Locksmith Licensing Dilemma

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

A fellow locksmith from California, Robert Frantz, wrote a letter to the Society of Professional Locksmiths requesting membership and asking for help regarding unqualified individuals posing as locksmiths. Tom Lynch sent me a copy of his letter and thought I’d want to read it, perhaps even toss in my two cents worth.

“…I see no real reason other than to abide by CA laws to obtain a CA Locksmith License for the protection of any consumer and believe it only an avenue to monetary gain for our state and lazy bureaucrats offering a false sense of security and trust for the public at the legit locksmiths expense.”

It appears as though Robert Franz has figured it out, or at least is onto the larger scam; states using locksmiths as a revenue tool via licensing. Locksmith licensing was initiated under the false assumption that such licensing would protect consumers and elevate the public’s respect for the industry. The Associated locksmiths of America (ALOA) pushed hard to get locksmiths on board while they vigorously lobbied legislators in various states with their idea of the perfect locksmith licensing legislation package.

I wrote an article several years ago which explained my concerns regarding locksmith licensing in Texas, concerns which have been ignored on a regular basis even though tentacles of government bureaucracy grow and consume the free market system at an alarming rate. I’ll cut and paste one paragraph from that article in order to explain why none of the goals of locksmith licensing are valid.

“I will start off with the stated mission of the Agency which is the “protection of the public through fair and impartial regulation of the Private Investigations and Private Security Industry”. It goes further and states its job as Agency in the State of Texas for “ensuring citizens and consumers of investigations and security services, that these industries provide reliable services, employ qualified and trustworthy personnel, and are free from misrepresentation and fraud”. With a mission statement as broad as all that; who could complain that they don’t have everyone’s interests at heart? The last line in the Agencies mission statement is, “It is not the goal of the License Section to speed up or slow down the processing of applications, but to ensure the qualifications of all applicants prior to issue”.”

The Agency, the Department of Public Safety/Private Security Board (DPS/PSB), can no more “ensure” citizens and consumers that a licensed locksmith will do a better job than an unlicensed locksmith than it can “ensure” that the weatherman’s forecast will be accurate; take your umbrella just in case. The best it can do is hope that honest hard working individuals will do the best he/she can while serving the public; having a license does not “ensure” quality of work.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin circa 1755

If you wanted to examine ulterior motives for bringing about locksmith licensing then perhaps the misrepresentation and fraud mentioned by the Agency’s mission statement could be referring to the alarm services industry and established locksmiths, folks who have a vested interest in making it more difficult for competitors to enter or exist in the market place. What better way to limit competition than to legislate them out of the market place via Lilliputian locksmith licensing, rules and regulations; that’s not a question.

The Federal Trade Commission recently took the dental industry to court, and won, for anti-trust violations when the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners attempted to limit who could or could not provide teeth whitening products or services through licensing restrictions.

After reading through the legal mumbo-jumbo most folks would come to the same conclusion; government is deeply embedded within the fabric of what used to be the free market system as to make it impossible to separate or nullify damage done by well meaning “do gooders” from any possible gains derived from such over sight.

Each time government attempts to aid one segment of society it generally does so at the expense of others and each layer adds to the problem. Individual liberty is an illusion in our day, sad but true, when nearly everyone is required to obtain a license to do that which was perfectly legal prior to government intervention.

There’s an old book I like to reference when talking about the inappropriate use of government by industry to procure a monopoly at the expense of free enterprise, H. Verlan Andersen’s, Many are Called, But Few are Chosen. Chapter 7 titled, Acts of Government Which Constitute an Exercise of Unrighteous Dominion, explains that a free society stands in opposition to licensing and includes a section called, Government Enforced Monopolies.

“If we desire for ourselves the freedom to enter a trade or occupation when and where we choose, we should allow our fellow men this same right. If we believe we should be left free to purchase goods or services from any person who offers them for sale, how can we forcibly restrict the freedom of other members of the buying public and still live the Golden Rule?”

American citizens who value individual liberties intended to be available equally for all other citizens should consider the foundations of any argument in favor of licensed industries. “But I’m a professional and have the necessary experience while scammers are unqualified to be called locksmiths”, I’ve heard it all as justification for licensing.

“… open competition in their field should be prohibited because, if this were not done, the unlearned, the unskilled, and the inexperienced would be serving the public. But this argument assumes it is possible to classify men into two groups—the qualified and the unqualified”

Andersen goes on to destroy the supposed justification for overseers or governing boards which limit competition via licensing restrictions and which dictate who is qualified and who isn’t, “…there are not two groups of men—the qualified and the unqualified; there is only one group and every member of it is unqualified to some extent.” Rather than quote the entire book, go read it on your own as the information is free to anyone with an internet connection.

Getting back to Robert Frantz’ request for help, he pointed out that scammers were able to continue ripping off the public without licensing and how the state of California was not enforcing laws intended to protect consumers and those who were properly licensed in the locksmith industry. He then wrote:

“In my opinion licensing fees in this state seems similar to taxation without representation and this Govt. needs a tea party or be forced to enforce the laws that will protect industry and consumer.”

I’m sorry to point out the flawed connection brought out; but folks who sustain fundamental tea party issues usually don’t support licensing of trades and industry for the reasons already pointed out above. Government mandates, regardless of their intent, only add to the complexities and cost of doing business. They cannot ensure the quality of work through licensing; the best they can do is hope honest hard working individuals will do the best they can while serving the public.

“Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own…the harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional ‘do-gooders,’ who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others.” (Henry Grady Weaver, The Mainspring of Human Progress pg 40-41)

When a case can be made by an unhappy consumer that a business has not performed work properly or has violated the trust of an individual there are already laws on the books and courts in place to adjudicate those issues, either civil courts or criminal courts. Why penalize everyone with mandated licensing? We shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t wish to be licensed has inferior skills or worse, intends to scam the public by pretending to be something he/she is not?

Wouldn’t society be better off if we reversed the trend of having government involved in nearly every aspect of our lives? Let’s begin the healing process by deconstructing the multiple levels of government starting with the locksmith industry. We need to do away with the bureaucracy which micro manages everyone with mandated licenses, mandated continuing education, mandated forms, mandated uniforms or any other great idea that someone had that he/she thinks everyone else should do.

The ALOA and many other ‘prim and proper’ licensed locksmiths won’t appreciate the information presented here. I was a member of ALOA for over thirty years until I could no longer justify the fact that they were working against everything I stood for. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not require a license. I maintain my membership in the Greater Houston Locksmith Association as a matter of necessity; but I value my membership in the Society of Professional Locksmiths and Fiercely Independent Locksmiths of America; folks who aren’t afraid to call a spade a spade.

Perhaps some day America will return to the once commonly held understanding that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights from our Creator and are not to be to be licensed by any government entity.


We have a racist in The White House trying to promote a race war. Is Barack Hussein Obama looking for another crisis to take advantage of?

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

It all starts with the rules, the mission statement, as it is called. Barack Hussein Obama’s original Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel wrote it in a single sentence: “Never let a crisis go to waste.” His complete statement was: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Obama and his Democrat Party henchmen have been thirsting for some crisis to empower them to declare Martial Law, order all citizen-owned guns confiscated and take complete control of America. They thought they had it with the Occupy Wall Street movement of Leftists and Communist followers who had staged sit-in demonstrations around the country. That didn’t work. They thought if they ruined our economy and caused widespread unemployment there would be food riots in our streets by millions of evicted homeless people. That didn’t work. They did prepare for something when they started buying up billions of rounds of ammunition, but the gun owners started doing the same thing and the manufacturers resorted to working shifts around the clock to produce more. Its too early to see if that worked or not but we now have the greatest gun salesman in history sitting in the Oval Office.

Then they turned to Trayvon Martin and tried to make a simple case of self defense into the early stages of a race war. After Democrat hate monger Barrack Hussein Obama said if he had a son he would look like Trayvon, in spite of the facts that little 6’2″ tall Trayvon was a skilled Mixed Martial Arts fighter and was sitting on top of pudgy George Zimmerman, pounding his head into the concrete when he got shot, the Leftist news media picked up the drum beat. They flooded the airwaves with so many distorted lies that media talking heads were now referring to George Zimmerman, the Hispanic guy who saved his own life with a legally concealed weapon, as a White man. Now they even had a ranking member of Homeland Security spewing racial hatred against White people on his web site. And while Barack Hussein Obama, a half-Black Democrat makes several public statements in support of a Black teenage thug named Trayvon, this same half-Black Democrat cannot bring himself to comment once on the rash of Black violence against defenseless White people. Not even the murder of a baby.

As my friend Terresa Monroe-Hamilton recently wrote on her web site Noisy Room,

A Shiny New War: At Home and Abroad

Aug 25th, 2013 by TMH

Let’s start with the coming race war that the progressives at home are stoking for all they are worth. You saw the ginned up fiasco of the Zimmerman case where Obama claimed that Trayvon Martin could have been his son and then claimed he actually could have been Trayvon Martin — thereby personalizing the racial conflict out of a non-existent racial confrontation. Then we had the Australian, Chris Lane, being shot in the back while jogging last week by three teenagers – 2 black, one mixed. We had a WWII vet named Shorty (88 years-old) beaten to death with flashlights by 2 young black men in Spokane, Washington. Someone was set on fire in a parking lot in Memphis, Tennessee. A young white boy was savagely beaten on a school bus by several black kids and the list goes on and on. This doesn’t begin to list what has been happening for a while now with black on white crime. All of this can be laid directly at the feet of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey and a whole raft of race baiters who have an agenda that envisions race riots in the streets and a new order being born in America.

An employee named Ayo Kimathi, who is the Acquisitions Officer at ICE for the Department of Homeland Security, has a hate-filled, racially motivated site named War on the Horizon that talks about the coming race war. His handle is ‘Irritated Genie.’ The site had to be approved by DHS and the employee has been with the government agency since 2009. He is now on paid leave, which means nothing. It means at some point they will quietly bring this evil race monger back like nothing ever happened. The best part is that this person is the one who ordered ammo and guns for the DHS.

And the Leftist supporters of Obama once again pick up the beat and ignore the heinous Black on White crimes. Did they cover the story of the Black teen who shot a White infant in the head because his mother had no money to give them? Not much. Just as they edit out the facts that 99% of the terrorist attacks in America involve Muslims, they edit out the race of the Black perpetrators of violent crimes against White people while they wring their hands over the explosion of Black on Black crimes in Chicago, Detroit and Cincinnati. And try to pass the blame on guns and not on the shooters.

So is the current fear of a race war being supported by the Democrats as a last chance to declare Martial Law and not let this crisis go to waste? If circumstances don’t always work in your favor you can always give them a little help to move them along. The fact of the matter is we do have a racist in The White House, a Black man who hates White people, and the Governor of Maine actually said those exact words. Maine Gov. Paul LePage told a group of Republicans last week that President Barack Obama “hates white people,” two Maine Republican lawmakers told the Portland Press Herald. Politico reported it here. And knowing about the Muslim connection in The White House, and Barry Soetoro //aka// Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim background also explains why he has not made any critical comments of the Islamic war against Christians in the Middle East. And going back a few years it now makes more sense to recall that when our Muslim-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech at the Catholic University of Notre Dame he ordered all Christian symbols covered up. But that doesn’t further his ambitions at home to promote racial hatred and his takeover of our country.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Forum: Should Prostitution Be Legalized In America?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question: Should Prostitution Be Legalized In America?

Simply Jews: The eternal question about the ancient profession could be answered best in Jewish tradition – by asking another question: why do we all bother about it? Especially since we know that no legal act will essentially change the situation.

Some countries legalized prostitution, some forbidden it, in both situations there was no sizable dent in the activities. So why don’t we lay off and relax?

On the other hand there are some fringe benefits to legalization, such as ability to organize and protect the working ladies from the pimps, more medical attention, better physical protection etc. So all in all, I tend to favor legalization.

The Noisy Room: Morally, my gut says no, but Constitutionally and the Libertarian side of me says that prostitution should be ‘de-criminalized’ as opposed to ‘legalized.’ Think prohibition. Trying to criminalize drinking and regulate it was an abject, expensive and violent failure. Making prostitution a criminal act, simply drives the pricing way up and endangers everyone involved.

Humans will turn to the oldest profession in the world regardless of who says it is legal or not. I know a number of Libertarians who say legalize it so you can tax, regulate and license it. Well, I personally don’t believe in taxation and I believe in only very limited licensing. As for regulation, I don’t think the government has any business in the mating rituals of humans. I don’t see the point of laws prohibiting prostitution when they know that has never worked. People will always find a way. The way prostitution works currently is as a protection racket of sorts. Working girls (or guys) are arrested as are their pimps and fined. Then they let them go. The only thing this solves is further filling of the government’s coffers and lining the pockets of corrupt officials. While simultaneously costing all of us money that is better used in other places.

If it is legalized, those who would buy services this way still will and the working conditions would become far safer. And it still should be a heinous crime for anyone to be forced into such a vocation not of their own volition. The market would dictate pricing and those so inclined to earn a living this way will do what they would do any way, except that access to healthcare professionals would be openly available (and insurable), reducing secondary disease vector risks. There should be restrictions on where this line of work is conducted and limited oversight. Perhaps de-criminalization would even lend an aspect of legitimacy and respectability to the services of ‘companions.’

The Independent Sentinel: Yes, make it legal and make murder and drug trafficking legal too (irony here).

I don’t want to see the prostitutes go to jail for any extended period of time and I understand why people want it legalized. However, the exploitation of children makes it unworkable.

Traffickers would have a field day.

It also means condoning something that demeans and exploits others.

I love it when people say we will get tax money from it. The government pigs will waste that too! No more feeding the beast!

The Glittering Eye: We should not legalize prostitution. There is a component of violence and coercion in prostitution that legalization will do nothing to mitigate. Further, the normalization that legalization will foster will make violence and coercion more likely rather than less.

JoshuaPundit: As was brought home to me recently, we appear to already have de facto legalized prostitution here in America… and I’m not just talking about a couple of counties in Nevada.

My main concern would be to help end the scourge of human trafficking while keeping in mind that it’s better to have some forms of legalization, since the current conditions obviously feed trafficking.

Germany legalized prostitution nationwide in 2002, but has found in the decade since out there were major problems with it. Essentially, a lot of the unsavory characters whom used to pimp and engage in trafficking now import impoverished young girls from Southeastern Europe openly, where they’re installed in ‘cut rate’ brothels under terrible conditions and the pimps who manage the establishments deduct hefty fees from their earnings. According to the law as originally passed, a ‘manager’ could be considered ‘exploitative’ if he took over 50% of a girl’s earnings, and safe conditions with normal hours were mandatory. However, as the Germans found out, it was very difficult to prove violations. Many women ended up being forced to service numerous clients on a daily basis around the clock, earned very little money and were actually made to live in the rooms they worked in… for a hefty rent which came out of their earnings. In spite of the laws, very few of the women appear to have actually signed an employment contract, let alone have it honored.

If we are going to legalize prostitution, (and I admit to mixed feelings) allowing it to operate as a normal business doesn’t work. Certain changes would have to be made:

1) Much harsher sentences for pimps and traffickers.

2) A government licensing program where women whom intend to engage in this work apply for themselves, pay a fee, and are mandated to obtain periodic health checks and declare earnings in order to continue working.

3) Rather than brothels, which encourage pimps and traffickers to get into the business, certain areas or streets would be red light districts policed by law enforcement during certain hours, which would deprive pimps and ‘managers’ of their main raison d’être – that they are entitled to a share of earnings because they ‘protect’ the prostitutes. Patronizing prostitutes who are unlicensed and work outside these areas would be punished harshly.

Instead of guarding prostitutes who call themselves ‘legislators’ who simply spend money that isn’t theirs, the police could be actually policing an activity that brings revenues in.

I don’t see any other way legalization would work.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


Constitutional Mechanics and Errors of Libertarians

*** This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of this blog or its administrator. It is a good post and we strive to present all points of view here. I am a Constitutional Conservative with a decidedly Libertarian bent.

By: Gerald Loeffers

Hi all! Yes, this article followed the last one really fast. Well, I got inspired by the observation and comments from others to take a good long and honest look at the Libertarian Party. I will look at their policies, politics, beliefs and views of the Constitution and I will also look at the actual mechanics of the Constitution. I will examine the reasons for its chained down position and why I feel the Libertarians have got it wrong. I believe they are playing into the hands of the radical liberal left.


When the Founders decided to dump the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, they did so because its political spectrum was too close to implementing ANARCHY. It showed they needed a more center line approach towards the PEOPLES’ LAW, but not so close to it to suffer a democracy which was doomed to fail and eat itself. One of the many things the Founders did when writing and designing the Constitution was to read history, philosophy and study other cultures and the thoughts of government from men of ages past. Men like Cicero, who wrote about both the natural laws of man and the idea of a mixed Constitution — taking the best of each of the political philosophies and putting them together in one short easy to understand document.

The opening of the Constitution starts with LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Let’s look at the three political party’s views of that opening to see the errors of the Libertarians.


Concerning political parties, the two big and the one small party all revolve around one part of the Constitution.

DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS): They look at the Constitution and only see and use the pursuit of happiness. They see it as an umbrella to cover Americans in free stuff, healthcare and cellphones. They falsely claim that free government stuff is their right and they are in total denial concerning the cost of this free stuff and the total national debt that’s ensued. The fraud alone is up to 60%! They know outright that the welfare state is the new slavery.

CONSERVATIVES (REPUBLICANS): They see the meaning of the Constitution (for some of them depending if they are a RINO or not) as life and the protection of it, which means defending the people against crime, invasion, gangland murder, terrorism and yes, even abortion. That also means supporting and promoting the Second Amendment, because that’s connected to life protection as well.

LIBERTARIANS: This party is a breed apart from everyone else because it’s all three rolled into one. It’s a political origination, a political party and a political philosophy. With at least one rock star as its claim to fame – RON PAUL. But Paul couldn’t win a primary to save his life. Now, Libertarians’ view of the Constitution is focused on the word liberty and liberty alone with no responsibility or hardly any law. Some Libertarians have been known to sabotage other people’s campaigns by labeling them to be conspiracy theorists and some can be down right racist against Jews. In most cases, a lot of them go wacky ballistic on you if you disagree with them on anything.


One of the many disagreements with Libertarians that I have is over their policy of legalized, life destroying recreational drugs like pot or making hookers legal. Now, they say they are all for a smaller government and that these two vices are victimless crimes (no such thing) that could be legalized and then the government could… 1. tax it like cigarettes and 2. create a new agency to regulate it. What could go wrong?

These libertarians have just contradicted themselves all in one sentence. So, what they are say now is that it’s okay to grow government as long as they could get their dope from a 7-11. Legalizing weed would cause the following problems: more and more pot heads wouldn’t look for work, production in general would drop lower, there would be more out of wedlock children, there would be an increase in unemployment and food stamp requests and more dependency on government, more regulation and it would play into the hands of the liberals. You have just set up your own trap.


My second disagreement with the Libertarians is that they claim people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm others, but a person smoking weed and downing beer at a gun range with his AK-47 is not my idea of a safe and free person. That’s asking for trouble. Driving while stoned sounds nice in a Libertarian fantasy. The reality is it harms others and is a crime with a victim. Let’s look at the cost of the family in a Libertarian fantasy… mom and dad both smoke weed and can get it for free on their Obamacare plan as medicine. Neither one of them work because they are both stoned all day long and the kids grow up eating crap, playing video games too much and don’t go to school. They wind up in prison on and off for the rest of there lives.


Does anyone know why you mostly don’t hear too many liberals complain about how wacky Libertarians sound to them or how racist they are or how homophobic they think they are? Hmmm… Well, I will tell you why. Most of your extreme Libertarians are playing right into the hands of the radical liberal socialist left and they are just waiting for them to jump in and swim with the liberal sharks. Think about it. Making pot legal plays right into the hands of big government liberals who want more sources of people control, taxes and more regulations by creating another government agency or maybe expanding the ATF and renaming it ATFD (with the word dope at the end of that acronym).

Now, in closing to all you Libertarians out there… I don’t hate you. In fact, some are alright like JOHN STOSSEL. I love his show and he does watch out for us on many different levels. I am sure he and I would disagree on many things, but he’s a good guy. Even GLENN BECK is Libertarian on some things, but not on others. That’s just fine. I am a BECK fan anyway. This article goes out to the big L extreme libertarians who fall under their own spell and are not willing to accept any disagreements or opposing points of view when they come up. I mean, come on! Isn’t that what liberals do? You have united your people, but this last election you were more divisive then Obama and you should have backed Romney. He was the better choice on most levels and could have brought a crushing defeat to Obama, no matter your disagreements with Romney. Hell, I disagreed with Romney on a few things, but he also weakened during the last half of his campaign. That was a major factor in his loss. Obama was the better campaigner.


‘I guess we should start suing’ — Aunt of Fallen Marine Says

By: Bob McCarty

Two days ago, I used this site to ask the kind of question a younger, more idealistic me might have considered anti-American and, perhaps, even subversive: Should Families of US Soldiers Be Allowed to Sue Dept of Defense? After I shared that question on Facebook, I heard from a woman with a vested interest in the question.

LCpl Greg Buckley Jr., USMC

MaryLiz Grossetto is the aunt of LCpl. Greg Buckley Jr., a 21-year-old Marine from Oceanside, N.Y., who died Aug. 10, 2012, as the result of a “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) Attack waged by an Afghan “ally” wearing the uniform of his country. On Saturday afternoon, she commented on an item I had posted on the Facebook page dedicated to her nephew. Excerpts from her response appear below with only minor edits:

Bob, if you had asked anyone in my family that question a year ago I’m pretty sure the answer would have been “NO.”

What a difference a year makes!

A year ago, I would have thought, “God forbid something happens, that’s the risk you were willing to take.”

Of course, a year ago I was under the mistaken impression that this country was doing all it could to protect & provide for our military. Sadly, today I know that is not the case. This administration is more concerned with how the Afghans will perceive things than making sure our own men are as safe as possible.

Ms. Grossetto has come to understand a lot during the year since her nephew died. Later in her response, she asked and answered some pointed questions:

Did we take measures to ensure our military would be safe? Did we order our men to carry loaded weapons at all times? Did we provide “Guardian Angels” to watch over our soldiers when they were most vulnerable? NO! WHY? Because we were too busy handing out pamphlets & ordering our soldiers to attend “culture & sensitivity training” so our heroes would not “offend” Afghans.

Did we use the best, most advanced equipment when it came to vetting these Afghan soldiers / police? NO!

Have we thoroughly investigated what happened to Extortion 17? NO!

Have we investigated & spoken the truth about Benghazi? NO!

She concluded her response this way:

So, in answer to your question, I guess we should start suing. Maybe that will help this administration get it’s priorities in order! Until Then, God Help Us All!

Most Americans, I fear, are more like Ms. Grossetto was before she lost her nephew in Afghanistan. They remain largely unaware of the hardships facing American men and women in uniform, and unaware of how many of those hardships stem from misguided decisions made by top government leaders.

After reading my latest book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, and recognizing how I had connected the dots between three memos — including one issued by James R. Clapper Jr., now the nation’s top intelligence official — and hundreds of American casualties resulting from Green-on-Blue Attacks, Ms. Grossetto offered her endorsement of the book.

Four others — among them a former U.S. Navy SEALs commander, a former U.S. Army general, the parents of a member of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL TEAM SIX and the man who served as chief investigative counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton — have read the book and offered similarly-powerful endorsements.

After reading THE CLAPPER MEMO, I think you’ll find yourself in agreement with those who’ve endorsed the book. It’s available in paperback and ebook versions.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.