Tag Archives: Daily Beast

Polygraph Makes Headlines for Age, Not Reliability

As the author of The Clapper Memo, a book in which I share findings from my exhaustive four-year investigation of credibility assessment technologies, I subscribe to online alerts for articles in which century-old polygraph technology is mentioned. And, let me tell you, Monday was a banner day! Below, I share what I call “golden nuggets” from three articles that came to my attention.

Click on image above to read Mashable article.

Click on image above to read Mashable article.

According to a Mashable article, Monday marked the 80th anniversary of the first occasion on which the polygraph was used to help bring about a conviction in a U.S. court. The golden nugget I took from the piece appeared in the fourth paragraph:

While the technology has improved, polygraph tests are still considered by many to be unreliable forms of evidence.

Click on image above to read Bloomberg article.

Click on image above to read Bloomberg article.

Beginning on the same trail, a Bloomberg article by Matt Stroud appears under the headline, Will Lie Detectors Ever Get Their Day In Court Again? The golden nugget appears seven paragraphs into the piece:

“The political and legal argument some make in favor of the polygraph is that it’s very accurate depending on who the examiner is,” says Dr. Judith G. Edersheim, co-director of Harvard’s Center for Law, Brain & Behavior. “But for a scientist, saying it’s examiner-dependent means it’s not reliable.”

Also notable about the Bloomberg piece is Stroud’s inclusion of news about other credibility assessment technologies, including the AVATAR screening system — short for Automated Virtual Agent for Truth Assessments in Real-Time — at the University of Arizona. It’s notable to me, because I devote an entire chapter of The Clapper Memo to the work of Dr. Jay Nunamaker, the man leading the project at the National Center for Border Security and Immigration (a.k.a., “BORDERS”) at the university in Tucson.

Finally, in an editorial published Monday in the Butler Eagle, the newspaper of record in Butler County, Pa., Nic Landon offered applause for Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger and his decision “not to honor the polygraph deal” for a man accused of committing some sort of sexual offense. Though the editorial contains several golden nuggets, one stands as my favorite. It appears in the next-to-last paragraph:

The only current literature I have found supporting the use of the polygraph for purposes of “lie detection” comes from the community of polygraph examiners who, like psychic-detectives, appear to spend their time defending the false claims of magical thinking.

To learn the truth about credibility assessment technologies, including one that’s enjoying widespread use in law enforcement while being kept out of the hands of our nation’s military and intelligence warfighters by top Department of Defense officials, order a copy of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo.

WORTH NOTING: Today, I also came across a piece by Josh Gerstein. Published under the headline, Intelligence agencies tout transparency, it prompted me to add a comment about government transparency. In case Politico opts to moderate my comment out of existence, I share it below for posterity:

TRANSPARENCY? HARDLY! After waiting almost two years for Defense Intelligence Agency officials to respond transparently to my Freedom of Information Act request for copies of unclassified contract documents related to the Department of Defense’s purchase of polygraph equipment since 2000, I finally ran out of resources to continue my pursuit. Why wouldn’t they be transparent with me? Because they know that sharing the information with me would make them look bad. Either way, they still look bad as a result of my four-year investigation into the federal government’s use of credibility assessment technologies, including the polygraph. The findings of my investigation appear in The Clapper Memo, my second nonfiction book and a book David P. Schippers said “represents perhaps the most thorough investigative reporting I have encountered in years.” FYI: Schippers served as the U.S. House of Representatives chief investigative counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. I hope you, Mr. Gerstein, will read it before you write your next piece on this topic.

UPDATE 2/4/2015 at 6:37 a.m. Central: A Daily Beast article today includes the following golden nugget quote about the polygraph from Northwestern University Professor Dr. Ken Adler: “The lie detector is essentially used in practice as a way to get people to confess to crimes.”

UPDATE 4/19/2015 at 1:21 p.m. Central: Check out the limited-time free-books offer here.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Bloody Massacres Generate ‘Solutions’ to Muslim Problem

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

The word balloon of the cartoon that appeared on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo -- renamed Charia Hebdo ("Sharia Hebdo") -- reads "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

In French, the word balloon of the cartoon on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo — renamed Charia Hebdo (“Sharia Hebdo”) — reads “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”

The recent bloody massacres at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher grocery store in Paris, have spawned a number of solutions to the “Muslim problem,” some totally useless and pointless and others quite draconian.

Typical of the useless and pointless solution was that offered by Pope Francis as he spoke to reporters aboard a recent flight from Sri Lanka to the Philippines. Referencing the atrocities in Paris, he first took both sides of the issue, expressing the belief that, while “freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” if someone says something unkind about your mother the normal reaction is to “punch him in the nose.” He concluded by saying, “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith.”

In other words, Christians and Jews are not to show disrespect for Islam or Mohammed, but we must accept that Muslims will continue to slaughter Christians and Jews at will. If such atrocities represent what the pope might consider akin to an “unkind comment about one’s mother” by radical Islamists, then what would he suggest as a proper “punch in the nose?”

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the comments of conservative rock star, Ted Nugent, a board member of the National Rifle Association and an outspoken critic of liberals, Democrats, and Barack Obama. In a Jan. 14, 2015, blog, titled “Save the Planet: Kill the Muslim Third Reich,” Nugent refers to his solution as “anti-rabid dog common sense.”

Setting the stage for his final solution, Nugent tells us, “I personally don’t care if you stand on your head and recite Shakespeare backwards, marry your beagle, stack BBs, French kiss rattlesnakes, or swan dive into a shallow vat of goat urine. If that’s what turns your religious crank, party on. Just do it downwind from me, and don’t bill me for your rehab.” He goes on to say, “But when it comes to the pure demonic evil of murderous savage Islamic terrorists, the line is universally drawn by good people worldwide. We all know instinctively that there is no virtue in slaughtering innocent people. No God smiles or rejoices in this.”

Introducing his solution to the problem, Nugent writes, “I’ll admit I’m not opposed to putting hollow points to the back of the heads of human cockroaches and various other vermin who wish to imprison me with their brain-dead, toxic ‘values.’ Truth is, I want to eliminate them from planet Earth and erase them from the history books of the human race… Everyone knows that there is no cure for rabid dogs except a bullet. The question the free world needs to ask is whether we are going to shoot the rabid dog or have the rabid dog chew our faces off.”

He concludes by saying, “My advice: kill ‘em all and let Satan sort ‘em out… Make no mistake; the world is in a race to the finish with crazed, rabid radical Muslims. The choice is simple: It’s religious freedom or subjugation, persecution or death… No more kicking the can down the road for the next generation. There comes a time for all good men and women to rise up and oppose evil. That time is now. It is our time. Americans must show the world the difference between respecting choices in lifestyle versus bending over and welcoming an evil takeover. This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us. We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race we must kill them all…”

Clearly, the approach recommended by Pope Francis does nothing more than to postpone the ultimate demise of the civilized world, while the approach suggested by Nugent hardly merits discussion. To think that we could declare open season on Muslims and then proceed to kill more than two million of them is sheer madness. Instead, we must resolve to find a solution that is doable and effective, in spite of the weaknesses of our national leaders.

In their joint press conference Jan. 16, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a desire to continue working toward multicultural societies in their respective countries. The Prime Minister expressed a willingness to spend two generations attempting to fully assimilate their Muslim immigrant population. Obama agreed, although he was still unable to use the words “Islamic” and “extremist” in the same sentence.

Neither man was willing to recognize that western nations have been attempting to assimilate Muslims for at least seventy years, more than three generations. Instead, while they continue to speak glowingly about “assimilation,” Muslims view their migration to western nations as “infiltration.”  What Obama and Cameron fail to acknowledge is that they live and work inside security “bubbles.” Unlike their fellow countrymen, they don’t have to worry about the swarthy-complexioned man in the bulky jacket at the shopping mall, or the burqa-clad Muslim woman seated next to them on a bus. They don’t have to wonder whether their clothes are just bulky, or if they conceal a suicide vest capable of killing dozens of people.

Hoping to learn a bit more about the motivation for attacks such as those on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store, Daily Beast reporter Dana Kennedy traveled to several Parisian suburbs heavily populated by French-Algerian Muslims. She interviewed a cross section of young men who were convinced that the attacks were a conspiracy by Jews designed to make Muslims look bad. One Muslim told her that the Jews who staged the attacks were not just “regular” Jews, they were “a race of magical Jews, shape-shifting Jews,” who were “master manipulators” and who could be “everywhere at the same time.”

It is fanatics such as these who are motivated, in part, by the promise that they will each receive 72 virgins upon entering Heaven. How does one accommodate such ignorance? The answer is, we can’t.

If we are to find a middle road between what Pope Francis and Nugent suggest, our first goal must be to reach consensus on who and what the enemy is. Unlike the opinion of apologists for radical and moderate Muslims, Islam is not a religion as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, and cultural system with a religious component. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host-country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host countries. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host nations, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, western democracies must resolve that Islam is incompatible with cultures built on Judeo-Christian principles. In the United States, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.” In order to neutralize and reverse Islam’s cultural infestation, a good starting point would be to tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the courts and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign ideology renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islam illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of; they will self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

According to the story of the Tower of Babel, beginning in Genesis 11:6 (NKJV), God was displeased by efforts of a Hebrew tribe to build a tower that would reach the heavens, God looked down upon the Earth, and said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

Inasmuch as radicalized Muslims have let it be known that all non-Muslims must either submit to them or die, and so-called “moderate” Muslims have refused to restrain their murderous brethren, perhaps it is time we reenacted the story of Babel, quarantining all Muslims to a portion of the Earth in which all of the competing tribes of Islam can settle their differences… peacefully or violently.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.