  Many of the key workers had come from the census.
When Holland was invaded, its census records and census workers were put to use identifying the nation’s Jews, quickly and thoroughly.
Many census workers showed professional commitment to identification and registration of the population, indifferent to the human consequences. Not just in Nazi Germany – in Holland, for example, the head of the national census, Jacobus Lentz, was crucial to its ‘success‘ of the identification and ‘deportation’ of Holland’s Jews, working with enthusiastic professional zeal (8).
Census and statistical systems should not be regarded as something objective or neutral. The process of making statistics is not merely about gathering data, but mainly about analysing it – dividing the population into groups and segments. This means census statistics are by nature divisive, hence very political and potentially very dangerous.
4) Information was also brought into the new identity register from other existing data registers, such as health, insurance and welfare records, parish records, records of births and deaths.
Welfare and health schemes, originally for the workers’ benefit, fed into the Nazi scheme, providing identifying information and productivity data. The Nazis then reversed the original purpose, singling out the weak and unsuccessful for sterilisation and euthanasia.
In the final version of the Nazi register, the ID number, or ‘Reich Personnel Number‘, became an index coordinating all other databases, to be able to gather and collate information from all government functions, with the aim of “Total Observation of Life” (9).
Although initially, this was about gathering more complete data, hence making the system inescapable, it also grew into a larger process: – coupling all these other functions to the political agenda. When health records could mark a person for euthanasia or sterilisation (e.g. for a case of TB), all doctors found themselves part of the political system.
5) Efficient division and classification of the population into sub-groups was essential to policies of ‘divide and rule’, to find necessary collaborators and to divide opposition. The census and registration systems made this possible, and the Nazi occupations and genocides utilised and depended upon this, as was clearly stated by Himmler himself (10).
The occupations and genocide may have been brutal, but they were not crude exercises in brute force – they had to operate extremely efficiently, with very limited resources.
6) Support from the US was crucial to the development of the Nazi system. This was multi-layered.
Before the Nazi’s came to power, there was support for the German eugenics and genetics research from the Rockefeller Foundation (11), which enabled the development of statistical and census techniques, and sponsored key figures such as Siegfried Koller, who became central organisers in the registration and genocide.
There was extensive cooperation and technical support from IBM, providing the computing systems without which the whole project would have failed (3).
Finally there was Anglo-US support for Hitler and the Nazis’ rise to power, with money and arms, featuring prominent bankers and industrialists, and figures such as Prescott Bush (12), later US Secretary of State and grandfather of President George W. Bush.
(The article Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler, by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a good introduction to this subject)7)
Development of ‘successful’ systems did not end with the war or the fall of the Nazis. The statisticians and bureaucrats who organised the genocide continued their work. For example, Siegfried Koller, became head of the German national census and department of population statistics, retiring in 1978. Post-war, he continued to develop the methods he had started under the Nazis, applying them to medical statistics and adapting them to new electronic computers (13).
Mao’s China implemented Napoleon’s two restrictions: – preventing workers from changing jobs without permission and preventing them from moving location. China operated two systems, one for each function.
Mao expanded the identity workbook into a system called the Dang-an or dossier, and compiled lifetime personal files, from school. Employees could not start a new job without their Dang-an dossier being released by their former employer, hence without permission. (This new system should not be confused with an earlier historical system, also called Dang-an, which only monitored nobles.)
The dossier made the employer and workplace the focus of state data-gathering, with the employer also gathering information about the worker’s views and attitudes.
The practice of keeping worker and professional files was borrowed from the former Soviet Union’s worker records. meet and satisfy… labour discipline and quality control in factories and work units. The initial form of files, resembling the Soviet workbook system, included such components as work registration cards, work guarantee books, and other duty- or performance-related recording and scrutinizing devices.
 …the early form was overhauled with political, ideological and moral details added to its main body of content. … the practice demonstrates the extension and intensification of the discipline regime.
Later years of politicisation under.. the Cultural revolution sent the political and ideological components to an even higher level …for a better understanding of individual thoughts and acts… Individuals were given no escape from authority’s scrutiny of their daily life and work activities.(14)
People came to self-censor their thoughts and actions, concerned that a careless remark could put a black mark on their dossier which could blight their promotion and possibly their whole lives.
A separate residential registration system also existed – so-called household registration – which prevented Chinese workers from moving to a different area, without permission.
There had been systems of self-help and mutual welfare in China – Mao was careful to supplant these, as potential sources of resistance. Welfare and support were part of a matrix of control, designed to produce dependence. Interestingly, by the 90s, the state felt no need to maintain these any longer, abolishing them in the economic reforms.
The Dang-an system started to break down in the 1990’s due to forces produced by globalisation. Foreign firms entering China did not keep Dang-an records and also employed workers without Dang-an dossiers. Large-scale migration from rural areas was required, to provide a labour force for new urban industries. It was decided to encourage illegal, rather than legal, migration. The rural migrants were employed without Dang-an dossiers, either illegally or as so-called ‘part-time‘ workers, exempt from Dang-an files.
The Maoists never pursued equality, preferring instead to create an unequal system, where some workers, such as those in large state industries (the Danwei), enjoyed generous benefits and privileges, from which the majority of workers were excluded. This had produced frequent major disturbances from the early 1950s onwards. Giving workers extra privileges was sometimes necessary, to maintain stability, but did not produce dependable loyalty (15).
It appears a decision had been made not to increase the privileged class more than necessary, but instead to create an excluded, disenfranchised underclass, living in furtive illegality. Illegal workers have no rights and no bargaining power. Just as the economy of California depended on large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants, so China would exploit illegal immigrants from rural areas, only on a much larger scale, designing their economy around this.
A new system was needed, that could track this mobile population, moving both geographically and between different employers, and could track people living illegally, trying to avoid attention from the authorities. The US offered China a technological solution, in the form of modern smart ID and database systems, just as it had helped the Nazis, 60 years earlier.
The Present Day –  World ID Schemes
1) Employment is one of the spheres to be governed by ID schemes. This is happening under the guise of ‘controlling illegal migrant labour’. Workers will have to show an ID document to start work.
In the USA, eligibility to work will be determined by a system called E-Verify, currently in phased implementation. In Britain, to start a job, workers already have to produce one of the ‘designated’ ID documents (e.g. passport), which will be linked to the ID registration scheme.
2) Population registers are being complied from existing databases, such as tax, health and national assistance, much as happened in Germany.
An example would be the Citizen Information Register in Britain : –
It will include their name, address, date of birth, sex, and a unique personal number to form a “more accurate and transparent” database than existing national insurance, tax, medical, passport, voter and driving licence records. …
The Home Office… admitted a national identity card scheme will have to be “underpinned by a database of all UK residents” and asked for views on whether the citizens information register should be used for this purpose …(16)
3) The ID number will become a central index for accessing personal information from all other databases, much like the Reich Personnel Number in Germany.
4) There is an intention to integrate and coordinate different services, such as health and education, to make them function together as part of one system, sharing data. This is clearly expressed in projects such as ‘Transformational Government’ in Britain, which place great emphasis on sharing data between different services, departments, national and local government.
5) The new ID systems will compile lifetime dossiers on every individual, automatically.
6) US population registration in Iraq, with biometric ID cards, has helped to divide the community into ethnic groups, now at war with each other, where no meaningful ethnic divisions existed before. US military anthropology programmes study community dynamics, classify and divide communities into sub-groups, assessed for usefulness, willingness to collaborate, to find allies, and to ‘divide and rule’.
This is comparable to Nazi use of census and registration, to ’divide and rule’ in occupied territories.
Resisting the Agenda
It simply isn’t true there is nothing we can do, even though we have left it pretty late.
A few hours before Adolf Eichmann was executed, a prison warden asked him, “What should the Jews have done? How could they have resisted?”
Eichmann replied “…We would have been at a loss if they had disappeared before being registered… The number of our commandos was very small, and even if the police had helped us with all they had, their chances would have been at least fifty-fifty. …A mass flight would have been disastrous for us.” (17)
A few thousand Jews survived in Germany through it all, to see the Nazis out. Predominantly, these were people who avoided identification by changing address and identity at the time of registration. Those who escaped identification and ‘isolation’ in ghettoes generally escaped altogether.
The Census is an integral part of the identity registration system, something dangerous, to be avoided. Bureaucrats have killed people, just as surely as soldiers with guns.
Another lesson from history is that identity systems require dependency to provide control. They have to be inescapable to work. Both Napoleon and Mao felt their authority undermined by workers’ self-help and welfare groups, where people helped each other out and disseminated information on how to get around the system. Effective organisations that were independent of state monitoring or control ran counter to the aims of identity controls.
The Nazis didn’t have to overcome self-help groups, ironically because a previous liberal regime had supplanted them with effective state welfare. Is it a coincidence that the Nazis targeted groups with their own self-help and information networks, such as the Freemasons?
In a situation today, where corporate and government power have fused in symbiosis, self-help would need to avoid dependence on either government or corporations, and perhaps even avoid dependence on money.
However, the main lesson is that once modern systems of population registration are implemented, they become progressively more developed and secure, until they have an inescapable, vice-like control. It is essential to prevent them from being introduced at all.
1) Martyn Lyons, Napoleon Bonaparte and the legacy of the French Revolution, London, Macmillan 1994, p. 119
2) Gotz Aly and K H Roth,, The Nazi Census – Identification and Control in the Third Reich Temple University Press, 2004, p.43
3) Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Crown Publishers, 2001, p. 125
4) Gotz Aly and K H Roth, op cit, p. 94.
5) Ibid, p. 109.
6)Ibid, pp. 109-113
7) Edwin Black, op cit.
8) Gotz Aly and K H Roth, op cit, p. 77.
9) Ibid, p. 106
10) ibid, p. 4- 5
11) ibid, p. 101
12) Webster G Tarpley and A Chaitkin, George Bush – The Unauthorised Biography, Executive Intelligence Review, 1992, pp 30 – 40
13) Gotz Aly and K H Roth, op cit

14) Victor N. Shaw, Social Control in China: A Study of Chinese Work Units, Praeger Publishers, June 30, 1996, Chapter 6, Control through Confidential Records, p. 82.
15)Elizabeth J Perry From Native Place to Workplace: Labour Origins and Outcomes of China’s Danwei System, Chapter 2, in Xiaobo Lu and Elizabeth J. Perry (editors), Danwei: The Changing Chinese Workplace in Historical and Comparative Perspective.
M. E. Sharpe, 1997
16) Alan Travis, Secret go-ahead for ID card database, The Guardian, 30 Sep 2003
17) Gotz Aly and K H Roth,, op cit, p. 92.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Feeling The Excitement of Participating in Something Historic

Here's a short story that has built in surprise for the author...I post it here for several reasons.  The first reason is probably a bit more than a feeling of nostalgia; it's that feeling you get when you think you know someone although you have never met (Yes, go ahead and say it Norm..."You know Pope John Paul although you never met!).  I was in Rome in 1980 but it was in Paris that I got to within twenty feet of Pope John-Paul while he visited that city.  Several years later while living in San Antonio, Texas I got to see John-Paul again so to say that I know him is somewhat of a stretch. 
In recent years upon visits to San Antonio I generally attend church services with a friend I've known for many years...I also worked with Thom during my military career.  My friend Thom loves this story, so let's call this the second reason.  And to round out the 'several reasons', I post it for you the reader, you too may be surprised! ~ Norman E. Hooben

My morning with a saint...
The diary of a priest, being random thoughts and various things of possible interest from the founding pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement Church in San Antonio, Texas.

The canonization of Pope John Paul II brings to mind one of the most amazing events of my life -- a morning which included a personal encounter with a saint of the Holy Catholic Church. I have shared the story before, but his canonization compels me to share it again.

It was in November of 1983 that I was in Rome, taking part in the meetings which would result in the Book of Divine Worship, which serves as the foundation of the Anglican Use liturgy used by the parishes of the Ordinariates and the Pastoral Provision.

It was my first time in Rome. I had been ordained as a Catholic priest only a few months before. They were rather heady days for a young priest, walking each morning from the Casa del Clero to the Vatican offices where we were working.

On my first morning in Rome, I needed to find an altar where I could say Mass. There was a concelebrated Mass at the Casa, but I was ready for an adventure, so I headed on foot to St. Peter’s Basilica. I knew I needed to get there early, and I knew I should head immediately to the sacristy. Beyond that, I was completely ignorant about making arrangements for celebrating Mass there.

Arriving in the sacristy, and after being overwhelmed by my walk through the basilica, I was fortunate that the man at the desk was patient (and by Vatican standards, even somewhat merciful). He directed me to the vesting area, summoned an altar boy for me, and before long I was following the young server down the long corridor out into the basilica.

In my mind I can still hear the murmur of Masses being said at altar after altar, some with small congregations, others with a solitary priest. Eventually I was taken to one of the many side altars, and I began the celebration of the Mass, my first in Rome.

It was strangely comforting to hear the low hum of the other Masses proceeding, as I made my way through the liturgy. Everything seemed to be at a concentrated level as I began the Eucharistic prayer. At the consecration of the Host, when I genuflected, my eyes happened to catch the inscription on the front of the altar: S. Gregorius Magnus. It was overwhelming for me as I continued with the Mass, knowing that I was celebrating Holy Mass at the tomb of Pope St. Gregory, who had sent St. Augustine to England.

After Mass, as I made my way out of the basilica, reality returned with the work at hand. All of us serving on the special commission spent a brief time getting to know one another, and the discussions began. Although I threw myself into the work, and felt the excitement of participating in something historic, the recurring thought came to me that I would very much like to attend the upcoming Wednesday general audience with the Pope. It was a few days before that when I began to drop subtle hints, but the work was keeping us very busy. One of the kindly bishops also serving in the group knew what I was thinking, and he spoke to me during one of our breaks. He expressed his regret that our work would keep me occupied during the Wednesday audience, and then he said something which seemed rather mysterious. “On Thursday morning, if you will be in the Piazza San Pietro just to the right of the obelisk at 5:00 a.m., there will be a surprise for you,” he said.

I couldn’t imagine what he meant, but I was there by 4:00 a.m. because I could hardly sleep with the anticipation of this mystifying appointment I was keeping. It was still dark as I was saying the rosary, with the moon hanging over St. Peter’s Basilica, and when 5:00 a.m. came, I caught sight of a sliver of artificial light coming from an opening door off to my right. Being summoned to the open door by a guard, a most wonderful pilgrimage began at the bottom of a long flight of stairs.

I still was unaware of what was waiting for me – perhaps a glimpse of some great art treasure, I thought, or maybe a private visit to the basilica – whatever it was to be, it was still a mystery to me. We reached a landing on the staircase, and entered an elevator. The elevator went up a few floors and then stopped. When we exited, we were asked to turn to the right and go down another corridor. After walking several yards, I happened to glance to my left through some open doors. The mystery was solved.

There in front of me was the Holy Father’s private chapel. A familiar white-cassocked figure was kneeling before the altar, and the realization of where I was nearly took my breath away. After being escorted into the sacristy, I was told to vest for Mass. My mind was in a blur as I put on the vestments, and when I was ready I was taken to my place in the papal chapel, which was at a kneeler right next to the Holy Father himself.

There were only a few of us there – the Sisters who served in the papal household, a couple of priests, and a bishop. We spent a good deal of time in silent prayer before the Mass began, and at first I was distracted by the thought that I was kneeling immediately next to the Vicar of Christ. Soon, however, the Holy Spirit took over and I found that I was able to enter deeply into prayer. From time to time a deep sigh would come from the Holy Father, and I was reminded of St. Paul’s words to the Romans, when he wrote about “sighs too deep for words.”

After a time of prayer, it was time for the Mass to begin. The Pope’s vestments had been laid on the altar, and after he was vested we began the liturgy. I remained at my place during the Liturgy of the Word, but after the gifts were prepared at the Offertory, I joined the Holy Father at the altar. At the time of Holy Communion, he held the paten from which I received a portion of the Host, and when he had received from the chalice he passed it to me. Certainly every time we receive Holy Communion it is a special encounter with God, but I must say that it was a unique experience for me to receive the Body and Blood of Christ while standing next to the Vicar of Christ, having concelebrated with him in his own chapel.

At the conclusion of the Mass, we spent a good amount of time in thanksgiving. It was once again my privilege to kneel next to the Holy Father for this, and I had much for which to be thankful – but there would be more.

Having been escorted to a reception room, there was now the opportunity to speak briefly with the Pope. When I was presented to him, he took my hands in his, and then made what could only be described as an extraordinary statement. “I know you,” he said to me. The puzzled look on my face, and my faltering question, “How, Holy Father…?” prompted him to continue. He went on to describe how my dossier had been given to him. Because mine was the first case of a married former Episcopal priest to be considered for the position of being the canonical pastor of a parish (rather than simply a parish administrator or chaplain) it was decided that such approval should be reserved to the Pope himself, rather than simply being processed through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as others were.

With my eyes widening, Pope John Paul II described to me how my dossier was placed on his desk. He then told me how he had some uncertainty about approving a married man as an actual pastor, so he placed the dossier in his desk drawer. He then got it out again, only to put it back in the drawer. “Finally,” he said, “I once more put it on my desk, and I prayed, and the Holy Spirit told me to say ‘yes’.”

Surely that must count as the most astonishing thing I had ever heard, that the Vicar of Christ was having a conversation about me with the Holy Spirit, Who then directed him to give his approval for my ordination and appointment as pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement Church. If I hadn’t heard the story from the lips of the Pope himself, I would never have believed such a thing.

When I regained my voice, I asked the Holy Father if I could take his blessing back to my family and to the people of the parish. He threw his arms around me and drew me close while he said, “With all of my heart, I bless you and your people!” And what a blessing that has been throughout the years.

After all this, it is hardly possible to imagine there would be more, but there was yet another “once in a life-time” experience that morning. The Pope called upon one of the priests in his household to take me to “the chapel.” This confused me, because we had just come from his private chapel; however, I dutifully followed the priest, and we went off in a completely different direction down a long corridor, until we came to a large set of doors. He unlocked them and directed me in, saying to me, “Take as long as you like. I’ll wait for you out here.” He then shut the doors and left me alone without telling me where I was. It took a moment for my eyes to adjust to the dim light, and as I looked around me I immediately knew where I was standing – it was in the Sistine Chapel.

The unexpected experience of being in a place so famous was, for a moment, disorienting. To look up at the magnificent ceiling (even though it was before the restoration), and to be able to explore the chapel all by myself, thinking about the papal elections which had taken place there - including the election of the Pope with whom I had just concelebrated the Holy Mass - was overwhelming. I spent quite a bit of time taking it all in, offering thanks to God for such a blessed experience, and then I remembered the priest outside the door, patiently waiting for me.

He helped me find my way back to the stairs which I had climbed earlier that morning, and when I went through the doors leading into Piazza San Pietro, it was filled with the usual bustle of a day in Rome. It was all I could do to stop myself from rushing up to the first person I saw and asking him to guess where I’d just been! Instead, I headed across the Piazza to the office where we were working on the Book of Divine Worship, and I continued on the project which was the reason for my being there.

It had been quite a morning. Now all I can say is, "St. John Paul II, pray for us."

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

"However, there was tremendous leaking, lying, and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, Justice, and State.

Five Major Problems Regarding John Kerry’s State Department and the Trump Hoax Dossier
by Aaron Klein 19 Mar 2018

NEW YORK — Numerous officials from John Kerry’s State Department have been fingered for playing roles in the distribution – and in one case, possibly also the compilation – of the largely discredited, 35-page anti-Trump dossier.

President Trump has been facing news media scrutiny for tweeting on Sunday about “leaking, lying and corruption at the highest levels” of federal agencies, including the State Department.
While Trump did not provide specifics, two top officials at Kerry’s State Department have already admitted to involvement in the dossier affair, and a third has been named.
Dossier author Christopher Steele was commissioned to produce the questionable document by the controversial Fusion GPS opposition research firm, which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The Steele dossier was reportedly utilized by the FBI in part to conduct its probe into Trump over unsubstantiated claims of collusion with Russia. According to House Intelligence Committee documents, the questionable dossier was also used by Obama administration officials to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The political origins of the dossier and issues relating to Steele’s credibility as a source were kept from the FISA court, a House Republican memo documents.
Below are five major problems regarding the dossier and the roles allegedly played by Kerry’s State Department officials:

1 – State Department official Jonathan Winer exchanged documents and information with dossier author Christopher Steele, and passed the dossier contents to other officials at the State Department.  Winer admitted to receiving information from Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal that originated with Cody Shearer, a shadowy former tabloid journalist who has long been closely associated with various Clinton scandals.  Winer conceded that he passed Shearer’s anti-Trump material to Steele.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with dossier author and former British spy Christopher Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer.

Winer served under Bill Clinton’s administration as the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement. He wrote in his recent Washington Post oped that he rejoined the State Department in 2013 at the insistence of John Kerry.

In the Post piece, Winer related that while he was at the State Department, he repeatedly passed documents from Steele related to Russia to State officials, including to Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who worked under the Clintons and served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under Kerry.

“Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to find them useful,” he wrote.

Winer wrote that in the summer of 2016, Steele “told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials.”

Winer says that he met with Steele in September 2016 to discuss details that would later become known as the anti-Trump dossier. Winer wrote that he prepared a two-page summary of Steele’s information and “shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.”

Besides bringing Steele’s dossier information to the State Department, Winer conceded that he also passed information from Blumenthal to Steele, specifically charges about Trump that originated with Shearer.

Winer described what he claimed was the evolution of his contacts with Blumenthal regarding Shearer’s information, which he says he passed to Steele:

In late September, I spoke with an old friend, Sidney Blumenthal, whom I met 30 years ago when I was investigating the Iran-Contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry and Blumenthal was a reporter at the Post. At the time, Russian hacking was at the front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign. The emails of Blumenthal, who had a long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been hacked in 2013 through a Russian server.

While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele’s reports. He showed me notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature.

What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources. On my own, I shared a copy of these notes with Steele, to ask for his professional reaction. He told me it was potentially “collateral” information. I asked him what that meant. He said that it was similar but separate from the information he had gathered from his sources. I agreed to let him keep a copy of the Shearer notes.

Shearer has numerous close personal and family connections to the Clintons and has reportedly been involved in numerous antics tied to them. National Review previously dubbed Shearer a “Creepy Clinton Confidante” and “The Strangest Character in Hillary’s Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.”

In his Washington Post oped, Winer does not say whether he knew at the time he interfaced with Steele that the ex-British spy was working for Fusion GPS, or that Fusion was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign via the Perkins Coie law firm.

2 – Victoria Nuland, a senior official in Kerry’s State Department, gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his wild claims about Trump and Russia, according to a book released last week. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

The book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, is authored by reporters by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.

The new book documents Steele told Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson that he believed the claims that he uncovered about Trump represented a “grave national security threat” that needed to be reported to the FBI. Simpson eventually allowed Steele to report the dossier’s claims to the FBI, the book reports.
Steele sought out Rome-based FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta, with whom he had worked on a previous case. Before Gaeta met with Steele on July 5, 2016, the book relates that the FBI first secured the support of Nuland.

Regarding the arrangements for Steele’s initial meeting with the FBI about the dossier claims, Isikoff and Corn report:

There were a few hoops Gaeta had to jump through. He was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome. The FBI checked with Victoria Nuland’s office at the State Department : Do you support this meeting ? Nuland, having found Steele’s reports on Ukraine to have been generally credible, gave the green light.

Within a few days, on July 5, Gaeta arrived and headed to Steele’s office near Victoria station . Steele handed him a copy of the report. Gaeta, a seasoned FBI agent, started to read . He turned white. For a while, Gaeta said nothing . Then he remarked, “I have to report this to headquarters.”

The book documents that Nuland previously received Steele’s reports on the Ukrainian crisis and had been familiar with Steele’s general work.

Nuland did not return a Breitbart News request for comment. She previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

3 – Kerry’s former chief of staff reportedly circulated a dossier summary while at the State Department.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele from earlier this month named Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer, as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer received the dossier summary from Winer.

New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer named Finer in her report:

In September, 2016, Steele briefed Winer on the dossier at a Washington hotel. Winer prepared a two-page summary and shared it with a few senior State Department officials. Among them were Nuland and Jon Finer, the director of policy planning and the chief of staff to Secretary of State John Kerry. For several days, Finer weighed whether or not to burden Kerry with the information. He’d found the summary highly disturbing, but he didn’t know how to assess its claims. Eventually, he decided that, since others knew, his boss should know, too.

When Kerry was briefed, though, he didn’t think there was any action that he could take. He asked if FBI agents knew about the dossier, and, after being assured that they did, that was apparently the end of it. Finer agreed with Kerry’s assessment, and put the summary in his safe, and never took it out again. Nuland’s reaction was much the same. She told Winer to tell Steele to take his dossier to the FBI. The so-called Deep State, it seems, hardly jumped into action against Trump.

In February, the Daily Beast cited “a person familiar with that conversation” as saying that Finer was questioned as part of the Senate intelligence committee’s investigation.

The report did not mention Finer’s alleged involvement with the dossier affair.

4 – Kerry State Department official Winer says that fellow State Department official Nuland recommended that the dossier be taken to Kerry.

As also cited above, Winer wrote in his Washington Post piece about obtaining the dossier information from Steele:

I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.

5 –  Winer and Nuland give seemingly conflicting accounts of Nuland’s handling of the Trump hoax dossier.

Nuland described in a recent Politico podcast interview what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele’s dossier information at the State Department.

She said that she offered advice to “those who were interfacing with” Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries that Steele “should get this information to the FBI.” She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.

In a second interview, this one with CBS’s Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

Here is a transcript of the relevant section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as “my friend” and referred to her by her nickname “Toria”:

Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?

Nuland: I first heard — and I didn’t know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages — I think it was late July, something like that.

Glasser: That’s very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking about on Russia?

Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of — not the business of the State Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics. So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate whether they thought it was credible.

Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?

Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he’s on the record and he had the same advice.

Nuland stated that Kerry “was also aware” of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that she told “those who were interfacing” with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch Act.

Her Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following exchange in which she stated her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):


VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, “This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.”

And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our — we can’t evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess we’re in today.

Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry’s State Department and the dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a recent letter authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

It is Winer’s version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland’s.

In his Washington Post oped, Winer writes that Nuland’s reaction was that “she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.” He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.

Nuland’s public claim that her “immediate” response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.