“public opinion in America was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the “Jewish domination of the media”

I would hardly call the thought that the media is dominated by Jews or that Jews have played up the Holocaust for their own purposes original. These types of anti-Semitic stereotypes dating back to the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion have  have been played out time and time again throughout history around the world.

Stone’s comments come at at time when he is promoting his upcoming documentary, “The Secret History of America. I have no doubt that in  his view, Stone is simply “keeping it real”.  That is the perspective of  Holocaust Deniers. While Stone is not a denier in the traditional sense of  rejecting the historical fact of the Holocaust, he is a denier in the use of antisemitic stereotypes to diminish it’s place in history.

Here is what is “real”.  Eleven Million innocents murdered under Hitler.  Twenty million or more murdered under Stalin. None of Stone’s antisemitic marketing tactics or ignorant revisionism will change that.  The real secret exposed here is Stone’s antisemitism.  I doubt anything will change that either.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the federal government. While the benefits of medical marijuana are documented and vets are being helped by its use, it is still illegal under Federal law and certainly in federal facilities like VA clinics.  Legally, the fact that it is being used in a state that allows medical marijuana is irrelevant to federal enforcement. While the Obama Administration and the DEA have taken the position that they will not go after those using the drug in compliance with state law, it remains to be seen if medical marijuana crossing the border into federally funded facilities and getting that first foot hold into the federal domain a will sit well with Eric Holder and the DEA.  No one wants to look like the bad guy where our vets are concerned.

I came across the video on the blog of Debbie Schlussel. Debbie and I have had our differences on various issues.  This is however, one time I am completely on board with her views. There is a huge difference between pimping out a tragedy and celebrating survival of that tragedy. I will not restate the entire controversy as she has covered it quite well.  As goofy as the video is, I frankly cried when I watched it.  For a survivor to go back and joyfully dance on the horrendous memories of his fight and the fight of all European Jews for their survival to me is a celebration of life and our ability as humans to take tragedy and smile back at it.  We did survive and more power to Adolek Kohn for allowing me to remember with a smile on my face.  IMHO, Adolek Kohn has earned the right to “dance his experience” any damn place he pleases.

“...I don’t want him convicted of felony assault Brian. Because if she was REALLY hit then there would have been a police report.  If she was REALLY hit then she would have had to have her lip sewn up.  It’s “he said she said” and I don’t think it’s good enough for a conviction.No evidence = no conviction as far as I’m concerned. People lie and have agendas so word can only go so far. … ‘

Here is another:

“those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. everyone lives in one. Mel, has at least brought some great masterpieces onto the screens. Rubberneckers only see the reck, not knowing the full context of an incident…..

Are these the Neanderthal views the general public has with regards to domestic violence?   If it doesn’t draw blood or leave a mark it didn’t happen?  If he is talented we will excuse it?  According to one study, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in a year period did not report the incident to the police.  With attitudes like this it is no wonder more battered women do not come forward.

While Mel’s outbursts speak for themselves as to his ethnic and racial views, he is certainly entitled to his day in court any criminal allegations.  Is it possible that his ex is lying?  Sure it is.  Regardless of what “truth” comes out,  I read crap like above and despair the human condition just a little bit more..

The 1970′s were great years for the Pirates and fans alike.  They were in contention practically every year. They won two World Series Championships in 1971 and 1979.  I loved going to games.  I often went with my two brothers.  Back in those days double headers prevalent.  My older brother would take me and my younger brother to a doubleheader. We would however first stop at the local deli for a corned beef sandwich, not to eat at the game, but to bribe the guard at the entrance to the box field seats to lets us in on our general admission tickets.  We would take the seats of those who had only stayed for the 1st game of the doubleheader.  I miss those days.  The glory days of The Pirates and my love for baseball.

My allegiance did not end with the good times.  I faithfully attended games through the Three Rivers Stadium wasteland of the 80′s.  The Pirates were not a good team but with the exception of a couple years they were never terrible. What was terrible was attendance. Pittsburgh as a city was struggling economically.  I remember attending games were there could not have been more than a few thousand in the stands.  Those days also seem like grand old times as I watch the ownership wasteland that is now the Pittsburgh Pirates.

It is a wasteland. A wasteland of total indifference to winning regardless of profits.  That’s a bold statement when you consider that the Pirates were for quite a few years were owned in part by the financially strapped city of Pittsburgh and some other local businesses.   A pre-revenue sharing ownership group that did not hide that fact that there was not much  money. It’s possible that I am romanticizing a much worse situation but I recall that they did the best they could with what they had. They were the last option in the game to prevent what would amount to a hostile takeover by another city which would have certainly resulted in the team leaving Pittsburgh.  Their job was to be as competitive as possible with what they had until they could find a buyer who would put some money into the team and take it to the level of greatest it achieved in the 70′s.  The irony is that with their limited resources, they almost did it on their own terms with the arrival of Barry Bonds and the Pirates near miss on the World Series in 1992.  That was the high point. It was a different era and different economics.

The low point is an ownership group that actually has money running a scorched earth business model, taking substantial revenue sharing, putting none of it into salaries and doing what with it?  Putting a AAA caliber ball club on the field and have the gall to insult our intelligence as to their major-league worthiness.  They have never really been clear about what is being done with revenue sharing profits other than to state that they are running the team in a fiscally responsible manner.  One theory is that they are using it to pay down team debt.  How is that not the same as putting it in your own pocket?   Whats the excuse for 2011?  We are young?  We will develop?  The line of every GM stuck with a stable of non-producing trades and busted Vegas lottery picks.  It’s akin to saying 110 degrees is not hot in Las Vegas because its a dry heat.  In the end dog-shit stinks regardless of what perfume rhetoric you pour on it…

The Legalities of Lindsay Lohan written July 29. 2006

I have never seen a Lindsay Lohan movie. I do not read gossip columns, or frequent TMZ. I could not care less about her off screen antics. I however could not resist seeing what kind of threatening letter a top studio executive sends a 20 year old out of control, party-wild, self impressed actress when they are not happy with her work habits.

In this case it involves a movie in production called “Georgia Rule” in which she is the star. The studio is apparently concerned with Lindsay’s failure to show up for production calls and showing up late when she did show. They feel there is some relationship to her perceived excessive partying. In the letter James G. Robinson, CEO of Morgan Creek Productions, calls Lohan’s recent absences from the set “irresponsible and unprofessional.”

Being an attorney, I took interest in the letter. I scanned quickly through all the emotional rhetoric and right down to the legal threats. They of course threaten to take all action necessary to ensure the protection of the integrity of the film. Having some limited exposure to the film industry, the first thing that came to my mind and was what is generally considered one of the more costly aspects of a major motion pictures aside from salaries. This is the completion completion insurance or a “completion bond.”

Now you may ask, what the hell does insurance have to do with Lindsay Lohan and the making of her film? It may not have a lot to do with this film, but I can guarantee you it will affect her future films and if she doesn’t calm down. She may find herself a “B” movie queen because she will be uninsureable or it will be cost prohibitive to insure her.

When a studio is casting for a major production it is a crap shot on whether it makes money. Like most other business ventures it is about minimizing risk. If an actor or actress can not be insured or be insured for a reasonable amount in comparison to the projected revenues of the film that person is probably not going to get many starring or mainstream roles. This is because the producers of the film may not be able to get a completion bond.

A completion bond is a motion picture completion guaranty is a written contract that guarantees a motion picture will be finished and delivered on schedule and within budget. The majority of films produced and fully financed by the major Hollywood studios are self-guaranteed. However, most independently financed films, including many that are released and distributed by the major studios, require a completion guaranty.

A producer usually secures a completion guaranty for the benefit of the bank or other financiers who agree to make the necessary production funding strike price available to the producer. In general, a completion guaranty assures banks and financiers that:
1. The producers will complete and deliver the film in keeping with the screenplay, budget and production schedule that the bank or financiers approved; or
2. The completion guarantor will complete and deliver the film in keeping with such pre-approved screenplay and production schedule, and advance such sums in excess of the pre-approved budget necessary to do so; or
3. In the event production of the film is abandoned, the completion guarantor will fully repay all sums invested in the film by the bank or financiers.

If Lindsay, who is from what I hear a very talented actress when she is sober, does not get her act together soon, she will find herself relegated to low budget Indies such as “Herbie Retooled and Reloaded Again And Again And Again And Again”

There was one a few days ago that the organization was successful in getting taken down.  Another one popped up two days later to take its place. It looks like it’s the same people trying to get a rise but the general bottom line is the same.  In addition to all the great content and information on Facebook, there is a lot of antisemitism and hate speech against  ethnic, religious and gender orientation minorities.  Facebook does what it can to keep it in check when made aware of the problem within the inherent flaws of  user-based self-reporting systems.  There however, is simply so much more of the hatred than there are employees at Facebook to monitor it.

I try to take most of this crap in stride as there are idiots everywhere.  The most troubling aspect of “the day” is not that some anti-Semitic idiot would put it up but that so many are willing to play along and incite the hatred in the page commentary.  Strong evidence that it is much more than a silly page put up by a moron. It is a stark reminder that Facebook is not just a place for friends to connect and share information.  It is a venue for those of like mind in hatred of not only Jews but any minority group to take that message, find those who agree and take hatred viral.

I wonder if they will talk about that in the new Facebook movie, The Social Network. I doubt it.  People are more interested In Mark Zuckerberg’s quirks and dalliances than they are about real issues affecting all of us in that network.  That’s to be expected.  People want to be entertained.  I hope it’s more entertaining than Kill A Jew Day.

Germany happens to have laws in place against hate speech, Holocaust Denial and other types of hateful expression borne of Nazi Germany.  The guy faces up to 6 months in jail.  It brings to mind an incident not long ago.  I was at the gym listening to my iPod.  Just after I was serenaded by Billy Joel, I was snapped to attention when a Hitler speech started playing!  Quite the musical transition!  Imagine my surprise when I went from Billy Joel to a Hitler rant.

I had previously downloaded some Hitler speeches as part of my research for a book on hate speech.  Unbeknown to me, the speeches had transferred to my iPod when I synced it with my Mac.   Glad there were no police waiting to arrest me.  I will be sure to check my Ipod play-list before my next trip to Germany.

As reported in the Dallas Morning News, the case focused on several winter break parties from 2001 to 2004 at Thomas Elementary and Rasor Elementary. Lynn Swanson, the principal at Thomas, stopped a third-grade boy from distributing the candy cane pens with the Christian message that read, in part, “The blood Christ shed for the sins of the world.”

A month later, Jackie Bomchill at Rasor prevented a girl from handing out tickets for a Christian drama and from distributing religious-themed pencils. The boy’s parents and others whose children were prevented from handing out the materials sued the school district.

The courts have held that the constitutional rights of students are not surrendered at the school door.  The courts have also held however ,that schools can however regulate activities that disrupt the educational purpose.  This was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court  in the  Bong Hits For Jesus case in which a student, during a school sanctioned off premises event, put up a banner on a public sidewalk that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”.  The banner was confiscated and the student disciplined. The court found in part, that as the banner promoted illegal drug use, it did disrupt the educational mission and the speech was therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment.

In this case, we are dealing with censoring of a private exchange of a  a benign religious message.  It is not occurring in the classroom, at the behest of the school or in any type of school sanctioned manner.  The mere fact that it occurs on school premises does not in itself inure it with this quality   There is no disruption to the educational mission and no illegal activity is encouraged.  The school is not sanctioning it, encouraging it or endorsing it simply by the mere fact that it is occurring.

The fact that it is an elementary school student versus a high school student in my mind is irrelevant.  The message is the message regardless of age.  To claim that the 1st amendment applies differently to the message in the 4th grade versus high school in my mind is the very essence of a viewpoint discrimination and the school unacceptably invading the province of the parents how they raise their children.

In the end, the 1st Amendment applies to the government’s attempt to regulate our speech including religious expression. That means that the school can not engage in conduct that endorses  religious viewpoints.  It does not mean that the school can muzzle a student from expressing their viewpoints in a non-school endorsed private manner.  If I do not agree with the message that is my job as a parent to deal with it at home and not to try to censor the message simply because I disagree.

You can read case here.

The controversy reinforces my long standing belief that the majority of the general public have no clue what the 1st amendment says or means in a legal sense.  They simply understand the basic concept of “free speech”.  They then shape that concept based on their own belief system borne out of their life experiences. The end result is their “idea of free speech” that is carried throughout their daily lives. That idea often has nothing to do with the realities of the 1st Amendment.  It goes something like this: I have something to say in your home.  You tell me I can’t say it there.  You are violating my rights to free speech.  A muzzle is a muzzle regardless of what dog its on.

Lets get some clarity here.  This is not about hate speech or Muslim’s or conservative politics.  Pete Doughtie has the right to write and publish what he pleases regardless of whom it offends or who regards it as hate speech unless it incites others to violence.  That is the 1st Amendment at work.

Time for some more clarity.  The 1st amendment only applies to government attempts to regulate our speech.  KFC  and Kroger are private companies. They can determine what newspapers, speech or any other expression they want to allow or prohibit on their premises. The distributor is a private company.  They can choose not to work with his paper.  End of story.  Get that straight.  Pete is clearly ignorant of this concept when he threatens to sue these companies.  Everyone in Rutherford please take a breath, gather some basic understanding of the 1st Amendment and the have the Rutheford Reader delivered directly to your doorstep hate speech and all.  You have that right.  Its a free country.

Kenya, while having some guarantees of free expression in place, takes a much different view on hate speech than the United States. They experience it differently on a cultural and ethnic level.  Hateful rhetoric similar to speech targeting Jews, Muslims, Hispanics and other religious and ethnic minorities that we may find despicable but part of a free society has resulted in full scale riots in Kenya.  They are therefore much more sensitive to the relationship between words, violence and ethnic incitement.

Kenya’s hate speech laws read as follows under Section  Section 62 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008:

“Any person who utters words intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both or a newspaper, radio station or media enterprise that publishes the utterances referred to in subsection (1) commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings.”

Section 13 of the Act stipulates that a person is liable to be charged with hate speech when he or she uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or displays any written material.

Think that would fly here in the United States?

I found of particular interest, an opinion piece written by John Orso on the allAfrica.com web site entitled “Hate Speech Must Be Penalised“referring to the recent arrests of Kenyan politicians on hate speech charges. He wrote:

“After the turmoil which followed the 2007 general elections, Kenyans developed certain sensitivities which every politician and public speaker needs to observe whenever addressing the public. On its part, the government has no option but to ensure that laws against hate speech and incitement are applied. In any case, such laws can only serve their purpose as preventative measures”

If that article was written regarding U.S. politician and media exhortations, we would probably snicker.  As long as Glenn Beck or some other political pundit does not exhort us to go out and commit murder, it’s no holds barred with the ratings winner to he or she or screams the loudest and in the most outrageous fashion. Accusations of hate speech routinely fly back and forth here. In reality, they have no standardized meaning so no one cares on a societal level.  It’s just speech.  Words don’t hurt, unless you live in Kenya.  In Kenya it’s life or death.  As we bask in the glory of free speech and the right to say the outrageous at no cost but to our dignity, lets not lose site of the fact that words are sticks and stones, just not here…

In 2008, White published the name, photograph, home address and phone number of a juror on his site in an entry entitled “The Juror Who Convicted Matt Hale.” The juror had been foreman of a jury that convicted another white supremacist, Matthew Hale, of soliciting the murder of a federal judge.

White had earlier written on his website that “everyone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time.”

In dismissing the charge last July, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman noted that White broke no laws when he dug up the publicly available contact information for the juror and posted it to overthrow.com.  Adelman further stated that:

“An intimidating context alone does not remove the protection of the First Amendment.”

Where do we draw the line between hubris/intimidation and true threat?   In these types of cases, context is king and intent is queen.  While the the linchpin here seems to be the posting of the address in conjunction with the other posts, it should be noted that the information was publicly available.  It however, is all part of context.  White was not some flaky loner nut case.  He was an avowed white supremacist.  He had a following.  Does this type of context take it beyond intimidation into the world of imminent incitement to violence against the juror? While I have misgivings about whether these facts fall outside the 1st Amendment,  it seems clear that if you you post addresses, even publicly available,  in conjunction with even vague threats, it will be looked at in a more critical light even if the threats in themselves would be protected.  What also seems clear is that there is no bright line standard for these types of cases.  It’s all about context.

An interesting side note is that one of the appellate judges in this case,  Richard Posner recently testified as a witness in the case against Neo-Nazi radio shock jock Hal Turner who was charged with encouraging his readers to murder Posner and two other federal judges in retaliation for upholding the Chicago handgun ban which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Did that case have any influence on the decision here?  In the Turner case, Posner and the other judges testified that they felt threatened by Turner’s posts.  Posts that were not much different in tone and if anything more explicitly threatening than White’s posts. That case has resulted in two mistrials

The United States Code Title 18, Part I Chapter 115 defines treason as follows:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”

“The full resources of the Justice Department will be devoted to ensuring that those persons who would betray their country and the people of the United States are prosecuted and severely punished.”-The United States Attorney commenting on the Robert Hanssen case.

The cold war is back. Federal prosecutors have accused 11 people of spying for the Russians. In true mole fashion sounding like something right out of the movie  “No Way Out” the FBI alleges that these spies were sent here by the Russian overseas intelligence service known as the SVR — the successor to the Soviet KGB — as early as the mid-1990s, and were provided with training in language as well as the use of codes and ciphers.

Spying is a time honored means of learning about our enemies even when they are formally no longer our enemy. Sometimes they are moles whose allegiances were never to the United States. Sometimes they are turned. What motivates people to turn against their country? “Treason” is a terrifying word. Any time it is invoked, a person has either successfully or attempted to sell out the United States to the highest bidder.  Treason is also one of the very few crimes on the Federal books that carry the death penalty without having to prove that the crime actually resulting in death.  So why do traitors turn when they are facing death? “

I was able to speak with an current FBI agent who has worked on the intelligence side. He wishes to remain anonymous. He stated that most traitors turn for the following reasons:

• Money
• Ideology (Political or religious)
• Sex / Drugs other dependencies

In the years since the Robert Hanssen case, it has been business as usual for those selling out our country both intentionally and unwittingly for the above reasons.

Robert Hanssen is considered the most damaging traitor in terms of lives, intelligence lost and dollars to repair the damage done to national security. That is quite a title in the company of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Aldrich Ames and Benedict Arnold. His case was dramatized in the move Breach. Hanssen consistently passed critical intelligence information on to the Soviets over 20 years. He divulged information such as Soviet double agents(resulting in their execution) and the United States continuity of government plan in case of nuclear attack.  Hanssen was spared the death sentence in exchange for his cooperation in undoing the damage he did. He is currently serving his life sentence at the Federal Supermax facility in Florence Colorado.

Has everything we learned since Hanssen prevented further “megaton” breaches in national security?  There is no question that counter Intelligence spending has increased dramatically post Hansen.   It was mistakenly revealed that in 2005 the United States spent 40 billion dollars on its’ spy agencies.  One would have hoped we had successfully “whack a moled” most Russian plants and disaffected government agents.  Who are some of the spies that have betrayed our loyalties and for what reasons?

Gregg William Bergersen was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy to disclose national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it. Bergersen was a Weapons Systems Policy Analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based Defense Security Cooperation Agency, an agency within the Department of Defense.  While in this position, Bergersen provided national defense information on numerous occasions to Tai Shen Kuo, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a New Orleans businessman. Much of the information pertained to U.S. military sales to Taiwan and was classified at the Secret level.  Mr Kuo in return provided Bergersen with money, gifts and trips to Vegas. Tai Shen Kuo was sentenced to almost 16 years in federal prison.

The Bergersen case highlights the continuing tension with China with regards to their aggressive efforts to obtain United States military and technology data. This case was one of the more serious cases of espionage since Robert Hanssen. Interestingly, his handlers ran what intelligence professionals call a “false flag” operation. They made him believe that the information he was providing was going to Taiwan, an American ally.

In the end, the true motivation was far less altruistic. It was the second oldest temptation. Like 90 percent of the espionage cases that came before him, it was all about money. Mr. Kuo promised Bergersen that he would make him as a partner at 400k per year in a defense consulting firm after he retired from the Pentagon. This was in addition to the gifts and Vegas trips.

While the Bergersen case was a case of a planned attempt at espionage by the Chinese government, many more of these cases are in the Grey zone between breaches of national security and commercial espionage by foreign governments to gain a technology advantage.  An article in the New York Times highlights the concern the United States government has over very aggressive Chinese efforts to obtain classified information by conventional and unconventional means probing for openings at the lowest levels in areas we would never expect in the hopes that it will lead to the locations of weakness in our commercial and government intelligence defense systems.

The FBI recently investigated and obtained one of the 1st convictions under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, a software engineer born in China was sentenced to 24 months in prison for stealing a military source code from his employer and attempting to transfer it and other military technology he took to the Chinese Government.

In addition to China, the Middle East will undoubtedly be a fertile recruiting ground for moles, double agents and infiltrators. The Middle East scenario has already reared its ugly “two face” in the name of Nada Nadine Prouty, a former FBI agent who plead guilty in November 2007 to fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship and improperly accessing sensitive computer information about Hezbollah.   Prior to her resignation she was a CIA spy assigned to Middle East operations.  Prouty is an interesting case. There are those who feel she was a true spy treated much too leniently in receiving a $750 fine and no jail time for her actions.  There are those who feel she is a scapegoated patriot.

Ironically one of the more recent arrests of an accused traitor involved the Middle East but not with one of our enemies. In 2009, Stewart David Nozette, 52, rrested Monday on charges of attempting to pass along classified information to an undercover FBI agent he believed was an Israeli intelligence officer.

Speaking of Israel, In 2008, 85 year old Ben-ami Kadish a former U.S. Army mechanical engineer, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. The charges allege that Kadish passed classified documents to the government of Israel during the 1980s. His alleged spy activities have been linked to convicted spy Jonathan Pollard who also passed secrets on to Israel.  Kadish did no jail time but was fined 50k.

What about Jonathon Pollard?   Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analysis was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987 with a recommendation against parole.  The Pollard case has been a consistent source of  diplomatic tension between the State Of Israel, and the United States.  Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995 and would like to see him freed for return.  Pollard is in fact eligible for parole but has never applied for it.

Pollard  has denied spying “against” the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.

If you take a look at the Victim’s Impact Statement filed by the Federal Government at Pollards sentencing, his activities and the damage done to our national security take a much more personal bent and even more so when the video below is viewed.  Video of Pollard in the actual act of stealing classified material from the United States. In effect stealing the security of every citizen of this country.

How much damage did Pollard do?   That is in dispute but he was certainly no Robert Hanssen.  In my mind that is irrelevant.  Once he put our vulnerabilities into the open he lost control over the material as to where it ended up and every American ,Jew and non-Jew lost control to a small degree over their future safety.  Not because he passed information to an ally but because we lost control of  every other place that information could end up.

Should Jonathan Pollard be released.  I would prefer not.  Those who steal my security and comfort in going to bed every night by putting our countries most protected secrets and  vulnerabilities into the open regardless of intentions should serve out their full sentence.

Pollard has many high profile supporters asking for his release.  Among them Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz who represented Pollard early in the case.  You can read his family’s  web site outlining why should be released and come to your own conclusions.

Moral of story? Old spies never die, they just blend into the masses. The other moral? When it comes to money and national security love is fleeting….