I Can’t Believe It

On this day, thirty-five years ago, I stood on the parade grounds at RTC Great Lakes as part of Company 79-171 and graduated from Boot Camp. I was part of the 12th Division, almost the last building farthest from the main gate.

My parents were in attendance in the stands, and I am pretty sure it was one of the days my Dad was very proud of me.

One year to the day after this, I reported aboard my first ship, The USS Bryce Canyon moored at Pier B-24 in Pearl Harbor.


Really?… Really?

Since I started this blog, I have posted on each 9/11 and gave my thoughts on what is going on about this day.

I am still angry. Not only against those who caused 9/11, but my own government as well, who have aided those who would hurt us.

I purposefully did not watch the President’s speech last night. I don’t watch TV anymore, and I had more important things to do, like watching paint dry.

After reading his speech this morning, I am neither amazed nor disappointed. I am disheartened. He wants to appear to be a strong leader, but his words and actions reveal his weakness. “Targeted airstrikes” will not work. They have never worked.

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim… ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

First of all, 99.9999+% of those who belong to or ally themselves with ISIS/ISIL profess themselves to be of the Muslim faith. Radical Muslims to be sure, but still Muslims.

The Quran does not have an “Old and New Testament” like the Christian Bible does. There is a lot of death and killing for the glory of God in the Old Testament. The coming of Jesus changed that. It still took until the modern day for Christians to stop killing Christians over the differences in their beliefs (Anyone remember the Troubles in Ireland over Catholic vs. Protestant? I do.)

To be perfectly honest, I don’t care what the Quran has to say about anything. It is not part of my personal religion. But if you at least glance through it, you can see the Quran talks about three broad groups, Believers (Muslims), the Kafir or Infidel, (those who reject faith) and ′Ahl al-Kitāb, People of the Book (Christians and Jews). The term “infidel” is often misused and is assumed to encompass Christians and Jews, when it does not.

So, as most of us have known for a very long time, any book that is sectioned like the Bible or Quran, can be used selectively to take things out of context and push whatever agenda the person wants.

No constructive religion actively promotes violence. I am not saying Islam is or is not a constructive religion. There are two billion Muslims in the world, and less than 1% of them are the ones causing all of the trouble.

To be honest, I am sick of this war. Too many of our best and brightest have come home in coffins, missing limbs or forever changed because of what they experienced. If anything, the number of radical Islamists has grown. This new generation of radical Islamists have become more vicious and violent then ever before. They have no moral restraint about killing everyone who does not believe exactly as they do.

So, we have two real-life choices, neither of which our Illustrious President has presented as an option. What he promises to do only reinforces the fact that he is a weak, ineffectual man in a position of power.

First, we leave this to the Muslims. You guys work it out. If the peaceful Muslims want to do something about ISIS/ISIL, let them do it. The United States will neither help nor hinder. ISIS/ISIL can rattle their sabers and talk all the talk they want. The next time a Radical Muslim state or organization captures or kills a United States Citizen, we will immediately proceed to the second option.

Second, we kill everybody in the region. We start off by nuking Mecca, Medina and every population center in the Levant area, outside of Israel. That would be Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. After it cools off, we land troops and we kill every man, woman and child, their goats, camels and sheep. “No stone shall set upon another” kind of desolation.

If we have a leader, a true leader at the helm of this country, we would be at least respected, if not feared. Instead, we have a “community organizer” who was totally unqualified for the position. The President of the United States needs to have a set of brass balls the size of shotputs that go “KLANG KLANG KLANG” when he walks.

I would much rather be respected than feared. However, if any group or country wants to do us harm, They need to know in their heart of hearts we will kill 10,000 of them for every death they cause us.


Listen and heed

I found this, and had to say something: Student tackled by officers over cell phone tells her side of the story.

What got me about the article was the incredulousness of the reporter, this little princess should have been allowed to do what she wanted to do.

First of all, in the United States, we are a nation of laws. The laws are meant to apply equally to all. If you think there should be a law about something, feel free to petition your lawmakers to have a law made. If you feel that a law (or policy, in this case) is unjust, you are equally free to petition the appropriate agency to change or abolish the law.

I get that the young lady is concerned about her mother. I know what that is like.

That being said, she broke a school policy, the consequences are which you lose your phone. She knew this was against school policy, and she knew the consequences of disobeying that policy. I guess she felt either the circumstances would excuse her from obeying the policy, or they just didn’t apply to her in the first place. This young lady refused to give up her phone, at least twice. She refused an Assistant Principal and the security guards once, before she was taken down and it was forcibly taken from her.

I want to be perfectly clear here: You will NEVER win a fight with a police officer. N-E-V-E-R. Their job is to enforce the laws of the land. If they believe you have violated a law, their job is to arrest you. If they say you are under arrest and you fight or refuse, they are authorized to get as many other officers they need to subdue you, using any and all of the tools at their disposal. So, if you want to be shot, tazed or maced, please feel free to resist.

If you are unjustly arrested, you make your case to the District Attorney to drop the charges or Judge to beat the charges.

There is a time, place and method to resist unjust laws and work to change them. Fighting with the police is not that time or place.


The Destruction of the Constitution Has Begun

This came up in my news search: Senate Joint Resolution 19.

This Resolution has zero chance of even being introduced into the House, but it is telling that the Liberals have no compunction about distorting the Constitution to further their political ends. They must feel very confident of their victory to move in such an open manner.

These Senators (I have given all of the sponsors below) are apparently trying to make a Constitutional Amendment to limit the money in politics. Before we get to the “final version, follow the link above and read what the prior version of the amendment was. It’s mind-blowing.

It reads:

“Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
“Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
“Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”

So, the “power of the press” is not to be abridged. How special. So, the media (newspapers, TV and other media), which are overwhelmingly Liberal, are not restricted in their syncopate prostrating before their next “Chosen.” They are free to use their publications and shows to do “fluff pieces” and “positive promotion articles” to speak on the positive aspects of whom they decide they want to lead us. The Liberal Press will also ignore their Chosen’s “mistakes,” like a Felony a few years ago, or their shady dealing that no one knows if it broke the law or not, because the DOJ was told to “lay off” the Chosen. They are also equally free to do the “tough investigative journalism” to disclose that the opposition candidate once kicked a puppy when he was eight and lead the evening news every night for a week with a hit-piece after hit-piece on “puppy-kicker Jones.”

The rest of us, we get to have it decided for us how much we can spend or what we can say.

Let’s take this apart, shall we?

“Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

First of all, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Also the words “…protect the integrity of government and the electoral process…” tells right there that those in power are willing to do anything to stay in power, including perverting the Constitution to do so. To allow those in power to decide who can spend how much insures their grip on power in perpetuity. Those they want to join them in power will be given “waivers” or whatever to make sure they get to spend more than their opponents.

“Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

This directly nullifies the “corporations are people too” ruling by the SCOTUS (which was more than just that). To insure the capriciousness of their actions, they use the word “may” in the phrase “…may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law…” So exceptions can (and will) be made, and I assure you those exceptions will be at least 90%/10% in favor of those “people, corporations or artificial entities” who espouse Liberal ideals.

Just so you know who is responsible for this corruption of the Constitution, here are those Senators:

Sponsor: Tom Udall (D-NM)

Original Co-Sponsors:

Michael Bennett (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Angus King, Jr. (I-ME), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Frankin (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mark Udall (D-CO).

Other Cosponsors:

Tim Johnson (D-SD), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mark Begich (D-AK), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Kay Hagen (D-NC), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Edward Markey (D-MA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), John Marsh (D-MT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Harry Reid (D-NV), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), John Rockefeller IV (D-VW), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

That’s 47 of 53 Democrat Senators, and both Independents. It would have been a shorter list to say who didn’t help sponsor the bill.

Remember this come election time.

The Indoctrination of Our Children

The word Indoctrination is defined as, “often refers to religious ideas, when you’re talking about a religious environment that doesn’t let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for “teach,” doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that’s just what it meant.”

It is a neutral word, meaning it can be used for or against your ideas and beliefs. In today’s lexicon, it is usually referred to as “a training away from where we want the person to believe or think.”

Children are intellectual sponges. They are raised and trained to parrot back what they have learned until they are able to reason for themselves. This initial training is the foundation on how they will think and perceive the world for the rest of their lives.

If a child is taught to think for themselves, or to let others think for them, the first few years of school is where either of these are indoctrinated and instilled into them. Too many parents surrender this foundational indoctrination to the schools.

Which is why the following picture is so disturbing:

Common Core IndoctrinationThis is a picture of a child’s school worksheet, supposedly produced in compliance with Common Core.

It asks the child to use contractions to reword the statement and make it less wordy. It starts out simple enough, but do you see the shift toward blindly accepting authority?

1. The job of a president is not easy.

Yes, I can agree with that. The most powerful person in the world has to make tough choices every day.

2. The people of a nation do not always agree.

Again, true. If we all agreed, we’d be part of a hive mind instead of individuals.

3. The choices of the president affect everyone.

Three out of three. What he decides to do (or not do) affects everyone in the country to some degree.

4. He makes sure the laws of the country are fair.

Umm, no. The job of the President is to enforce all of the countries laws. It does not matter if he likes them or not, he swore to uphold all of the laws. He can veto bills he doesn’t like, however under the Constitution, Congress makes the laws and the President enforces them.

5. The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.

BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer! If the laws are unjust, if the “commands of government officials” violate the law of your basic freedoms, then hell no are you supposed to obey them! The power of the government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

The Citizen has an obligation to disobey laws that violate the Constitution. The capriciousness of laws imposed on the Colonies by King George III was the very reason why we rebelled in the first place.

6. The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation.

Way wrong! No way! If the individual were to be subsumed into the whole, then the very foundation, the very reason for the existence of this country will be destroyed.

We are a nation of individuals, all acting in our own best interest. As long as our interests betters ourselves and those around us, without detracting from others, we individually enhance the well-being of our nation. When you surrender your wants and needs to a government official (which #5 says you must obey) then you are allowing them to think for you. That is an anathema to everything the United States was founded upon.

A teacher is supposed to teach their students how to think, not what to think. This course change is the culmination of years of work in the gradual reshaping of our educational system. The Liberal belief that everybody (other then themselves, of course) is not smart enough to think for themselves. The people below the Liberals, in their twisted way of thinking, must be “reshaped” until they do think and act “correctly.”

Read Nineteen Eighty-Four and This Perfect Day. If we do not stop this Liberal onslaught, one of these will be our inevitable outcome. Either we will be in perpetual terror, or we will be ants. I do not like either outcome.

The picture in Ferguson becomes clearer

I have waited this long before commenting on the shooting of Michael Brown because I like to have facts in hand, not hearsay and suppositions.

So, in what I have read and have pieced together, these are the sequence of events:

Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson committed a “strong-arm robbery,” where physical violence is used, but no weapon is present. Brown took off with a box of Swisher Sweet cigars.

Brown and Johnson are then walking down the middle of the street when they are stopped by Officer Wilson.

A point to realize and must consider are the mindsets of these two people. Brown has just committed a felony, and he knows he did so. Wilson has no idea that Brown just committed a felony. Brown thinks the officer is stopping him because of the robbery, so he is going to be very aggressive in defending himself. Wilson is just trying to get two guys off the street and out of traffic.

When Officer Wilson attempts to exit his vehicle, Brown shoves the door shut, keeping Officer Wilson inside. Officer Wilson is now at a severe tactical disadvantage for what is to happen.

Brown then gets partially into the police cruiser and starts pummeling Officer Wilson, who suffers a fractured eye socket. A shot is fired inside the vehicle.

Brown then disengages and runs about 30 feet away.

Officer Wilson then exits his vehicle. He is still at a severe disadvantage. He is probably in a good amount of pain from the fractured eye socket and his vision is compromised, his ears are ringing from the gunshot inside the car (big sound, little space. Think about it) and his adrenalin is pumping. Despite all this, he has the presence of mind to exit the car and command Brown to stop.

Let me stop this again and explain something. First of all, if you are armed, you engage (shoot) any aggressor that is within about 25 feet of you. Why? Because he can get to you and hurt or kill you before you can react and fire. Also, when your adrenalin is pumping, because your body perceives it is in a life-or-death struggle, your marksmanship will drop drastically. That is a physiological fact.

Back to the action: Officer Wilson, his ears ringing, his eyesight compromised, sees Brown advancing towards him. Brown is physically bigger than Officer Wilson, so Officer Wilson defends himself. He fires and keeps firing until he sees Brown is no longer a threat. Three autopsies show that Brown was struck by six bullets, four in the right arm, one in the right eye and one in the top of the head.

A handgun carried by police departments usually carry between 14-16 rounds total, between what’s in the magazine and in the chamber. To hit with six out of sixteen rounds shows phenomenal marksmanship on the part of the officer. You are trained to shoot into the center-of-mass, basically into your chest a couple inches above your sternum. Considering all of the shots were on the edge of Brown’s body shows how much Officer Wilson’s marksman ship was degraded. If his weapon was pointed so much as a tenth of a millimeter farther to the left, he would have missed Brown with all of his shots.

What probably happened (I am not an expert on this. However, I have studied gunfights for years, especially when I had a carry license) is the hits walked from Browns hand up his arm and the shot that stopped brown was the one that went through his right eye. He was dead at that point, and as he fell forward the last shot caught him in the top of the head.

Again, I am no authority or expert. That being said, with the evidence that I have read, I believe this is a justified shooting. Officer Wilson was at a constant disadvantage throughout the encounter. That he survived is amazing.


I understand more now…

I have continued to do research into the troubles in Ferguson, MO and found this to be rather disturbing.

First of all, this article: Ferguson’s Shameful Legal Shakedown.

Second, their budget (look at page 72). Their “Fines and Public Safety” compose 21.8% of their projected budget for the year. When you derive that much of your budget from penalizing your citizens, you look to do anything to keep that “revenue stream” going.

The fact of the matter is, I now understand why the citizens revolted. When you have a court system that adjudicates your guilt up to 30 minutes before you are told to be there, and they lock the doors before the court finishes so you can’t get in if you are the tiniest bit behind schedule, I see why the people are frustrated.

The racism stated in the article looks to be pretty rampant.

The immediate explanation is that the bulk of the cases arise from car stops. The ArchCity Defenders report notes: “Whites comprise 29% of the population of Ferguson but just 12.7% of vehicle stops. After being stopped in Ferguson, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be searched (12.1% vs. 6.9%) and twice as likely to be arrested (10.4% vs. 5.2%).”


“Searches of black individuals result in discovery of contraband only 21.7% of the time, while similar searches of whites produce contraband 34.0% of the time.”

So, the disproportion is way against Blacks. They are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested than Whites. The telling part is the Whites are 50% more likely to be carrying contraband than Blacks, which makes it more disproportionate by a factor of four.

The sad part about it is, most of the people the city is stealing from are ones without the means to pay the fines.

Here you go, if you want to see what a Police State looks like, places like Ferguson are where these mind sets of those in power get started. You legislate laws like you are on a commission basis, making hundreds of piddling little misdemeanors that you strictly enforce on your population. You then create a bureaucracy that is impossible to navigate without stepping on at least one land mine.

The end result is a populace that is in a constant state of terror from the Police. Look at how well the Soviet bloc was run back during the Cold War. The only difference between them and us, we don’t have a “Secret Police.” Yet.

The Love Of and For A Pet

I have a couple of dogs and a bunch of birds. I derive great happiness from all of them.

I found this and I wanted to share:

I Rescued A Human Today by Janine Allen

Her eyes met mine as she walked down the corridor peering apprehensively into the kennels. I felt her need instantly and knew I had to help her.

I wagged my tail, not too exuberantly, so she wouldn’t be afraid. As she stopped at my kennel I blocked her view from a little accident I had in the back of my cage. I didn’t want her to know that I hadn’t been walked today. Sometimes the overworked shelter keepers get too busy and I didn’t want her to think poorly of them.

As she read my kennel card I hoped that she wouldn’t feel sad about my past. I only have the future to look forward to and want to make a difference in someone’s life.

She got down on her knees and made little kissy sounds at me. I shoved my shoulder and side of my head up against the bars to comfort her. Gentle fingertips caressed my neck; she was desperate for companionship. A tear fell down her cheek and I raised my paw to assure her that all would be well.

Soon my kennel door opened and her smile was so bright that I instantly jumped into her arms.

I would promise to keep her safe.
I would promise to always be by her side.
I would promise to do everything I could to see that radiant smile and sparkle in her eyes.

I was so fortunate that she came down my corridor. So many more are out there who haven’t walked the corridors. So many more to be saved. At least I could save one.

I rescued a human today.

The love from a pet is truly unconditional.If you can, adopt a shelter pet.

A person who willfully and maliciously hurts an animal has earned my total contempt. I have had multiple dogs in my life that I have held while I let them go. I can only hope they are waiting for me at the Rainbow Bridge:

A Refreshing Voice

The Village Voice, an Iconclastic Alternative newspaper out of New York, has been until recently a very Liberal publication. You weren’t “hip” until you were caught reading the Village Voice.

I found this, My Dad Is a Right-Wing Asshole, and I thought the article was awesome. This particular item is a “Dear Abby” thing, and to see the response is very refreshing.

The person writes in:

I’m writing because I just can’t deal with my father anymore. He’s a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I’m more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don’t have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there’s still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?

Andrew then proceeds to take the writer apart:

…Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn’t one. You’ve reduced your father — the person who created you — to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don’t consider your dad a person of his own standing — he’s just “your dad.” You’ve also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views, and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that’s left in its place is an argument that can never really be won.

Andrew gets better from there. He takes apart the fact that there really isn’t a “who’s right” and “who’s wrong.” There is only what is right and good.

My own take on the writer is that they display the classic Liberal symptom of “nothing exists outside of my ears. I’m right, and if you disagree with me you’re wrong and evil.”

I am the first to admit that I lump Liberals into that “big L” pot and I know there is a broad spectrum of people under that banner. In my encounters throughout life, I have found gun-carrying Liberals and anti-gun Republicans and every kind of facet. Human beings are complex creatures. We are formed by two things, our experiences and our choices.

I know a lot of people who express Liberal ideologies. I like and respect many of them. I take great pleasure in debating them. I challenge their positions, and they return the favor. The one line none of us cross is to attack the person. I may think their position on gun control (or whatever) is stupid and uninformed, I do not think the person is stupid. They have their reasons as to why they arrived at that position, just like how I arrived at my position.

Those people who start out a debate by calling me a Nazi, or EVIL, my first inclination is to understand them. If I find out it’s all knee-jerk reactions and no significant thought was involved, I will proceed to take them apart.

As a Navy Chief once said, “You can lead a horse to water, but I’ll be damned if I’ll pull suction on his ass to make him drink.”

I respect your right to have a different belief than mine. I expect a similar respect in return. I give a certain level of respect on the benefit of the doubt. Beyond that, the level of respect I show you, up or down, is based on your words and actions.

I think if more people did this, the world would be a lot better place.