Monday, September 25, 2017

This is a rant I posted on Facebook in response to a call to Boycott the NFL or player protests.

I posted this on Facebook after someone on my friends list posted a page calling for a boycott of the NFL. The sponsor of the page was a racist organization. I support the players protest as I know their cause is just, it is for Social Justice.For those of you who want to boycott the NFL because the players protest social injustice, feel free. Most, near 90 percent, of those who want to boycott the NFL are white , openly racist, or closet racist, who believe everything a lying sack of crap says, a man who thinks Nazis and KKK are fine people. You know what? You can still be upset about the players not standing for the National Anthem and watch football, but you want to hurt the players because they are black so how dare they stand up for social justice. All you guys want is your Guns, God, and a flag yo insult every damn day when you fly the Confederate Flag. How messed up is it that you people who are upset about black people protesting social injustice get so upset when someone comments about you flying a flag of a vanquished foe, a symbol of racism of a culture that fought to keep slavery? You are freaking hypocrites each and everyone of you. What is really stupid is that you try to justify flying the flag of an enemy of the United States by saying it is your first amendment right. I guess Charlottesville was something you applaud? Because that is what the Nazis and KKK guys said they were doing. I guess you think the young lady who died marching against racism "got what she deserved?" Yeah, in your hearts you are saying that. You want the players to keep their mouths shut like your ancestors did and just do their job. Not the same thing you say because they get paid? Bull, you want them to behave and perform for your entertainment because you don't see them as human, you believe that all black people are good for one thing, physical activity and are intellectually inferior to white people. Well let me tell you something. I have met many a black person who were way more intelligent than me and my intelligence puts most of you on my friends list to shame so what does that tell you. Now this is not addressed to all my friends, just to some of you who post some racist centered bull crap about NFL players protesting and posting defense of the Confederate Flag and statues. You're freaking hypocrites. I have served this country. I have served under the flag of this country and respect it but I figured out something long ago. You don't fight for the flag, you fight for the country and what makes up the country, the people, the constitution. I have been in places you cannot imagine and slept next to the most destructive weapon known to man, all so you can be free to enjoy that freedom as set forth by the constitution. One of those rights is the right to protest. You complain if black people protest no matter how they protest, marching or kneeling during the Anthem. Guess what? I served for them to do that, people have died so they can do that. You say they are disrespecting the flag when they don't stand for the National Anthem. The National Anthem did not come about until the 20th Century, 140 years after the Declaration of the founding of this country and about 110 years after the poem "The Defense of Fort McHenry" was written by Francis Scott Key. Most of you could not find Fort McHenry on a map yet alone say why it was so important.
Our founding fathers would side with the players and be ashamed of all of you that want them silenced. Heck, they would probably tell you to take certain things you find patriotic and tell you to stick them with where the son doesn't shine. Your allegiance is to a song? To a flag? Or to the country? Hell most of you haven't served your country but try to ride on the backs of your ancestors who did using their sacrifice to justify you as being patriotic. BS. What makes you patriotic is loving your country, your fellow citizens, and respecting the constitution and the rights guaranteed to all whether you like it or not.
So If you want to boycott the NFL snowflake go ahead, go to your safe spot so the big bad people protesting for social justice cannot hurt your feelings. Isn't that along the lines of what you tell Democrats if they get upset? Funny, the babies with the thinnest skin seem to be Trump supporters. Just like your leader, can't take anyone other than a white person in charge or speaking freely, think a gun makes you big and bad, throws a fit if you can't get your way, and just immature as hell.
Why did I post this? Because I say someone on my friends list post a racist boycott the NFL page. Right now I just block the site. If I keep seeing posts I know are from racist websites Then I will probably block you. How do I know they are racist backed? I research them because I don't trust everything on Facebook or the internet. Guess how many of those websites are sponsored by racist organizations or Russian interests meant to divide America? A lot.


Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Alt-right can stuff the heritage BS because they don't care for other people's heritage

"It's part of our heritage and we have to fight to preserve it," this is an argument that the Alt-right likes to make in their argument to keep Statues of confederate leaders. What a crock of crap! It is totally bogus.  I will tell you why here in a bit but I have to ask this. Why the hell would anyone want to honor traitors, racists, and losers of a war that cost the lives of more Americans than any other war? It's stupid.
Ok, to the Alt- right the only heritage that matter is "white heritage" actually "white Anglo Saxon Christian heritage." If you are a minority and want to celebrate your cultural heritage of your ancestors you are guaranteed to get this from the Alt-Right, " You are in America now! Get with the program or get out!" If you are of any religion other than Christian in America the Alt-right response is this, "This country was founded by Christians for Christians!" Apparently the Alt-right failed history and has no clue about the first amendment, which is easy to believe since they misinterpreted the Second Amendment all the time. And by the way I am Christian but I believe in freedom of religion for all religions because if one goes the rest are not far behind and before you know it we will be forced to worship a huge orange racist blob.
Let's look at an event from 2016-2017 to see just how BS the "heritage " argument used by the Alt-right is bogus. The Dakota access  pipeline , was routed through land the Native Americans of The Standing Rock Reservation considered part of their heritage, did the Alt-Right care about their heritage? No, they were part of the group who thought it was great to use water cannons and tear gas to remove the protestors, the enjoyed seeing the protestors being hurt. So the Alt-Right can stuff their heritage argument, it is totally bogus. The heritage the Alt-right wants to protect is one of hate and racism.

What 52 means to me.

If I asked you what 52 meant to you, you would probably say "the number of cards in a deck." True, that is one answer but it would not be the answer I would give nor others like me. You see, I am a United States Submarine Veteran and to me "52" represents the number of American submarines lost in WWII. It is obvious that I am way too young to have served in WWII, but like other submariners I care a lot about the history and traditions of the Silent Service.
52 boats, that is what we call Submarines instead of the term ship, departed their home ports to take the fight to the enemy. 52 crews, totaling 3506 souls set out to sea to defend their country. 3506 men left families and friends at home praying for their safe return.
Between the here and there, the beginning and end of the war patrol, the ugly hand of war wielding scissors sharpened by evil, snipped the strings of life of each man. Fate to live, fate to die, the coin flip result would make anyone cry.
These brave men doing their duty, for God, Country, family, and friends gave their all and did so in such away most can never know nor understand. Locked in the belly of a mechanical beast, down at depth sunlight will never reach, they gave their last.
What makes these men special? They knew to do their duty they had to put themselves in a situation most would dread. The dark cold depths of the sea held back by a skin of metal under tremendous pressure. Knowing that at anytime a depth charge could explode close aboard and rupture the hall, allowing that cold dark sea into the boat sending her and her crew to the bottom, never to see sunlight again.
Imagine trying to keep the worst possible fate out of your mind as you went about your duty. Imagine depth charge after depth charge shaking the heck out of the boat, pipes springing leaks, equipment and lighting being knocked out and all the while knowing there is nothing you can do to stop the endless pounding except to keep quite in the hope the enemies sonar loses contact or they give up thinking your dead. I can say I would be frightened beyond belief and would pray. I would pray I could do my job because if I didn't, it could be the mistake that would mean the destruction of the boat, her crew, and myself. I cannot imagine the thoughts of those submariners when they realized their boat was mortally wounded and there was no chance of escape.
I have great appreciation and love for all submariners, especially those that gave their lives defending their country.
Now I served on modern nuclear submarines, but somethings don't change. Submarines operate underwater, the depths are still dark, cold, and there is the pressure of the water trying to crush the hull. I never had to face a depth charging, thank God, I never experienced an onboard casualty that jeopardized the boat. I witnessed some fire onboard, hydraulic and high pressure air ruptures, the occasional "leak" of seawater, and the odd accident or two, but never have I come close to experiencing what the crews of the 52 submarines lost in World War Two faced. Even those that returned from patrols in WWII endured things many modern day submariners could not in the same situation. Yes, I probably would crap and piss myself if I had to ride out an hours long depth charge barrage, most people would.
Something else about the Submarine force of WWII. The silent service suffered the highest casualty percentage of all the armed forces, 1 in 5 submariners did not make it home. 16,000 submariners in the war and 3506 perished.
So what does 52 mean to me? 52 ships, 52 crews, that gave their all.

I cannot end this without acknowledging those submariners that never returned and are on eternal patrol in Peace time, we lost submariners before the war and after. We lost 2 nuclear submarines in the 1960s with all hands. We had people die onboard either from accident or medical issue. Even in Peace time, there is still a risk you will not return from patrol.

Monday, August 21, 2017

The true purpose of Trump's Afghanistan strategy speech

Trump's speech on Afghanistan: blah, blah, blah, will continue to pursue the same policy of my predecessors, but I you will believe it is new because I said it.


The real purpose of the speech was the beginning part, it was his way to address the nation and apologize without apologizing for his comments from last Tuesday's news conference. And the sad thing, many people will buy it.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

My Christian view of Donald Trump and those that follow him blindly.

I want the reader to understand that I am a Christian and will not deny that. I can't condemn anyone, I can only condemn myself if I condemn another.
Those that call the Trump-Russia investigation are those same people that believe Trump is the person that will bring the country back to God. Trump has done nothing that reflects Christ. Trump has conned and misled many Christians, and he has done so in a heinous way, by praying on fears, by using a devil tongues to sweet talk people desperate for a sign, and yet the fruits that he has produced are opposite of what Christ would want, against his teachings. God desires mercy but Trump condemnation of those he does not like, he even wanted 5 innocent men to die. God said love thy neighbor but Trump wants Americans to hate their neighbors. Trump even tries to pass the fruit of hate, that of hate groups, as good. The Lord spoke of the women who gave from "her poverty" and that she would be remembered. Trump will not even give from his riches, he uses other people's money and claims credit, he will be remembered as a thief who takes from the infirm, the old, the widow, and the orphan.
Christ spoke about how the teachers of the law in his day and how things will be for them at judgement because despite knowing better they still kept doing what is wrong and spread a teaching that was wrong.
Christ spoke about how he was not bringing peace to the world but a sword, division instead of unity. This teaching is often used wrongly by atheists to say Christianity is violent. It is also used wrongly by those that call themselves Christians to justify attacks on non-believers. The sword Christ meant was the "Word" that would bring a reckoning to the teachers of the law, a message of forgiveness, of mercy, that was different from the teachings of condemnation, of slavery to rules of man who used them to hold power over the people. Those that accepted the teachings of Christ, the Son of Man, The Son of God, were a threat to those who wanted to hold onto the yoke that they, in truth, could not bear themselves.
Much is the same today, except now we have those that see Christ's teachings as forgiveness, of mercy, and the way. We also have those who try to use the Bible to condemn, to justify deaths, to rob those that sin, and we all have, the chance at the Lord's forgiveness and mercy. A sinner can repent, a dead man cannot, then why would we wish death or pray for the death of sinners, if by their dying they are denied the chance at forgiveness, even at the last moment like the thief on the cross.
I am a sinner, I can judge no one. We all are sinners and can judge no one. We can judge what is sinful and what is not, but we cannot condemn that person, only the sin. We can pray for the sinner, and we can lead by example spreading the gospel to those in need of the word, but we cannot, and should not condemn them. If we condemn a person who later repents how will that reflect on us when time for our judgment comes.
To me Trump is the opposite of Christ and unless he changes, and those that follow him blindly believing he will lead them to god, them will condemn themselves for all those they themselves condemned.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Danger this weekend.

This weekend will see violence in many cities across the country because the Alt-Right (white supremacists) have taken Donald Trump's press conference today as validation. People following Alt-Right websites and their social networks have turned up startling evidence about what is planned and how they want to provoke, Frame, or harass counter protestors. 
Florida, specifically Gainesville, White Supremacist have planned a rally and will be armed. Communication threads show conversations between numerous people who plan on attending talking about Florida being a "Stand your ground" state and if they receive the slightest provocation or can get a counter protestor to say, "I'll kill you" they will shoot that person. They want to start a civil war in America and they are prepared to do it. They want to take control of the government or have Trump declare martial law to get rid of anyone not supporting them. Think because your white you are safe? Wrong. No one is safe from their discrimination and hate.
White Supremacists want "pure European blood" if your ancestry isn't pure, you will be a target for them.
White Supremacists are into eugenics, meaning they don't like people with disabilities or birth defects. Like the German Nazis they believe in forced sterilization and abortions for those they consider inferior.
White Supremacists discriminate against white people if they do not adhere to their political or religious views. They don't like Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, any sect of Christianity that doesn't adhere to their doctrine.
White Supremacists hate gay people and think they are more than just immoral but a failure in genetics. If you have a family member who is gay, they will consider you have faulty genes and could produce gay children.
Not every person of European descent is considered Arryan so they are inferior mongrels. Polish people are and example and a few other Eastern European countries.
White Supremacists hate native Americans and those with Native American ancestry.
White Supremacists hate people of Hispanic descent.
White Supremacists hate Asians, Africans, anyone.
White Supremacists do not believe in peaceful resolution of issues despite the fact that individually they are cowards, in groups they are brave and dangerous, much like animals.
White Supremacists fund much of their activities through drugs, like meth which is their drug of choice to deal in.
A good number of White Supremacists have done time in prison and cannot legally own a gun. Some pass instructions on on how to get around gun sale laws by making their own guns. I am not talking about crude zip guns, but AR-15s, AR-9s (an AR-15 chambered in 9mm), reassembling demilled foreign military guns, 1991s, and even guns used in WWII such as the grease gun (submachine gun chambered for .45ACP) and the British Sten Gun. These are called ghost guns. They can make any of these guns by either milling a receiver from scratch or ordering what is called an 80% receiver which is a receiver completed up to 80 percent so it can be sold without a license or background check. FYI for those that don't know, the receiver (lower receiver in the case of AR-15s) is the part of a gun that is regulated by the fire arms act because it is where the serial number is located. You can buy the rest of the parts without a background check, yes, barrel, fire control group, everything but the receiver in a completed form. (Or greater than 80 percent completed.)

Now, who do you think is more dangerous to law enforcement, counter protestors or white supremacists? Who is more dangerous to you? If you think white Supremacists aren't the real danger to this country , you will change your mind after this weekend if things happen the way these White Supremacists plan.

Monday, August 14, 2017

A personal experience with "southern confederate heritage."

I am about 6 months shy of 50 years on this earth and 50 years as an American. In those years I have been witness to many acts of racism, from name calling to discrimination in the Navy, I have a reputation for calling it out. In the Navy I was harassed for calling out a group of racists trying to keep a minority from qualifying a watch station. I received notes telling me to kill myself, and an orange peel, cut out to say "kill" on my bunk. This was in the early 90s on a Trident Submarine. Yes, racists do slip through the cracks and get into the military. This was a scary time, but it was not as bad as an experience I endured growing up in a small town in Northern Florida.
Let me tell you a little background information about myself. I am white, my father is from Kansas and my Mother is from Florida. My dad was stationed at Wright-Patterson Airforce base, Ohio when I was born. After my father retired in 1973 we spent some time living in Missouri before moving to Northwest Florida. The first town we lived in was not too bad really, but the second town we moved to turned into a nightmare for me for the first few years.
The town was steeped in the "Southern Confederate heritage " so to speak. I found this out when I started school in 5th grade. When other kids found out I was born in Ohio, the north, they started calling me "yankee", "yankee boy", "n lover" whatever they could think of at the time. This was not how the majority of the kids behaved, they would sometimes jokingly call me yankee and I would remind them that the " Yankees won", but a number of others were down right mean about it. Why? Because they were taught to be this way by their fathers, a couple of the fathers were known to belong to the KKK. This bullying increased as the school year went on until a seemingly unrelated situation pushed it over the edge.
My brother happened to like this girl in his sixth grade class that one of my bullies liked. When the bully found out my brother, the brother of a yankee, like this girl and she liked him back, well he got upset and took it out on me. After Christmas or so we moved to a house my dad bought that happened to be near a small retirement community four miles outside the town, and a block away from the girl my brother liked. This really pushed the bully over the top and he recruited other boys of the confederate heritage club, not a real club I am just calling them that. During recess the would cull me away from the other kids and away from the teacher to an area of the playground blocked from view by a pine tree and a live oak. I would be put in a headlock by one, thumped in the head by the rest while the mini grand wizard would threaten to kill me if my brother didn't leave his girl alone. This was the 5th grade for Pete sake, girlfriends? Although the bully and his buddies had been held back a couple of years. Of course they threatened to kill me and my family if I told anyone, and being a kid I believed they would so I kept my mouth shut. Plus I was a skinny kid so I didn't think I had much of a chance fighting off 4 boys who were bigger than me.
Well, I didn't give into the demand to tell my brother to to stop hanging around the girl. One day on the playground I forgot to stick near the teacher and before I knew it I was jumped on, mouth covered and carted off to the blind area of the playground and a jungle gym shaped like the Mercury Space capsules. The lead bully kept saying I was about to die and since I was a yankee they would get away with it, because everyone in town hated Yankees and his family knew people. I was punched in the gut as I tried to get away. One kid brought a yellow nylon rope some was used to tie my hand behind my back the rest he tied it into a slip knot they placed around ver head as I writhed trying to get away. The biggest and strongest boy lifted me as another tied the rope to the top bar of the jungle gym. Then they let go, stood and watched as I struggled to somehow get free but all it did was tighten the rope which began to cut into my neck. I don't know how long they watched me because Imwas in pure panic, I knew I was about to die and there was nothing I could do, I was so high off the ground the tips of my toes barely touched. Finally I heard someone approach, a friend of mine who wondered where I went off to and when he heard me choking he came to see what was going on. I don't know if his approach scared of the bullies, all I know was I was greatly relieved when my friend used his little pocket knife to cut me down. Yes, back then no one thought much of a kid having a pocket knife at school. As soon as I was freed my friend took me in tears of terror and pain to our teacher. We told her what happened and showed her the rope burns on my neck. We were then taken to the principal's office where I agin explained my story in tears and showed him the rope burns. What was his response, "Boys will be boys" and " I had an overactive imagination and that it was rough housing and the other boys would not have let me die." What? That's what I wanted to know. What was this guy thinking. Things were swept under the rug, the bullies talked to and told to stay away from me.
Me, I was just left to deal with it on my own. My parents were angry but we were outsiders new to the town so they were ignored. You see in small southern towns, back then and now to some extent, if you were considered an outsider then in situations like this you were guaranteed not to get any help. My dad then told my brothers and I that if that is the way things were going to be, then we had permission to defend ourselves at school. If someone else started something then it was okay for us to finish it since the school principal sure wasn't going to do it. In a matter of weeks my brothers let it be known that we were not going to stand for small town pick on the new guys and Southern confederate BS, my brothers took care of their own bullies and mine. I still dreaded school, still have a bit of a scar on my neck, and I don't like anyone to put there hand around my neck. I hate all things Confederate, I hate the damn confederate flag with a passion. From that moment on I chose not to tolerate racism, bullies, or anything along that lines. I felt the terror of thinking my life was over and that of being helpless, a victim of hate and ignorance and I was not going to sit down and take it.
I did teach myself a few things, did some boxing, and had one of my brothers friends show me some moves he learned taking karate though I cannot remember the style now. I ended up having a few fights because someone thought because I was skinny I could be bullied, they ended up finding out that was not the case. I never ended up on the losing side of a fight, but I always ended crying. Why? Because I hate hurting people, I hate violence. I do love, or use to love watching boxing, but it is no longer a sport like it was back in the day.
I am nearly 50, and I am still haunted by an experience on a playground decades ago. I am still haunted by memories of being hanged by bullies, racist children taught to be that way by their parents who believe in the abhorrence that is southern confederate heritage, a polite term for White Supremacy, for racism. I will do anything I can to protect others from what I endured and from what I think is morally wrong, UnAmerican, unchristian, a crime against humanity, the scourge that is racism.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

What makes America Great.

If you throw a hissy fit because a NFL player sits during the National Anthem, and think Charlottesville Alt-right gathering was to protect heritage and statues, then you are part of the problem. Here is why.
Stop treating the National Anthem like it has been around since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it wasn't written until 1814. The music is actually an old British Drinking song. The song wasn't adopted as the National Anthem until 1936. It is a symbol that I honor, but a person can choose not to and that is their right.
The pledge of Allegiance is another thing wasn't adopted until 1945 and "Under God" wasn't added until 1954. In truth the founding fathers would probably objected to an Pledge of Allegiance because it smacks to much of a monarchy or authoritarianism. If they would have written a pledge they would have made a few different choices and probably left out "Under God" because of their belief in Freedom of religion.
We have people who say we have to have "In God we Trust " on our money yet many of these same people put their Trust in Guns over God, shameful. I believe and support the second amendment but I will never put my trust in a gun when I have God. Even if I were armed and in a confrontation I would still put my trust in God to let me make the right decision, you cannot take back a bullet so listen to God first.
Statues, Statues of military leaders who took up arms against their own country are being worshipped by people who call themselves " patriots" yet they fly a flag that fought against The United States. Like Lincoln said, and he quoted Christ, "A house, divided against itself, cannot stand." And like Christ said," a man cannot serve two masters." Do you know how many countries allow flying of a flag of a vanquished enemy or defeated tyranny? America is about the only one. Even in Germany the Nazi flag is despised. How many Hitler, Goebbels, Goehring, Von Runestead, Rommel, or any other military leader from Nazi Germany are located in Public places in Germany? Zero why? Not because they think it erases the past but because they don't want to give Neo-Nazis a memorial, a shrine to worship at.
Do you think all these Statues in Southern States were put up after the Civil War? No, they were not. When were they put up? Try around the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights era. Why? Because a bunch of White People in charge wanted to send a message that no matter what the rest of the country says, they would always hold onto their "Southern Traditions." Do you know what "Southern Tradition " they were talking about? It wasn't cooking, it wasn't church going, it wasn't anything like that, it was the belief they held that "White People" are superior to Black People, and "Blacks should know and stay in their place."
Now those monuments have become shrines, rallying points for not just people who want to hold onto heritage, but to the KKK, Nazis, Neo Confederates, and every other racist group. There is no place in America for such hate, and there shall be no monuments to those who fought to keep people as slaves, one of the most vile institutions in history.
Think I am UnAmerican after reading this? You are wrong. I love my country and I know what makes it great, not a flag, not words, not a song, but people, people of all races and religions that make this country great.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

My opinion about racist protests.

Today I witnessed police officers, many of them black, have to face off against two groups. One group based on racism and hate, the other people against what the alt- right stands for, evil. I am sure those officers were called names by both sides and that is wrong, but one side can be blamed. White supremacists have no place in America, they are Un American and are not patriots but racist terrorists.
I, and probably anyone who served on a Ballistic Missile submarine or any part of this country's strategic weapons force, have been called some hateful names by protestors like "baby killers", but that was because of our job not are skin color. You can protest against policy, against nuclear weapons, against nuclear power, against anything, but you cannot protest against people because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or things along those lines because you are attacking people and not a policy, that is wrong. Racism is hatred, it is a choice a person has made to hate someone because of nothing more than skin color, it is there personal policy and when they choose to impose that on others, to spread hate, it is the right of all Americans to oppose that policy in the form of protest. Hate has no purpose but to breed evil, because it is born of evil. Racism is hate and shall not go unchallenged!

Thursday, August 10, 2017

If you like Trump's approach to North Korea, I hope you like Strontium 90

Strontium-90, ever hear of it? Maybe if you're older or work in the nuclear field but I bet most have not. It's a byproduct of nuclear fission like from a nuclear weapon detonation, it is radioactive. Before the above ground test ban people downwind from nuclear tests were exposed to Strontium-90. Studies of downwinders, those that were exposed to the most fallout have suffered an increase in rates of leukemia and bone cancer. 
Why the increase in leukemia and bone cancer? Because Strontium is a close relative, periodic table speaking, to calcium and therefore the human body will treat it like calcium so it will be deposited in bones and teeth. Once in the body strontium will emit radiation as it undergoes decay and that radiation will damage other cells, genetic damage leading to bone cancer and/or leukemia. Remember, bone marrow plays a large part in production of blood cells, including lymphocytes a type of white blood cells.
But how does strontium-90 enter the human body? It can be inhaled or ingested, mostly it is ingested. Strontium-90 can contaminate water and plant matter like grass, grains, vegetables. Cow's milk is a big source of strontium-90 after a nuclear accident or nuclear war. Cows will eat grass that is contaminated by strontium-90 which then is excreted as part of milk in place of some of the calcium normally found in milk. The consumption of grass and the production of milk concentrates the strontium-90 making for a radioactive milkshake. This is why they warned people during the Cold War not to consume dairy products after a nuclear attack.
Even though strontium-90 contaminated parts of America during the above ground testing days it was not a large problem like it would be in the case of a nuclear war, even a limited one. There is a large difference in detonating a nuclear warhead every now and then in the desert or on an isolated island than multiple war heads exploding within minutes or hours over cities. With cities you increase fallout from debris made of material that was once, buildings, bridges, cars, trees, animals, and even people. That dust will be sucked up in the mushroom clouds and smoke from fires and spread for miles around, pretty much all over the earth. That fallout will be guaranteed to contain strontium-90 and other radioactive mater, which will then contaminate everything, including farms. For years on end, if you survive, every bit of produce you consume will be contaminated with radioactive material. Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28.8 years, meaning in 28.8 years half of the material will decay into another element, yttrium-90 which itself is radioactive.
Adults are at less risk of bone cancer or leukemia, but children, whose bones are developing, are at great risk, especially babies and toddlers. It is not just dairy you would have to look out for, you would have to worry about your child playing outside, or even if fallout was tracked into your house that would contaminate the rugs and floors where kids spent most of their time playing.

Why am I writing this? To let you know that if you think Trump is handling the North Korean situation the right way you should expect to have to deal with the after effects. It is too late to stop North Korea from gaining nukes, the only option left is to use the policy used during the Cold War, MAD, Mutual assured destruction. You attack us we attack you and no one wins. This is how the Cold War went and even though we claim close to Nuclear War, diplomacy won out. It will take the same diplomacy today. Either that, or deal with Strontium-90 and the other radioactive bad guys.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

My rant about Trump! He is crazy!

Trump-Russia investigation is now being considered a criminal investigation and not just a counter intelligence investigation.
All you law enforcement people out there know that judges do not grant search warrants without probable cause. They don't just say "I will take your word on it. Here is your warrant." And a predawn raid is not that common in a case like this one where it is just documents being seized. The Federal Judge had to be convinced Paul Manafort, Trump's one time campaign manager with close ties to Russia, had something he wasn't sharing before he signed off on the search warrant. I guarantee the FBI provided intelligence to back up their request.
After all that has happened with evidence mounting and getting closer to Trump himself, does law enforcement still endorse Trump? Consider that the evidence is starting to reveal Trump just didn't deal with Russian mafia, that is what the Russian Oligarchs truly are, but he most likely helped launder money for drug cartels, governments that support terrorism, and other criminal organizations through his real estate development company, The Trump Organization. Just FYI, the MS-13 gang Trump says he is trying to get rid of deal  and run drugs for those same cartel people Trump has had real estate dealings with. Not fake news, actual facts. Trump deals in real estate and that is the business easiest to launder money because transactions can still be done in cash, unlike other banking and investments which are screened to determine if the money is for criminal or terrorism purposes. I am sure that loophole will be closed after all the information on Trump's financial dealings discovered during this investigation are laid-upon the table.
How else do you think Trump went from being bankrupt and owing 900 million dollars to where he is, or says he is? Good deal making? Heck no. Except for his real estate business and marketing his name, his other ventures have ended in failure or bankruptcy. Now how did Trump survive the 2007 financial and real estate collapse when bigger businesses folded? Trump, according to himself and his sons before they  changed the story, were doing most of their business during this time with Russia. Sorry, there own words from interviews prior to Trump running for president prove this.
Now consider also how Trump said he would use his own money to fund his campaign but financial filing with the election commission show this to be far from the truth and he actually never forgave the loans, most anyway, he gave to his campaign. That money, his money, will be proven to have originated from dealings with people that law enforcement would normally despise because it is from criminal activity. Heck, the owners of Hobby-Lobby, a Trump donor, bought stolen antiquities from Iraq. Guess who stole them and sold them? ISIS of all people. No I don't think the owners of Hobby Lobby knew ISIS was behind it all, but they definitely knew it was illegal when they did it and those that were dealing with were criminals. How many soldiers may have died from weapons bought from the money from the sale of those antiquities? Hobby-Lobby, we don't want to pay for birth control or support abortion but we don't mind buying stolen goods that may help kill Americans. I hate hypocrites.
Evangelicals are not high on my list now because they support Trump unwavering though the man has shown time and time again his behavior far from Christian. And Dr. Robert Jeffress saying that the Bible gives Trump the Moral Authority to take out Kim Jung-Un, is about the most far from Christ's teachings there could ever be. I mean how does it match up to "Blessed are the peacemakers..." or " Turn the other cheek "? Not all. I believe that N.K. Should not have nuclear weapons. I can tell you that there are no good military options to change that. N.K. Knows if they attack anyone it would mean the end of the regime there one way or another. Even before they had Nuclear weapons they threatened to invade South Korea with there "overwhelming military " but they never did, they never do. Sometimes they do little raids, but they know anything more will be their end. And even before N.K. Developed nukes they could have overrun S.K. With conventional forces alone, but they knew America and the World would, wipe them out because China would not support them. But if America attacks first, China will support N.K. Trump says China is not doing enough, trust me they are. When China conducts a live missile fire exercise off the N.K. Coast it is not to show support from Kim Jung-Un it is to show exactly who is in charge and N.K. Better get in line. So Evangelicals can stop encouraging Trump to take actions that will kill millions of people, including Americans.

To some up my rant. Trump-Russia is a real investigation and not a witch hunt. The investigation is now a criminal one too. Not only is it quite possible the investigation shows Trump dealing with Russian mafia, but past criminal activities like laundering money for drug cartels, terrorist groups, etc.
Law enforcement should now pull their endorsement of Trump. Evangelicals need to Un endorse Trump and quit treating him like he is a savior, there is only one and that is Christ Jesus himself. Evangelicals need to stop encouraging Trump to go to war with North Korea because many will die, millions, not just from the war itself but the fallout from the war. Children in America, young ones will be most at risk to suffer the effects of radioactive fallout all over the world. Want to hold your child's hand while they endure chemotherapy for leukemia? Remember that the same President who can cause this to happen is the same one that wants to kick millions off healthcare.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Treason should not be rewarded

we are at the point in the Trump-Russia investigation where talk of presidential pardons for players in  the collusion, no check that, treasonous dealings with Russia has hit the airwaves. Yes, the investigation being conducted by Mueller seems to be making Donald Trump nervous that he or those around maybe indicted for some crime. Heck, we already know that Jared Kushner, Attorney General Sessions, and General Flynn have more than likely committed at least one offense so far, perjury or something along that lines. Now Trump Jr. has provided the link that the campaign of Donald J. Trump was at least willing to work with Russian intelligence. Now there is a strong feeling that Russia funneled large amounts of money to Trump before the campaign and that Trump quite possibly aided in laundering of money for Russian Oligarchs, check that, Mafia. I know it is too early to know the exact details of Trump-Russia involvement or if there were any prosecutable crimes committed, but when the President start talking about pardoning his associates and himself you have to say something stinks even if you cannot see the rot.
So what happens if Trump goes on a pardoning spree? First, I don't think his pardoning himself would hold much legal water because it would mean that the president could commit any crime he wanted without any repercussions with the exception of impeachment. Second, by accepting a pardon those Trump pardons would be acknowledging their own guilt, at least that is what the Supreme Court said in Burdick V. United States in 1915. That ruling had to deal with if a person refuses a pardon is the pardon valid. Apparently this Burdick guy refused a pardon because, at least part of it, was it would be an admission of guilt and he did not want to do that for he believed he was innocent. Keep all this in mind as we proceed down this layman's analysis of this strange situation and Constitutional law road. Hang on, it's full of bumps.
Ok, let's say Trump pardons everyone, resigns, and the new President pardons the former president, what then. Trump and his minions get away with what could be the worst crime in Presidential politics. Keep in mind they received funds from Russia in the commission of the criminal act and Trump has profited from the Office. What a shaft job to the American people; well at least those of us not on the Trump Train to disaster. They should not count all that money just yet. Let's look at something Attorney General Sessions is pushing for drug cases and apply that same thing to Trump Treason, that is asset forfeiture. Sessions says that criminals should not profit from their crimes and he is right. You are saying, "But if Trump pardons people there will not be a trial so the government will not be able to seize assets." True, there will not be a "criminal trial ."
The thing about crimes, most crimes anyway, there is the criminal code part and then there is the civil part. Pardons only cover crimes. The civil part, restitution, or in this case the ill gotten gains, is a whole different ball of wax. The government has the right, and should exercise that right, to go after the profits Donald Trump and his associates made during their dealings with Russia. Trump would fight it but he would lose, and even if he were to appeal, the money would be tied up for years. Why would Trump lose? Remember that case I cited earlier on how accepting a pardon can be seen as an admission of guilt? Yes, the acceptance of the pardon would be enough to say that the profits were from a criminal act and therefore subject to civil seizure by the government. The beauty of the civil case is there is no need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", preponderance of the evidence is enough. Now think about the hundreds of millions , possibly billions of dollars, Trump and his family would lose. Even assets such as his properties owned by him and his family, even if held by the Trump organization, would be seized. After this is over, if justice prevails, Trump could go from the White House to flopping on someone's couch. So Trump can pardon himself and his associates, but in the end he will see that crime doesn't pay. Trump chose to dance with the devil and now the piper is awaiting his pay.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Interesting discovery while researching urinalysis and law enforcement

Recently, I took part in a discussion on why people receiving welfare should be subject to drug testing before they receive benefits. The discussion was set off by one of those "like if you support mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients " memes. I am one of those people who can see why there is a need for a certain program and why that system cannot be implemented without running afoul of the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment. It simple to see why there is a problem because saying the government will not help you unless you agree to drug testing could be viewed as a coercive way of having someone's 4th amendment right concerning search and seizure, unlawful ones. Still, I know there are those who use public assistance to support their drug habit and that is wrong. That argument is for another day because while reviewing the reasoning of one of the participants arguments I discovered things are not always as they seem and sometimes you find ugliness where you least expect it, law enforcement. I should not say law enforcement as a whole but a small percentage that is enough to cause concern.
The person arguing that welfare recipients undergo drug tests for welfare just like they have to to maintain their employment in law enforcement. As a former military member I know about drug testing because I was subject to the random urinalysis program all members of the military agree to when enlisting. In the Navy, and I assume it is the same for other branches of the military, a number is drawn when someone decides that a random testing is to be conducted. If your last digit of your social security number matches the number selected then you had to provide a urine sample under the watchful eye of a senior enlisted member or officer. It happened that day, under view so no one could get away with bringing in a thing of clean urine or anything to mess up the test. We were never warned in advance so there was no way to prepare beforehand. You always assumed you would called to pee everyday. I had no problem as I am quite the anti drug drug type and though I live in a state with legalized marijuana I will never partake, heck I don't even drink alcohol anymore.
Not being familiar with law enforcement policy on urinalysis, I am sure each department has their own way of handling it, I decided to research and compare the most common procedures with that of the military. I mean the person arguing that all welfare recipients undergo urinalysis made it seem like where they worked was about as strict in conducting urinalysis as the Navy. To my surprise I discovered much of the information on law enforcement and urinalysis doesn't concern the programs but methods to beat urinalysis and what not to worry about. Right now you are probably thinking one of two things: either you thinking I am anti cop and trying to slander law enforcement with bogus claims, or that I am saying cops are dirty and using drugs like meth, heroine, cocaine, or marijuana. Wrong on both accounts. First, what I found made me concerned for the safety of the public and the officers. Second, the thing I found out is that they are cops using steroids as a means of bulking up to stay on top of their job.
Where did I find this information? One, forums about bodybuilding and law enforcement. These forums can be found with Google search and since I am unclear about the legality of reprinting messages from these forums I will just paraphrase so to speak, better yet just cover the gist of the discussions. There were more than a few individuals who were concerned about if their steroid use would be detected during the preemployment intake urinalysis. I was shocked to read by the responses. First, most agencies don't test for steroids or growth hormones because of cost. Some were never tested at all. Second, most stated they were only tested once and that was the one before they were hired. The only drug they said to be concerned about were illegal narcautics. No one claimed to use illegal drugs or promoted the use thereof, only steroids and illegal supplements.
After this discovery I next searched for information on how prevalent steroids maybe in law enforcement. This lead me to this article by the Drug Enforcement Administration under the department of Justice. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/lawenforcement/
Apparently this is a known issue and the DOJ has a program to address it, but since it seems voluntary I don't think it is used much. Also I don't think that police chiefs, sheriff's and other higher up law officials are aware they may have a problem in their respective departments. I don't see those in charge promoting the use of illegal substances, steroids and growth hormones, are illegal without a prescription. Plus, steroids and growth hormones are a danger to the users health. What is the trade off? Short term strength to subdue a suspect only to suffer a premature death from the effects of steroids? I know that law enforcement officers put their lives on the line everyday but do they also need to further put their lives in danger for a rockhard intimidating body? Let's say you retire from law enforcement and now plan to kick up your heals with your family and relax. If you used steroids or growth hormones chances are that will be a short retirement and your rockhard intimidating body won't mean anything to anyone but the worms once you're lowered into the ground.
In my life I have watched a few funerals for police officers killed in the line of duty, it tears the heart out me like it does everyone else. Seeing parents burying their child, wives receiving a folded American flag, the fallen officers children who will never see their parent again or see what they do in life, it is gut wrenching. The same picture can happen to a law enforcement officer using steroids to keep up, but instead of some punk putting them in the ground it will be their own hand, unintentionally but the result and picture will be the same.
I could go into the legality of this and say that every officer who uses illegal substances like steroids are crooks but what would that do? These are the men and women who put their life on the line Day in and day out, their intention is not of malice and whose to say what we would do or feel in their place, I would wish that there would be a guiding hand and voice that would say there is a tradeoff and it is not worth it. A bruise can heal, a bad heart will fail.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Why Donald Trump wants voter data.

So Trump's voting commission wants every state to send them data on every person registered to vote. What data? All personal info plus party affiliation, voting history and military status. Why? Trump believes 3 million people voted illegally and that is why he didn't win the popular vote. Using the data he wants he can claim that any republican, military personnel, veteran, or anyone who voted for a republican in the past must have votes for him and had their vote changed. Trump thinks all republicans, veterans, military, and law enforcement love him and would not vote for Hillary Clinton,  This is Trump's motivation. His cronies? They would like to use the data to purge voters from the roles, mainly those they believe will vote democrat. One of the rights accorded to the invidual states is how they run elections from local, state, and federal. By Trump meddling in how states run their election he is walking a fine line between violating the rights of people's privacy, states rights and those of the federal government. Like one's belief system, how a person voted or votes should be treated as sacred, to do otherwise would stab at the heart of the freedom we as a country have fought for over the years. The only fraud in the last election was Trump himself.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

The USS Fitzgerald collision.

Regarding the collision of the USS Fitzgerald and the container ship. While it is too early to say exactly what happened or who is at fault there are things to be considered. It has been said that the container ship doubled back on its course before the collision for unknown reasons. If this is true it does not relieve responsibility for the collision from the Fitzgerald. Why? 
Think of safe navigation of a ship and collision avoidance like defensive driving. You always assume that the other driver will do something unexpected so you give yourself room to maneuver or stop just in case the unexpected happens. Never assume the other vessel will take action to avoid collision or will not pull a bonehead move. 
I served on submarines for 11 years and part of my job as a navigation electronics technician was to assist in the safe navigation and maneuvering of the ship, it is what we do. From the navigator who is in charge of navigation to the lowest person on the piloting party we undergo extensive training on collision avoidance. We are taught the "rules of the road" and Colregs which deal with collision avoidance. We attent piloting trainer while in off crew which is a simulator for navigating the ship in enclosed waters like entering port. We go over past collisions to see why they happened and how it could be avoided. The training continues your whole career. Why? Because one of He most dangerous things faced by a submarine or surface vessel is the act of entering or leaving port, especially in a high traffic area. We are taught to never depend on the other vessel to avoid a collision even if we have the right of way. We track every vessel, contact, around the ship and plot their course, speed, and closest approach. We have certain standing orders to maintain a safe distance from other vessel and to not let the closest predict approach come within a certain range around the ship. Above all we are taught to pay attention to detail and not slack off because the moment you do is the moment the unexpected happens. This has to be done no matter how busy a port is or how many vessels there are. If it gets real busy only vessels within a certain range are tracked, especially those that will intersect plotted course.
A submarine is unique because most of its hull is under water and that part that is not is low to the water compared to surface vessels. A submarine is not as maneuverable as surface ships so that is taken into account. We also note the type of vessels around us so we have an idea of how they maneuver. A container ship is large and is not as maneuverable as a ship such as the USS Fitzgerald so the control Party would take that into account. Allowances would have been made, or should have been made to give the container ship a wide berth. The moment when the control team saw the container ship swing around the officer of the deck should have maneuvered to put distance between the two ships. And since a container ship cannot turn on a dime there should have been plenty of time for the Fitzgerald to take evasive action unless they left it too late or allowed them to get to close to begin with. Since it seems likely that both vessels were on a similar course to begin with before the collision and the Fitzgerald was probably over taking the container ship, bridge to bridge communications should have been established with the Fitzgerald declaring her intention to over take the container ship and keep a safe distance. The vessel being overtaken has the right of way. If the Fitzgerald tried to overtake the container and the container ship maneuvered into the Fitzgerald the onus would still be on the Fitzgerald.
The Navy and other authorities will look at the logs of both vessels, examine plots, and communications to reconstruct the collision. It is sad but the fault will be placed on the USS Fitzgerald unless there are extenuating circumstances, the container ship deliberately tried to ram. If the officer on watch or others In control failed to follow procedures or were derelict in their duties they will be courts  martialed, probably for the military equivalent of manslaughter times seven.
This was a preventable tragedy and it is now up to the investigators to determine why and who is at fault. 

My thoughts and prayers are for the crew and Families of the USS Fitzgerald. And though It has been 20 years since I left the Navy, I am and will always be a sailor. These people are my shipmates just like all those who served, now serve, and will serve the Greatest Navy in the World and in History. Fair winds and following seas shipmates.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Anti-Sharia marchers are ignorant of the constitution.

The dumbest thing I have seen this weekend has to be the Anti-Shariah law marches. Why? Because it shows those taking part have no clue about the Constitution and that they fall for Alt-right fake news.
First, the first amendment. Yes alt right militia morons there is more Amendments than the second Amendment. The same amendment that allows you to march and to display your racism is the same one that undercuts your reason for your March of Ignorance. The First Amendment prevents the government from sanctioning any religion or implementation of religious laws so you can quit worrying about Muslims taking over and forcing you to abide shariah law. Cannot happen, will not happen despite what you read on Breitbart or heard on Infowars. The courts will not allow the Ten Commandments be posted in government facilities so why would they allow shariah law? By the way, part of Shariah Law is made up of the Ten Commandments, so in a way you are under Shariah law, enjoy.
Now let's address your falling for fake news saying Shariah law was being implemented in some city, according to articles you read on line. The articles are normally targeted to people in the south saying that Shariah is being implemented in Detroit or other city. And who can forget that President Obama was going to implement Shariah Law and destroy America because he was a secret Muslim. All those articles were proven false but since you believe your idiot Breitbart and InfoWars you remain ignorant. Keep drinking that Orange Koolaid and worship at the altar of Fox News and Donald Trump. By the way, If you weigh the statistical possibilities of Shariah law being put in place and Russia having a tape with Trump and Russian prostitutes, the gold shower tape clears the bar in high heels while your bogus Shariah worries don't get off the ground.
I bet you want to call me a libtard, socialist, anti-American or whatever,  Feel free. I have to tell you something first, I am a 11 veteran of the USN submarine service. I am a disabled veteran. I am pro second Amendment but I do believe that the mentally should not own guns and many of you racist paranoids should not either. I am Christian and have been one since a child. I was raised in the south and taught to love my country.  I know the constitution front to back and the history behind it. I have a cousin who is Muslim and therefore I learned a little about Islam, more than you marching for racism morons. Have I upset you yet? Feel free to leave your childish comments. And yes, I voted for  Hillary Clinton instead of your fake spray tan god, Donald "I work for Putin and love golden showers" Trump.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Louise Mensch has gone too far by accusing people in US military of hacking for Russia

I understand many people follow Louise Mensch of Twitter and read her blog because she has pushed information on the Trump Russia conspiracy. I understand people are looking for information that will show Donald Trump is about to be brought down for working with Russia. People want hope.
The thing is that Mensch is not doing what she is doing for anyone's benefit but for her own or whoever she works for now. Mensch latest claim in a tweet reply to Michael Flynn Jr. Accuses member of the military of hacking for Russia. According to Mensch, General Flynn assigned Russian hackers to DARPA. There is a problem or two with Mensch's accusation that I want to address here.
The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) is part of the Department of Defense but it is not military. DARPA is headed by a civilian. The job of DARPA is to develop new technologies to aid the military. When DARPA was founded years ago as ARPA one of its first projects was to develop a system of communication between military and research entities like colleges for sharing of information, the result was ARPANET. ARPANET would eventually become the Internet. Since its beginning DARPA has developed or aided in the development of other technologies used by the military. DARPA is technologies development and not an intelligence agency, although they do provide new technologies for intelligence gathering at times.
General Flynn was an intelligence guy while in the military rising to the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency before President Obama fired him. The Defense Intelligence Agency is exactly what its name suggests, an intelligence gathering Agency. While the DIA is part of the DOD like DARPA they are separate agencies. The military has a chain of command structure that is strictly adhered to at all times. People in charge of one command or Agency are in charge of the personnel under them. If a head of one agency wants something from another agency they have to go through the chain of command to do so, meaning they would need to communicate through the person or Agency in charge of both agencies involved. So Flynn could not just place anyone at DARPA he wanted because it is a separate agency and he would have to go through his higher ups to do so. Somehow I don't see the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary just saying, "Hey DARPA, Flynn wants you to give these guys positions in your organization."  And as for his brief time as National Security Advisor? Yeah, that would be way out of line because he would have to go through the Secretary of defense.
So why is making such wild accusations that threaten to undermine the credibility of the US military?   We can only guess. She may have thrown out DARPA because it developed the internet and she maybe under the belief that DARPA handles all military internet operations and is an intelligence agency. She could be doing what others claim she told Milo she would do, and sow chaos in liberal media by spreading fake news. She could be doing it for financial gain or fame. But for whatever reason she is doing what she is doing it is undermining the integrity of news agencies and now the military. As a veteran, I do not take kindly to people accusing our military personnel or civilians working for the military of being spies, hackers for Russia. To me that is an attack on an institution that is most American though others disagree.
If Mrs. Mensch is in possession of information that proves there are Russian hackers within the US military it is a matter of national security that should be brought to the attention of the FBI and DOD. Why hasn't she done so? Probably because it is untrue. Keep in mind Mensch was pro Brexit in her country and a right wing nationalist which is equivalent to the MAGA movement her inthe the US. Mensch worked for News Corp owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News. So why would she suddenly change? Now add this with her affiliation with Milo Yiannopolous and you will have part of the picture. Louise Mensch is not trying to help America in the search for truth in regard to the Trump Russia scandal, she is trying to muddy the waters. The one thing she was correct on, she has been wrong most of the time, was most likely given her to establish credibility to gain followers. If you want to catch fish you need good bait and not an empty hook. Now that Mensch has hooked a few she will slowly reel them in and before they know it, it will be too late. Mensch can walk away and head back to the U.K after she's done, the people she conned will be left here to deal with the turmoil she leaves behind.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Thinking only men commit mass killings and terrorism is a big mistake.

please read previous post.
I ended up in a debate with a group of women on Facebook regarding men and violence. The belief shared by this group is that all mass killings and terrorist actions are conducted by men. If the intelligence and anti terrorism community operate just on that belief we are screwed. I know for a fact that they do not, or at least most do not.
I am someone that doesn't believe in absolutes when it comes to human behavior. Why? Because we are complicated. To say all people of a particular gender, race, religion or any other group is guaranteed to act a certain way all the time is wrong. To take on such a narrow outlook leads to sexism, racism, and stereotyping. What is funny about the group of people taking the stance that men are responsible for violence is that if you were to make a similar comment about women they will come at you with the "sexist " guns a blazing. You see to them women are equal to men but share none of the same faults.
It is a given that men have committed more violent acts than women, but that is not the same thing as saying men are responsible for violence. When it comes down to it, women can be as brutal as men. I was pointing out that it would be a mistake to believe women would never commit and act of terrorism or mass killings. Every time I tried to get the point across that it is the philosophy, the belief system, that determines the if a person would commit an act of terrorism I had the recent Manchester attack and 9/11 thrown at me. I am a student of history and I know of  incidents in the past where women committed acts of terrorism so I pointed this out. What happened? I was told to go back and read up on history. Apparently they need to do that. Maybe I made the mistake of using examples from the '60s and '70s. Yes, I used female Vietcong, the Red Army Faction that had women members who conducted terrorist acts. I even pointed out female suicide bombers in the Middle East. No, to them it's an all male terrorism club and men are responsible for violence. No logical point would get through the "men have to stop violence." When logic meets the immovable illogical wall the best move is to walk away. It became very apparent that these women did not like men and blamed men for all the worlds problems. My answer? Eye roll, sigh, unfollow and block. I have no room for people who claim to be open minded but turn out to be as closed minded as the people they claim are closed minded.
I am correct that it is a mistake to think women do not commit acts of terrorism. Women have done so in the past and will do so in the future. The problem is women are more likely to be overlooked as terrorists and therefore trusted by the people they are targeting. In Iraq, Syria, Turkey and other places women have carried out suicide attacks. In 2004, Debra Zedalis of the Army War College wrote a paper that examined the female suicide bomber and their danger. ( I sent the leader of the Twitter Discussion a link to Zedalis's paper before I blocked her. I hope she enjoys that read.) I pray that those in charge keep the paper in mind when they plan out anti-terrorism strategies. While women have yet to conduct an attack on the scale of 9/11 and more recent attacks to say they are not capable or will not carry out such an attack will end up costing lives, tens, hundreds, or even thousands. My point was not to defend men, it was to shed light of a danger lurking under sexist ignorance.

A defining characteristic of terrorism is man? No it is philosophy

On twitter I noticed an interaction between two people discussing that terrorism and other acts of violence have something in common, men. One can look at history and point out violence and link men as the most common factor, mainly because men have dominated society for thousands of years, but does that mean men are responsible for every terrorist act because they are men? No, what defines how people treat others is their philosophy. Left alone to his own devices without external influence a man will seek to survive and live as best they can. The same goes for women. As you increase the number of people a society develops that links these people. As long as this society has plenty of resources, room, and equality it should function in a peaceful manner. Conflict occurs when a factor changes the balance of society. What are those factors? Two societies meet and compete for resources. Wether male dominated or female dominated there will be competition for resources resulting in conflict.
What about internal issues? Religion can be used to illustrate this answer. Let's take a society and put aside gender of male and female for a minute. We have a society where everyone is the same. In the beginning a religion is formed and grows with society. Eventually someone will question whether there is a god or not, if they are worshiping correctly, or say there is a different God. You will have conflict because some will resist change, others will push for change until a chasm forms in our little gender less society. As that divide increases the chances for violence increases. Would it be different if it were a society of 2 sexes with one dominant over the other? No. Philosophy is the deciding factor.
We can examine our little society sans gender and sans religion. Let us say the driving force in our society is commerce. Naturally we will see some in our society wanting to out do others. This will continue until there is an imbalance where you have the rich and the poor. The rich want more, and the poor will want to have a chance at what the rich have. Again we create a chasm that if left unchecked will grow until conflict erupts. Violence.
While it is true that men have dominated our history in leadership roles it was not there gender that led to violence but what they believed. The same thing can be said for women. It is our philosophy, our belief system that determines if we resort to violence or not. People argue that testosterone makes men more prone to act out in a violent way. Testosterone can make men aggressive but it is their mind that decides the action. So are women less likely to resort to violence than men? I think that put in similar circumstances you would be surprised. In High School I counted more girls fighting than boys and those fights were more vicious too. My first wife had a temper and would go off over the slightest thing. I had to dodge numerous items thrown at me over the course of our marriage. I even had to stop her from attacking her own mother, she bit me in the process.
Man or women we all have the capacity to commit acts of violence or peace, it is our belief system that is key, our philosophy not sex.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Warning to The Resistance, some among us are against us.

 Well it seems like The Resistance has been infiltrated by agents of Chaos, one of those agents goes by the name of Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch on twitter and runs the partibotics.blog. Yes, Mrs. Mensch a former member of British Parliament and member of the Conservative Party. Not a bad resume really, but let's look at Mrs. Mensch's position on recent issues facing the U.K. Now what would be an U.K. issue that is aligned with the Trump Train / Make America Great Again movement? Ah yes, Brexit. Britain voting to leave the European Union. Nasty bit, that. So what was Mrs. Mensch position on Brexit? Well she wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times saying Britain would be better off leaving the EU. Link Below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/opinion/louise-mensch-britain-better-off-out-of-europe.html?_r=0

In an interview with Joe Barnes of the Daily Express, Mrs. Mensch said the U.K. Could run the table on EU negotiations. Link Below.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/741601/Louise-Mensch-Brexit-optimism-stop-Remoaning-BBC-Question-Time

When it became apparent that Russia interfered this is what Mrs. Mensch had to say about the issue via twitter. "Yes Russia hacked the Brexit petition too because they like protest. Helps the winning side if Losers "cry" so Russia invents that."

It seems that Mrs. Mensch is okay with Russian hacking as long as it helps her side. So why is she all over the Trump-Russia saga acting as some weird avenging Valkyrie? I mean, if you look at her past positions and her views it is readily apparent her views align more with the center-right leaning right. Why the change of heart? Well, I don't think she has. I believe what she is doing is a job. She has worked, and maybe still works for Rupert Murdoch via News Corp. We know News Corp loves to sling Fake News and is very right leaning. Mensch could be stirring the pot in an effort to discredit news outlets other than Fox News by creating fake news which can be picked up by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post only to have that information turn out to be false. If that happens it damages the credibility of those news outlets. But you say she was right about certain things. Maybe it was part of the con, providing actual inside news to bait the trap? Later, it will be Fake News to ruin MSM credibility. Who knows.
Another possibility, Mensch could be taking financial opportunity. If you go to her blog there is a donation button at the bottom. See link below

https://patribotics.blog/about/
But why would she back the Democrats side and not the Right left? Because there are already a ton of Right Wing people blogging about Trump, plus the information coming out is against Trump. What she is doing is mining bits of Information and selling it to The Resistance under the guise of needing money to continue the effort. She saw a market where there was a need and set up shop. I know she is not selling the information but she knows with what is going on people want information and will pay, donate, to keep that information flowing even if it is suspect.
I want to remind people that Mensch was wrong about the dockets for Grand Juries in Virginia and New York, the docket numbers were for unrelated cases. Quite a few attorneys pointed this out. Mensch and Claude Taylor have been claiming the first arrests "are coming this week" for a few weeks now, no arrests. Then there is the thing about the Supreme Court notifying Trump that impeachment proceedings have begun. The system doesn't work that way. The House starts the Impeachment proceedings and draws up articles of impeachment after a majority vote they are sent to the Senate. The Trial, based on charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment, is conducted by the Senate with The Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding if the President is the one being impeached.
The report saying the Marshal of the Supreme Court notified Trump on Air Force One of impeachment and warned him about pardoning people involved is a crock of crap and would constitute overreach by the judicial branch into powers enumerated to congress by the constitution.

No matter how much we want this to be over and to hear news that justice is being served we, the Resistance, cannot spread or fall for fake news. When we resort to using the tactics of those who put Donald Trump in power we are undermining everything we stand for and moving are goal further away. It is my Opinion that, based on Louise Mensch's past record and associations, she is willfully spreading false stories to sow chaos amongst the Resistance and the effort to save Democracy in America.

Time for a lesson in government "impeachment 101"

I read a few things on Twitter today that leads me to believe some people "In the Know" are not so much "in the know" of how the constitution works which quickly torpedoes their credibility. Here is an example. This is a link to Louise Mensch blog. Please read the come back here.

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/20/exclusive-judiciary-committee-considering-articles-of-impeachment/

Since you are reading this sentence, I assume you followed the link, read the blog, and your back here. Or maybe you said "screw it." Anyway let's look at two things. Impeachment of the President and the Supreme Court of the United States. After that we will examine Louise Mensch ( @LouiseMensch ) and Claude Taylor ( @TrueFactsStated )

While writing the Constitution our founding fathers decided to put a safeguard in place just incase and elected or other government official turned out to be a rotten egg; that thing we know as impeachment. In their great Wisdom founding fathers entrusted the power of impeachment to The legislative branch because this is the branch that is more of a representation of the population and the States as an entity.
The Impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives which draws ups articles of impeachment. A simple majority is all that is needed for impeachment. These articles of impeachment are essentially an indictment, charges.
The Articles of Impeachment are sent to the senate which then conducts a trial to determine if the person being impeached is guilty of what they are accused of in the Aricles of Impeachment. If found guilty they person is normally removed from office. In the case of the President being impeached, The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. It should be noted that impeachment is not a criminal trial. A person can still be tried in criminal proceedings after they have been impeached for the crimes that led to impeachment.

The Supreme Court does not initiate the impeachment process as it is not a power assigned to it by the constitution. Also the Supreme Court is not legal counsel for the president because it is a separate branch of the government. The Marshal of the Supreme Court is essentially a bailiff in charge of security and policing of the Supreme Court facilities. To say that the Marshal of the Supreme Court discussed anything with the President about impeachment and pardoning of people linked to the Trump-Russia investigation is problematic at best. First, SCOTUS would be committing overreach of hits authority by stepping on the "Constitutional toes of Congress." Second, notification of Impeachment Proceedings would be done by Congress who have no need for SCOTUS to do this. Third, the President has legal counsel to advise him on laws and procedures. Since the SCOTUS has to decide cases brought against the government, including the president, for them to act as legal counsel in anyway would be considered a conflict of interest.
This is not the first time that I and others have noticed things that Louise Mensch reports in her blog that don't fit into SOP. I do not understand why Mensch and Claude Taylor continue to report things that cannot be true and are contrary to how government functions. It has been said they are the left wing counterparts to the right wing fake news during the election. Are they? I don't know. I know Louise Mensch was a Member of Parliament in the U.K. and has knowledge of her countries government's proceedings but she does seem to know America's. She has worked for publications in the U.K. owned by News Corp. News Corp is owned by Rupert Murdoch who own Fox News which is knowned for pushing right wing conspiracy theories. Could Mensch still be on the Murdoch payroll? I cannot say. Considering her background I would be highly suspect of things Mensch reports as fact.
Claude Taylor is a photographer, at least his Twitter bio says so. He claims to be a veteran of 3 presidential campaigns and the Bill Clinton White House. From information gathered on the internet this seems true though it appears his role at the White House was as a minor functionary. What I don't understand is how Taylor would confuse the powers of two different branches of government considering he worked in the White House. It is possible he maintains some D.C. Connections but I doubt they are significant enough to garner such "inside information."
So why this claim about impeachment proceedings starting and the Marshal of the Supreme Court story that is flawed in its nature? Attention? Possibly. Spread fake news? Possible again. We know Russia targeted both right and left during the election with fake news. But why fake news now? To muddy the waters by having a major news outlet pick up these claims only to have them proven false later. Such an maneuver would cast further doubt on liberal media. Want to find out if Mensch is purposely spreading "fake news"  you need to find out if she is still being paid by News Corp or someone connected to Rupert Murdoch.
All I can say that spreading such news undermines the press, the free press.
By the way. I am a disabled veteran of 11 years service on Submarines in the US Navy. I have no secret connections with information on the Trump - Russia case. I am a trained troubleshooter of Electronic Systems that applies that skill to other aspects of my life. I recognize patterns and speculate. I weed out the far fetched and illogical. I form hypotheses on matter and test them by what history reveals. Do I generate conspiracy theories? Not really, I do the "what if" thing and connect the dots that stack up in a logical order. I offer things to consider, nothing more. What do I think of Trump-Russia? It is not fake news. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for probable cause. I believe the final picture maybe more disturbing than people think right now. Right now we are seeing the tip of the iceberg and there is a heck of a lot more beneath the surface.
Please forgive spelling errors and typos as I am writing this at 1:30 AM.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Trump is not the best thing for Christianity in America, he is the worse.

First, I want to apologize if people who call themselves Christian have given you a negative view of being a Christian. They are wrong and by supporting Trump they have driven a wedge between those people who may have turned to Christ and Christ.
I am a Christian and I base my actions on the teachings of Jesus the Christ, but I am not perfect and freely admit I am a sinner. I don't condemn people for that is the way of Christ. If you look at the Gospels you will see that Jesus went to the sinners who needed him. He treated them with respect as he taught them. He turned no one away. As for the Jewish leaders and teachers of the day he found that they were not teaching redemption and forgiveness but condemnation unless you maintained a strict adherence to the law and in doing so they strayed from what God truly wants, to save the ones he created from evil. People of the time became overly concerned with laws that they believed kept them in God's favor that they forgot their fellow man. How can one be expected to respect the Lord if they cannot respect those here on earth. Every little thing that was a possible violation of the law was held against the people. Jesus taught that the most important thing was to love each other. This is not to say he condoned sin, no he condemned the sin and not the sinner, for the sinner he offered forgiveness.
It seems that we have people calling themselves Christian who think you condemn people and at no time grant them the opportunity for salvation. These so called Christian's wish death on those they see as sinners which is 180 out from what Christ taught. Christ healed sinners, he didn't say "Oh you sinned and I hate you so you will suffer death now." No, he called everyone to him so they could be saved.
Now these same people who want sinners to die without the slightest chance of salvation decided to throw there support of someone who is the complete opposite of Christ. A man that condemns anyone who doesn't agree with him, a man you steals, a man who lies, a man who thinks he doesn't need to ask forgiveness. After all Donald Trump has done they still bow to him like he is a new Golden Calf. Why? Because these so called Christians have lost their way in the wilderness because they forgot "Christ's teachings " and made Trump the way back when he will, in fact, lead them further astray where they will damn themselves.
What is happening to people looking at Christians here in America? They aren't seeing the beauty of salvation but the ugliness of hate. They see people using the Bible to justify their hate for others. This is not Christian, it is just wrong.
I will give you advice if you are considering turning  to Christ. First, don't think Jesus is condemning you at all, he is here to save. Second, read the Gospels before you read anything else from the Bible, and when you are done, read the Gospels again and again. Note Christ's words, the feeling and the overall concept of forgiveness and how to treat others. Pay attention to when Jesus answers the questions of the religious leaders of the time and how he corrects them. Why? Because many religious leaders of today are now acting the same as those back then. Christ's teachings, his words are the most valuable part of the Bible and they will help you when you read other parts of the Bible. You see, man put together the Bible, but Christ's words and teachings are pure. If you look at Christ's words you can actually go back and read the Old Testament and see the things he is correcting. Yes, man did try and sneak there own wishes and desires into the Bible with laws that even the religious leaders of Christ's time on earth and now could not stick to.
I recommend starting with the Gospel of John because one verse in particular describes Christ's purpose. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" if you read the next verse you will see why I say that Christians who condemn others in Christ's name are wrong. John 3:17 "Christ came into the world not to condemn the world but the world through him would be save" I paraphrased a bit but it reflects the meaning correctly.
And if you want to call me a religious nut job that doesn't believe in science you are wrong. God had to create things somehow so why not through the "Big Bang" and man through evolution. It is sad that some Christians don't understand that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. They do not understand that we did not evolve from monkeys and apes but share a common ancestor.
Anyway, by backing Donald Trump and condemning everyone for anything these so called Christians, these evangelicals are not doing Christ's work but the opposite.

Trump is a danger to everyone in US, especially the military

When I woke this morning I was feeling a little under the weather but after reading Trump leaked Intel to the Russians during a meeting at the White House I am just sick. I cannot believe that a President of the United States would do such a thing. Now I am worried about what else he or others in his administration has leaked to the Russians, a hostile entity.
We only know what the press reports. What about other things Trump may have given Russia? I mean how do we know if he has sent them secret information on American capabilities and forces via curriers or through the internet or not? If he is compromised as suggested by many intel sources Putin can ask for anything, including the disposition of are military forces including our Trident Submarines. We cannot say that Trump is stupid enough to do such a thing because every day he lowers the stupidity bar a notch.
Imagine how much damage this traitor has caused and the lives he has endangered. He claims to love the military but does things that shows he is full of crap. Giving any Intel to Russia puts anyone involved with gathering that information at risk. I would not put it past Russia selling what they get from Trump to the highest bidder, especially since sanctions have put a hurting on Russia financially. Trump is selling out our allies and military, the whole darn country. Republicans need to get onboard the #impeachtrumptrain.

Why vote? For you and those who you care for, plus those who cannot.

During the 2016 election I had a tough time trying to convince my son and daughter to vote. Both were under the belief that their vote didn't count. Despite everything I could not convince either and When Trump won they still defended their position saying "my vote does count because Washington is a blue state." I wanted to run my head into a wall. I seemed to have failed in teaching my children civic responsibility. You know someone who did not fail? My parents.
I was raised in Florida, a small town on the Gulf Coast where the police station was a phone booth. I am not kidding, Carrabelle Florida was home to the world's smallest police station. Anyway, my dad served in the Air Force from 1953 to 1973. He was proud of his service and taught me, my brothers, and sister that it is an honor to serve your country in some form. Three of us joined the Navy, one brother became a police officer then a paramedic, and my sister went into healthcare. So the lesson did get through. We learned to love our country and understood that our country depends on all of us, not just in service but in helping select the leaders of our government.
When my dad joined the Air Force he and other personnel at the time were promised free healthcare for life if the served and retired after 20 years. Well, the country broke that promise to my dad and countless others like him. You see, someone in Congress decided it would be a cost saving measure to force TriCare on to retired veterans and rework the whole system. So much for a promise in writing.
Now, nearly twenty years later after that screw job by our elected officials, my dad is suffering from Alzheimer's and my mother is struggling to take care of him and make ends meet financially because of people in public office wanting to save money. Now these people that decided to screw over veterans are not just any government worker, they are elected.
What am I getting at? While you may not think your vote matters in an election such as the presidential election it does so when it comes to Senators, Representatives, state and local officials. These are the ones who come up with the bills that will impact you, your family, and the people who cannot vote such as children, and people like my dad who no longer have the mental capacity to do so. They are why you should vote because they need to be heard. Even if you don't care yourself one way or the other, there are others you care about and even people you don't know that need you to use your voice for them. Voting is a civic duty, it is especially so for those in our society that depend on others because they are not able to speak up for themselves.
I think about my dad's service of 20 years and how he was rewarded later in life by having something promised to him taken away by those elected officials and I use that as my measuring stick when I vote. Why? I don't want to put in office someone who thinks breaking a promise to veterans, to any American is ok, and that money is more valuable than people. I vote because everyone counts and so does my vote.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

How the Alt Right interprets the Second Amendment in a treasonous way

How the second amendment is misinterpreted by the alt right in such a way it is sedition and treason
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.
Short and to the point when you look at it, correct? It is short but the point is not direct. Why? Because what did the founding Fathers mean by  “free state”?  Hmm, did they mean that the citizenry should possess arms to protect themselves and the country from outside threats or inside threats? Both is the correct answer, but it is not the same thing as many gun owners would lead you to believe. Every citizen has the right to be safe in person and as such have the right to defend themselves from someone wanting to do them or their family harm. And the country did not have a large standing army back in the beginning so the militia was used to provide for the initial protection from invasion. Now, we have people saying the second amendment gives them the right to take up arms against the government if they feel that government is doing something wrong. Well, they are wrong. The right to vote, to elect our officials is how we get rid of a government doing us wrong. The first amendment is how we tell a government they are doing something wrong. The second amendment is for self defense and protecting the country and its elected government, not for overthrowing it.
The constitution discusses part of the second amendment, the militia. Yes, it does. Let's look at that.
Part of Article One Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States which deals with the powers of Congress. Regarding militias
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So even before the Second Amendment we have discussion of the Militia and what its intended purpose is in the Constitution itself. To “Execute the Laws of the Union” so for someone to disagree with a law passed by congress and signed into law by president, to take up arms is clearly not “Executing the Laws of the Union.
What about suppression of insurrection? Protesting government policy is not insurrection; taking up arms because you don't like a policy is insurrection. So for those saying they have the right to form a militia and overthrow elected officials because you don't like them is against the constitution, pure and simple.
So we are left with to repel invasions. If America is being invaded by a foreign entity, feel free to pick up gun and defend the Country.
No with regard to militias themselves. It seems the authority to regulate militias is clearly delineated in the Constitution to Congress. In other words you can not form a group of your own and called it a militia unless you abide by the law which says that Congress is the one to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. From what I see to just make up your own group, call it a militia, and do things your own way is not in keeping with the constitution.

Now let us look at Article II Section two of the Constitution.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Here it specifically says the President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed and Militias when they are called up to federal service. Now if you form a militia to remove a president you are going against this article because all the President would need to say is that all militias are under federal authority. Now if you are fighting to remove the President you are disobeying your commander. Not good. Also not that this Section mentions impeachment, While it does not go the process I am pointing it out so you note the process for removing a bad government is located in our constitution and not a gun.

Since the ratification of the constitution many things have changed, including what America considers the milia. By law the National Guard of each state is considered the militia. And it is so because it was designated that by Congress which fulfills Article I Section 8 regarding militias.
So no, the Second Amendment does not grant people the right to take up arms against the government if you don't like it. This is not to say the Second Amendment is negated and there is no need for it. No, every American has the right to defend themselves and their family. And, if things go bad and America ends up being invaded by a foreign power, you can defend your country and fellow Americans from invaders.