October 27, 2016
October 22, 2016
My Ruger American in .308 with Boyd's Custom Stock
According to Hillary Clinton's own webpage, the United States of America is facing a terrible epidemic of gun violence. The core problem with this analysis is that it fundamentally overlooks one simple reality: violence is violence, regardless of the weapon used.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 12, in 2015 there were 15,192 murders in the United States. This represents an 11.8% increase over 2014. 11,862 of those murders occurred in cities. 6,146 murders took place in cities with populations over 250,000 while 2,231 murders happened in cities with more than 1 million people.
If we go to Table 20, we find a state by state breakdown of the different weapons used to commit these murders. This is important because different states have different gun laws. California, for example, should be the safest state in the nation because in 2015 it had one of the nation's most complex and complete set of gun control laws. When Hillary Clinton and her supporters defend strict gun controls, California is one of the first examples they use as a nearly ideal set of laws. California is also one of the most populated states in the nation with 39,144,818 people as of July 2015 (Census Bureau California Population Table). For over a hundred years California has been considered a progressive paradise, passing multiple laws covering hate crime, homosexual marriage, and medical marijuana use just in the past decade alone. All of this makes California a very good example of how all of America will be under Hillary Clinton. In 2015, of the 15,192 murders in the United States of America, 1,861 took place in California and 1,275 of those murders involved the use of a firearm. In California in 2015, 33 shotguns, 34 rifles, and 855 handguns were used to commit murder. There were also 353 murders in which the type of firearm remained unidentified. That sure does seem like a lot of bad guys using firearms in a state held up as a shining example of nearly perfect gun control.
Table 8 of the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting breaks down the California numbers by city. It is no surprise that Los Angeles leads the pack with 299 murders. In Los Angeles, just about all forms of firearm possession, sales, and use are covered by some kind of exacting regulation and taxation. By the time Federal, State, County, and Municipal gun control laws all work their magic, Los Angeles becomes one of the most restrictive cities in America for law-abiding gun owners. Despite all these regulations, Los Angeles remains the most violent city in California.
Oakland, California, with barely one-third the population of Los Angeles, is still the second most violent city in the state with 127 murders. In addition to strict limits on how many firearms a person can own, what kind of firearms a person can own, large municipal taxes on ammo sales, background checks for every firearm transfer, background checks on ammo sales, and a whole host of other restrictions on firearms, both Los Angeles and Oakland are Sanctuary Cities where illegal immigrants cannot be arrested and deported just for failing to comply with immigration laws. Both cities have very diverse populations with large pockets of mixed neighborhoods, race-specific neighborhoods, and transient neighborhoods where people come and go so often no one is ever quite sure who lives there and who is just passing through. Both Oakland and Los Angeles have lost tens of thousands of jobs over the past twenty years as industry moves overseas, military bases are reduced or closed, and corporate headquarters shift their operations to places with lower taxes and fewer state regulations on workplace safety, pollution, record keeping, and so on. Both cities also have a large gang presence with a massive underground market for drugs, firearms, prostitution, gambling, and even slaves.
Just taking California alone as an American example of the effectiveness of gun control, it is clear that within the United States of America, even in our most progressive state with our most progressive firearm regulations, violent people are still getting possession of both guns and ammunition and are using them to commit murder. This does not even take into account shootings in which no one dies, suicides, or accidental shootings. 1,275 people were murdered with firearms in California in 2015. Clearly, none of the murderers were paying attention to California's exhaustive and complete catalog of gun control regulations. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws; therefore, passing more gun control laws on top of existing gun control laws in an effort to prevent crime is useless. The only thing it does is make life harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and easier for criminals to commit violent crimes. Gun control laws empower criminals by creating a greater number of defenseless victims. California is a very good example of this principle in action.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president and appoints at least two Supreme Court Justices who do not agree with the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller or McDonald v. City of Chicago, then all of the United States will quickly follow California down the road of extensive and exhaustive gun control laws. Fewer law abiding Americans will be able to own firearms, learn to use firearms effectively, and defend themselves against violent criminals. Criminals all across the United States will find themselves more free to operate as they become less concerned with sorting through which victims are likely to offer armed resistance and which are not. The forty year decline in violent crime that we have enjoyed will reverse direction, perhaps strongly, perhaps only over time, but it will definitely reverse direction.
People are violent by nature. Anyone who studies history knows this. We have been a violent creature ever since the first Australopithecus picked up a rock or a tree branch and used it to fight off a feeding predator so their family could scavenge the carcass. It is who we are. It does no good to pretend otherwise. Our ability to find weapons and use them to defend ourselves and advance our own agenda is one of the features that early on separated us from every other hominid on the planet. Our violence and our willingness to use whatever falls to hand as a deadly weapon is the exact quality of being human that set us on the course to advanced civilization. If Hillary Clinton takes away guns, then people will use knives and baseball bats. Even in Australia, the number one gun control example pointed to by Hillary Clinton and her supporters, violent crime is still present: people are still being murdered, people are still being raped, illegal drugs flow through the underground, gangs still try to kill each other in city streets, prostitutes and slaves can still be found hiding in the shadows.
In both America and Australia, ever since about 1990 there has been a slow, steady decline in violent crime (although in some years crime rises while in other years it falls). Confiscating a quarter million firearms from the Australian people did not change this in the slightest. True, "gun violence" has dramatically declined, but the violent criminals simply switched to different weapons. Would it really be an improvement to pass laws aimed at reducing "gun violence" in America? What will Hillary Clinton try to control next when she finds that even after successfully restricting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding American gun owners our children are still being murdered in their beds and schools, young couples are still being murdered while on vacation, and old people are still being murdered in their homes? Changing the weapon changes nothing. This is the core fallacy of Hillary Clinton's drive to undermine and eventually repeal the Second Amendment. The problem is not American gun culture. The problem is violent Americans.
All of which begs the question, "If reducing violent crime has no relationship to the Second Amendment, why is Hillary Clinton so zealous in her effort to undermine and repeal it?"
(Update, October 24, 2016)
In 1996 and again in 2003 Australia had a compulsory buyback program for law-abiding gun owners, over a million legal weapons that were made suddenly illegal through changes in gun laws were bought by local police precincts provided the owners turned them in during the amnesty period. So why are there still a quarter million firearms in the hands of criminals? Maybe because gun laws only disarm the law-abiding, making them easy picking for violent criminals. Gun control does not save lives, it empowers violent criminals.
Reuters: Australia Announces New Firearms Amnesty
(Update, October 24, 2016)
Despite being #1 in firearms ownership worldwide (no surprise, there!), it turns all the doom and gloom is very misplaced. The United States falls to #11 in gun deaths, even using the insanely inflated figure incorporating murder, assault with a deadly weapon, suicide, and accidental shootings all rolled into one number. All of the ten countries that outrank the United States in firearm deaths have very strict firearm regulations. In all ten countries, non-military/non-law enforcement citizens are prohibited from owning firearms except for a few, tightly controlled exceptions. So if only the good guys have guns, who is doing all the killing?
Telegraph: Mapping Firearm Ownership and Gun Violence Around the World
October 20, 2016
The Syrian Civil War began in September 2008 when a massive car bomb went off on a major thoroughfare running from the heart of Damascus to the airport. More bombs followed at intermittent intervals, some large and some small. Then, in the opening months of 2011, violent protests broke out in the streets of Syrian cities. All through this time period the only remarks from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were aimed at condemning Syrian president Bashar Al Assad. Bashar Al Assad took over Syria in July 2000 following the death of his father. For eight years, Syria was one of the most stable and peaceful countries in the Middle East. Trade flowed through the country. Cultural exchange students from all over the world came to Syria for a month, six months, or even a full year. Syrian pilots trained at American Air Force bases. Everything was fine until Barack Obama announced his intention to run for President of the United States.
Whether anyone in the American press is willing to admit it or not, Senator Barack Obama's visit to Kenya in 2006 sparked a new sense of purpose in young people throughout the Islamic World. Muslims in Indonesia, the Philippines, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, and even Kenya praised him as an African-born Muslim. Granted, he was born in Hawaii and at that point had been a member of Jeremiah Wright's radical liberation theology church for over a decade. That did not stop the rumors and op-ed writers throughout the Muslim world from claiming him as one of their own. In a very real sense, watching Barack Obama become President of the United States, receive a Nobel Peace Prize, and then give a profoundly apologetic speech to a crowd of Middle Eastern diplomats and dignitaries at Cairo University in 2009, inspired that Tunisian fruit vendor who set himself on fire and ignited the Arab Spring.
From 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton served as United States Secretary of State. The Arab Spring began in December 2010 and in a very real sense, is continuing to this day (at least in Syria). It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who set the tone for the American response to the Arab Spring. She praised every rebel group that reared its head, even those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Now I don't know how much actual on the ground interference she commanded during that time. No one does. All of those records are going to be buried in some hidden storeroom somewhere and unavailable even for a Freedom of Information Act request for at least another five years. I do know, as a simple point of fact, that when they do their job well the Secretary of State works closely with the head of the CIA, the head of the NSA, the head of the SOG, and all of the other myriad black ops branches of America's hidden intelligence network. Part of her job was to organize covert operations that would help ease the Arab Spring countries through their diverse and individual transitions of power and into some form of democracy. As Secretary of State she was also responsible for influencing the outcome in a way that the President had decided would best benefit the United States of America. That is why she is giving the speech in the video above (August 2011). President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both wanted to force Bashar Al Assad from power and they weren't real particular about who replaced him.
President Bashar Al Assad is a vile dictator. He routinely jails or executes anyone who disagrees with him. Right from the beginning, he was opposed to free elections, open courts, creation of opposition political parties, and all the other trappings of a free democracy. He ruled with a iron fist and he liked it that way. However, the writing was on the wall and multiple nearby countries offered him asylum. As late as November 2011 he had refused them all, so naturally the offers stopped coming in.
Part of Hillary Clinton's job as Secretary of State was to work behind the scenes to find some way to create an asylum package acceptable to Bashar Al Assad. Unfortunately, she failed as miserably in Syria as she had in Libya. One of the reasons she failed so badly is that right from the first riot in January 2011, the presence of terrorists trained by Al Qaeda and paid for by Iran was clear and obvious in every riot. They provoked violent attacks on police, they assassinated local government officials loyal to Assad, and they brutalized anyone who did not join their rioting. Bashar Al Assad, rightly or wrongly, was convinced that abandoning his country would mean Iranian-backed terrorists would immediately step in to fill the vacuum of power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, with little or or no hard evidence on the ground and against the advice of American intelligence experts, refused to believe it. Their very blind faith was firmly focused on the small groups of moderate protest leaders who by July 2011 were already at war with both the Assad government and the Iranian-backed terrorists (the very same terrorists that Iran is now helping Assad fight!).
It was very hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to attack Donald Trump in today's debate for not accepting the view of American intelligence officials that the hack on the DNC servers was sponsored by the Russian government. Back in 2011, taking the advice of those very same intelligence professionals could have prevented the collapse of Syria and eased the transition to democracy, but she refused to believe them. It is even more ironic that she tried to use our collective memory of Omran Dagneesh, a child injured in a war she herself failed to prevent as Secretary of State, to create such an overwhelming sense of guilt in the American people that they would feel compelled to vote for her for president.
I don't understand Hillary Clinton supporters. Why would anyone vote for a woman who used tragic imagery from a war she herself failed to prevent in order to con them into voting her back into a position of power where she could use that very same civil war to justify a nuclear showdown with the Russian Federation? Do not take this election lightly! If Hillary Clinton becomes president and succeeds in establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria to protect the rebels and terrorists fighting Bashar Al Assad, then sooner or later an American pilot will shoot down a Russian warplane and that will launch us into a full-scale war with Russia, a war that will open with a Russian nuclear strike on the American homeland.
One last video. In October of 2011 America was finally able to convince the U.N. Security Council to offer a recommendation for action against Bashar Al Assad. However, in a very rare occurrence, Russia and China both put a veto on the recommendation. Is it any surprise that barely eighteen months later, China and Russia held their largest joint naval exercise in history?
Donald Trump is not "the most dangerous person in the history of America to run for President of the United States". That title clearly belongs to Hillary Clinton.
October 17, 2016
Back in 2005 or so, when it became apparent that I would soon be headed back to the United States, I began looking at a variety of internet resources related to events in America. Some of the first perspectives I bought into were conspiracy theories about a hidden liberal progressive alliance of big business, the Democratic National Party, and a variety of labor unions backed by organized crime. I bought into it because it was so very believable. As time went on and I learned the names of the actual players on the ground, the diversity of organizations involved, and the overwhelming logistic obstacles to creating such a conspiracy and then holding it together through four generations of American politics, I was forced to accept that while some collusion did indeed take place, calling it a "conspiracy" was not warranted.
So here we are in 2016. Two of the most unlikable and untrustworthy candidates to ever survive the presidential primary season are facing off against one another in their third debate on Wednesday, October 19th. This has been one of the most filthy, despicable, socially offensive campaign seasons in the history of the United States of America. Lincoln vs. Breckenridge in 1860 was not even half as revolting as the Trump vs. Clinton campaign season has been, and we all know how that one ended. Americans are phenomenal warriors. The Civil War (a.k.a., War of Northern Aggression) proved beyond a shadow of doubt that when we turn on one another no one really wins, not even after one side is soundly defeated. Clearly, we did not learn that lesson well enough.
There are many things I have long suspected about how Bill and Hillary Clinton run their public image. I recently read a book which confirmed many of those suspicions (Book Review: Crisis of Character). I also recently looked into some of the reasons why after using their relationship to transfer mining rights to 20% of American Uranium (mostly on lands controlled by Native Tribes) to a Russian mining company, the relationship between Putin and Clinton has definitely soured. I have a few more suspicions about reasons for that relationship to shift from companionable to vicious hatred, but I have not confirmed them yet. The point is, now they are both ready to throw the modern world into a global thermonuclear war just to satisfy their personal hatred of one another (Putin vs. Clinton, Beating the drums of nuclear war). Therefore, many of the things presented in the Project Veritas tape at the top of this page do not surprise me in the least. After seeing it, my first reaction was, "I guess I should have seen it right from the start."
I spent countless hours on social media denying that there was a conspiracy to create violence at Trump rallies. I guess I was badly mistaken. It is painfully obvious that the American media flat-out refuses to cover Hillary Clinton's long record of complete and dismal failures. I did not need Wikileaks to tell me that this collusion between the media and the DNC was not accidental. Even that pales in comparison with the video above. There is more than enough evidence for a RICO case. But then, the same thing was true when she ran against Barack Obama back in 2012. The conspiracy nuts are right. Clearly there are two sets of laws: one for the American people and one for Hillary Clinton.
October 14, 2016
I am sickened by the depth of fake outrage over the sexual adventures of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. I would never behave in the way these two men have behaved, but let's be completely honest here, I would never even have the opportunity!
Three out of five American women who found themselves sitting on a plane next to either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton at any time in the eighties or nineties would not be able to keep their hands off of him. 3 out of 5, sixty percent of them. This is simple biology. In the eighties and nineties both men were handsome, athletic, charming, confident, wealthy, and very powerful. For fully sixty percent of the women in America, regardless of race, religion, or marital status, the experience of finding themselves sitting next to either one of these men in the close, intimate confines of a first class seat on a commercial airliner would be completely overwhelming. It is simple biology. If the flight lasted longer than an hour, within ten minutes they would be touching him and finding some excuse to kiss him on the cheek. Either of these men would immediately respond in kind. There would be several minutes of passionate embraces.
At some point, the woman's rational mind would take over. Maybe after the first kiss on the cheek, maybe not until after half an hour of kissing and fondling so intense it disturbs everyone nearby. The moment it does, the woman would feel shocked at her own behavior. Half of these women would then feel guilt or shame while the other half would decide to throw caution to the wind and roll with the passion of the moment. Around one in five American women, regardless of race, religion, or marital status, would wind up in his bed that night.
So stop with the phony moral outrage. Around 15-20% of you would eagerly and enthusiastically jump into bed with a young Donald Trump or Bill Clinton should the opportunity present itself. There is nothing morally wrong or right about statistics. Reality is what it is and it is time to stop pretending otherwise. For 60% of American women a young Donald Trump or Bill Clinton would be the absolute fulfillment of every adolescent fantasy they have ever enjoyed, every Disney movie they have ever seen, and every romance novel they have ever read.
The Donald Trumps and Bill Clintons of the world are not "sexist macho pigs". These guys are simply more than happy to help you fulfill your dreams for a night or even a couple of nights. Their biology is no different than your own. You want them. They want you. The problem arises the morning after. Around 15% of American women, after throwing themselves bodily onto a Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, will immediately be overcome with guilt or shame while another 15% will develop guilt or shame in the weeks that follow. They will apologize, withdraw, and run as far as they can possibly get from him. If they come across him a few months later, they will feel a deep terror that the other 70% of women cannot even imagine. This is also completely natural. This is basic biology, the kind of stuff we ought to be learning in high school biology classes. That 30% of women, the ones who threw themselves on some poor fool of a man and then became repulsed by their own sexual desires, the ones who felt horrified when they met him a second time, those are the women who are carrying our national dialogue. It is time for this three-ring circus to stop. I'm sorry ladies. You have every right to feel as you do. It is completely natural. However, your personal self-hatred should not be the overall defining emotion of American politics.
CNN today has two interesting articles that I have linked to at the opening of this blog post. In one of them, a family has a plaid dress used for school pictures. This dress is handed down for three generations, worn by 51 different girls at different times and in different schools, until finally one girl stands up to the family tradition and refuses. This article completely objectifies young girls. A six year-old girl, according to this article, is no different than a plastic doll that is dressed up and set on a shelf. The purpose of the girl is to fulfill some weird fantasy of some family patriarch or matriarch who over a half-century ago bought a special dress for their daughter. Back in the days of log cabins and sod houses, we used to call this a, "Sunday dress". Every young girl had one. It was expensive, usually festooned with at least one bow, and only worn on, "special occasions". In the CNN article one family preserves this perversion for multiple generations, forcing 51 different girls into great grandma's "Sunday dress" for their first school picture. CNN writes this article with a celebratory, light-hearted hand. Apparently, objectifying young girls in this way is morally acceptable to the CNN editorial staff. I guess they don't realize that this is exactly how a family creates a Monica Lewinsky.
Sexuality in America is torn between the Puritanism of the Quakers or the Methodists and the raw animal nature of barefoot sailors or tavern prostitutes. Some of our early colonies were prisons, some were religious sanctuaries, and some were commercial hubs. Right from the very beginning these three different social paradigms, with their three different standards for sexual behavior, have existed side by side in American culture. It is who we have always been. For the merchants, sex was a tool and product. When dealing with wealthy religious families it was a tool they used to marry into status and secure a permanent foothold in the community. For the sailors and tavern prostitutes sex was just another product the merchants were more than happy to turn a profit on. It is not the least bit surprising that so many Americans, around 30% of us (both men and women!), are tortured by our own sexuality. It brings both pleasure and shame, fulfillment and disgrace. After all, if our direct ancestors couldn't decide whether sex was sin, entertainment, or a product, how are we supposed to figure it out?
Apparently, at least in American politics, sex is all three. It was a horrible sin when Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky, although for the two of them the sex was very entertaining. For the American news media, Bill and Monica having sex was and remains a great product that they can repackage and sell over and over again in countless variations while that 30% I've mentioned above continues paying their monthly cable bill for the freedom to stare on in horror, punishing themselves over and over again for the indiscretion of their own youthful sexual desires.
Once upon a time I believed American women were strong, independent people who made up their own minds, thought their own thoughts, lived their own lives, and refused to let someone else treat them as a commercial product, a political poll group, or a sex toy. Clearly, after watching the circus of Bill Clinton's impeachment in my youth and Donald Trump's evisceration in my old age, I was wrong. Apparently American women, at least that 30% who hate their own sexual nature, are more than happy to have Michelle Obama tell them how and what to think.
These numbers are not exact and they do not take into account genuine predatory behavior, which in the real world is actually quite rare (about 1 in 10,000 men is a genuine sexual predator). Different research produces slightly different results, possibly as a result of the researcher's own expectations before they begin studying sexuality. For more details read one or more of the books listed below. Once more, in case those numbers were too confusing:
3 out of 5, 60% = intense sexual attraction
Half of those, 15-20% of all women = feelings of guilt after the fact
Half of those, 15-20% of all women = no feelings of guilt after the fact
30%, half of each "Half of those" = long term sense of shame over their lack of self-control
70% = no sense of shame regardless of how they responded at the time
October 13, 2016
Even as I sit down to type these words I know I am wasting my time. The people who need to read this book will not read it, and even if they did, they would refuse to believe it. They are so blinded by their sycophantic adoration of Secretary Clinton that they cannot accept as real any fact which serves to contradict their assumption of her divinity. I do not understand this depth of willful ignorance. All my life I have been a truth seeker and a fact checker. I know exactly how screwed up my own internal landscape is, and I even know how it got that way. Therefore, when I form an opinion on the real world I force myself to go and seek alternatives, to verify every fact, and to always seek the greater context those facts live within. Context is everything.
“Crisis of Character” by Gary J. Byrne is an exceptional book. It is one man’s version of reality and it never pretends to be anything else. The constant search of the writer is in his seeking to define the moral context of everything he experiences. He does not expect perfection. He does expect accountability.
The “Introduction” opens with some background describing how and why he decided to write this book. In the first chapter he immediately jumps to a telling event that happened on a typical day of his tenure as a Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD) officer trusted with the last line of defense of the First Family and the White House itself. The chapter goes deeper into his background, chronicling how his father’s influence and his childhood travels formed his internalized value system. There are multiple anecdotes from his time as an enlisted member of the Air Force Security Police (AFSP). These stories are both personally revealing and very solid examples of the many diverse situations the AFSP finds itself in. This is a real-life account of one man’s service as an elite member of an elite fighting group.
Chapter 3 begins the main portion of the book. This is the story of his career with the SSUD which opens with his powerful memories of beginning his career protecting President G. H. W. Bush and the Bush family during the tenure of our 41st President. Life under the Clintons begins in Chapter 5 and carries on for about the next third of the book. One of the most interesting aspects of this story for me was how hard he worked to protect both the reputation of the Clintons and the security of the White House. As the story unfolds it becomes clear that during this period of time his attitude was much different than it is now. Events surrounding Monica Lewinsky, the ill-fated relief mission to Somalia, and the dramatic shift in priorities between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration challenged his assumptions about American life, American politics, and the values he learned from his father. It was only after he grew trapped between his own internalized moral code, the requirements of his job, and the complete lack of a moral code displayed by the Clintons that he finally sought to be transferred out of the White House. A good man driven to despair by the morally bankrupt couple chosen to lead the free world.
Chapter 14 begins his retelling of the fallout from the Ken Starr investigation into the activities of Bill and Hillary Clinton. This portion of the book struggles very hard to come to grips with how the Clintons managed to manipulate the media, the legal system, their inner cadre of loyalists, and the American people, into believing they were something other than criminals who failed in their responsibility to live up to the expectations of the American people. There is a great deal of information here about how the Clintons managed time and time again to avoid the consequences of their own corrupt and perverse behaviors. I found this portion of his story both genuinely heartbreaking and deeply infuriating. For the past three years my faith in our political process has been fighting to stay alive. Sadly, Gary Byrne’s retelling of the Clinton impeachment proceedings has destroyed any small spark of faith I had remaining in our system. Clearly we have become a failed state. All that is left is for the right crisis to push us into a brutal, bloody, implosive collapse.
Chapter 16 begins the next phase in his life. Now he is working as an instructor, teaching advanced tactical training to federal agents from multiple law enforcement agencies as well as state and county agencies who contract with James J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC). There are a couple of small anecdotes about his life as both an instructor and an in-rotation SSUD officer who still must from time to time serve protection details. Then 9/11 happens and his world turns upside down once again. As the SSUD is reorganized from top to bottom and political will surpasses policing as their core structure, he moves into the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) hoping that here he will have the tools and opportunities to genuinely help people and make a real difference in the world. Unfortunately, just before he makes the jump, the FAMS also falls victim to post 9/11 reorganization and even here, politics surpasses mission as the core foundation for policy creation and implementation. Nonetheless, the greater salary and the occasional victory are enough to keep him going until he retires.
The book closes with one last dire warning about the consequences of putting the Clintons back into the White House. His firsthand experience with the Clintons multiple and massive failures both within federal administrations and under Hillary Clinton’s service as Senator and Secretary of State have given Gary J. Byrne a unique and deeply moving perspective on how political power functions in the United States of America. Honestly, there is a great deal to be learned by reading, “Crisis of Character”. There are lessons here that are relevant to Hillary Clinton’s unsuitability for the role of President, and there are lessons here for each of us individually in understanding the consequences that result from making decisions based on pure emotion, on poor comprehension of the situation we find ourselves in, and on trusting others to do our thinking for us.
A powerful book that needs to be read by everyone who supports Hillary Clinton, but won’t be, because none of them want to see beyond the false front she has convinced them is real. It’s not just that Hillary Clinton is a con artist and a criminal. The greater context of this book is the horrifying results that occur when we ourselves refuse to face the real world consequences of our own ignorance.
October 12, 2016
Daily Mail Online: Putin Orders Overseas Officials to Send Relatives Home
It is 6 a.m. here in Tokyo. I have not had breakfast yet, nor have I had even a single cup of coffee. I turned on my computer to open Facebook and see how my friends around the world are doing. I found the article above in my timeline, posted via Rush Limbaugh by one of my ultra-conservative friends.
I am faint and nauseous as I type this. During my time in the Army I wound up doing some work that I was not authorized to even see, but my lieutenant was worthless and he wanted to look good for the Colonel, so he assigned me a task that he could not trust anyone else to work on: plotting the damage radii of every warhead in the Russian and American nuclear arsenals. I had to do some homework, read up on nuclear strategies, find out when and how nuclear arms fit into an overall strategic plan, and come up with a response to a nuclear first strike by the Soviet Union. Routine, run-of-the-mill stuff for anyone who had been to Officer Candidate School, but all new information for me with nothing more than a high school diploma and a year of technical school under my belt. It was a very eye-opening experience.
There are stages one must pass through if they expect their nation to survive a global thermonuclear war. An enemy can watch and if they see those stages taking place, they know ahead of time what you are preparing. The first stage involves setting in place food, water, toiletries, medical supplies, blankets, tents, clothing, and other necessities. You have to predict how many survivors there will be and place enough daily supplies in secure facilities to get those survivors through the first month after an attack. The second stage involves training your people how to react to news a nuclear strike has been launched and is inbound. Flight time for a land-based ICBM from ignition to impact is 27-42 minutes depending on where it is launched from and where the target is. If your people are prepared and know ahead of time where to go to be safe, half an hour is more than enough time to get them into the shelters you have pre-stocked with one month worth of supplies. Unfortunately, a submarine launched missile (SLBM) has a much shorter flight time, under twenty minutes and possibly as little as five depending on where the submarine is and where the target is. About a week ago Russia held an inland civil defense exercise for around 40 million people. They did not involve coastal communities because they knew coastal communities could not possibly react in time to save themselves. This is one of the tragic realities of nuclear war. Certain places, like New York City, Washington D.C., Charleston, San Diego, and San Francisco, will be radioactive dust piles before anyone even realizes what has happened. It does not matter how well or how little they prepare, coastal cities simply cannot be saved.
Once your population has been educated and supplies set in place, then you can move shorter range armaments into place. These armaments include resources such as fast deploying short-range bombers, short-range tactical missiles, and nuclear warheads for large bore field artillery. Russia moved these items into place a few days ago. At least one batch, some missiles moved to the land border with Poland, happened to make the daily news. This was probably not an accident. This was Putin sending a very clear message to Obama. Unfortunately, the American response was to send John Kerry to the UN recommending that Putin be tried for war crimes because of the bombing of civilian areas in Aleppo. Naturally, Putin saw this as an escalation. Obama probably refuses to believe that Putin will actually launch his bombs and missiles. Obama assumed Putin was bluffing and sending John Kerry to the UN was his way of calling Putin's bluff. Sadly, at this point, I am certain Putin was not bluffing.
Children are the future. This is an undeniable reality. If a nation is going to survive a nuclear war, then the children must survive. Children need their mothers to nurture them and to teach them how to be adults. Therefore, the very last step before hitting the big red button is to call home all of the dependents of overseas personnel and insure they are safely positioned near the pre-stocked shelters. Men working in diplomatic missions are far more willing to be sacrificial lambs if they know their families will be safe. This morning, Putin is calling home the wives and children. Throughout the half-century long Cold War, no one ever reached the stage of calling home the wives and children. This was always one of the key indicators to Cold War leaders that some small chance at negotiation remained. For the first time in history, we have passed that stage.
It takes ten days to insure everyone makes it home. No more, no less. If you don't mind sacrificing a few, five days is enough to insure families of all the most important elites have time to make it home. Back in August (Brian's Meandering Mind: War is Coming) when I first noticed this process unfolding I made a few assumptions about how the strategy would unfold. The strategy I outlined in August insures maximum survivability for the people of Russia and China because it diverts American attention long enough to prevent them from having time to prepare a major counter-attack. Believe it or not, unlike during the Cold War, nowadays it would take the United States at least 72 hours to be prepared to launch a second strike in response to a Russian first strike. Depending on certain conditions I no longer have enough facts to confirm, a counter-attack might actually be impossible because by the time it could be prepared Russia will have had time to assess the effectiveness of their first strike and decide if a second wave of attacks is necessary. If certain systems have been allowed to fall far enough behind, if certain personnel have not been kept current through training and practice, if certain materials have been taken offline and moved to warehouses, then it could take five full days to prepare a counter-attack. Five days is more than enough time for Russia to launch a second, final wave of attacks. At that point the only decision left will be whether or not to launch a land invasion.
I don't know about you, but I have accepted the simple truth that it is entirely possible I have five days left to live. My home here in Tokyo is dead center between a pair of priority one targets, both well within reach of an SLBM. If Putin actually does push his big red button, I will not even have time to post a Tweet, let alone write up a blog post.
I do hope I am simply paranoid. I guess I'll find out soon enough.
October 11, 2016
On September 1, 1983, Korean Airlines flight 007 was shot down by the Russian Air Force. The flight had originated in New York City and was on its way to Seoul after briefly stopping in Anchorage. In a news conference on September 9th, the Russian spokesman (Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov) claimed the 747 had been mistaken for an RC-135 surveillance plane that had been operating in the area at about the same time. The RC-135 uses the same aircraft chassis design as a Boeing 747, which gave the explanation a sense of legitimacy even though the American government denied that any RC-135s were even in the air at the time.
In September 1983 I was a Sergeant in the United States Army. One critical region of concern at the time was Beirut, Lebanon which was in the midst of a bloody and prolonged civil war. Over the course of this conflict western diplomats and journalists were often targets of kidnapping or assassination by any of a number of Islamic militias, including Hezoballah which is still one of the largest, best-organized Islamic militias in the world. Then, as now, radical Islamic terrorism was a daily news item right alongside deepening tensions between the United States and the now defunct Soviet Union. The internet had not become a consumer reality yet, but bookshelves were filled with many of the same conspiracy theories that dominate the internet today. 1983 was an extremely tense year and the threat of global thermonuclear war was so real that waking up each day to learn it had not happened yet was considered something of a miracle. Less than a decade later, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended.
The disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was one of the most celebrated moments of my life. I grew up in a world where everyone went to bed at night with no expectation of waking up the next morning. Nuclear annihilation was thought of not in terms of "if it happens" but in terms of "well, it didn't happen last night so I suppose I ought to get out of bed and start my day." I don't think anyone born after 1991 will ever truly understand what it was like to live in a world where everyone knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that today might very well be the last day of life for all of us. No sane person who lived during those times ever wants to see them return.
My memories of growing up in the Cold War are exactly why this election year has been so disgusting for me. Watching the international relations between the United States and Russia decay over the tenure of President Barack Obama has been one of the most alarming trends of the past eight years. The "Arab Spring", so celebrated by President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, filled me with trepidation. I felt like I was seeing a replay of 1983 on a massive scale. Now, instead of just Beirut, Lebanon, every single Islamic country stood on the brink of violent, bloody civil war. I am still surprised at how quickly the entire region passed through a social convulsion that could have been bloody beyond imagining. I suppose, on some level, some small credit does go to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama for not making things worse, but it is a very small credit. French, British, Russian, Chinese, and European Union diplomats, spies, covert military operators, journalists, and aid workers are the true heroes. In the near complete absence of leadership by the Obama/Clinton team, they are the ones who worked tirelessly to minimize bloodshed while paving the way for new governments to replace the old.
The Obama/Clinton team focused their efforts on Egypt and Libya. As a direct result of their bumbling incompetence, Egypt passed through a second social convulsion and Libya is even now still embroiled in civil war. Syria and Assad were neither ignored nor aided. Instead, Barack Obama tried to rally the United Nations into directly intervening in Syria in order to force Assad from power and replace him with some unnamed, "democratically elected" leader. Isolating Assad economically and politically drove him straight into the waiting arms of the Medvedev/Putin team that was working hard to build their new "Russian Federation" from the now twenty or so nations that had once been the Soviet Union. Putin now has exclusive control over Russia and is still continuing to use a combination of military force, diplomatic persuasion, and economic isolation to convince the new democracies surrounding him that things really would be better if they once again joined together into a single political, economic, and military bloc. This is his ultimate goal and the underlying strategy behind everything he does on the international stage.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left him feeling abused and angry. By seeking closer ties with Russian, Ukrainian, and Georgian industrialists while openly criticizing Putin's own efforts to reunite the surrounding countries into a single political and economic bloc, she completely undermined his life's work. Most infuriating from his perspective is that she did not do this in order to advance the agenda of the American government. Her entire purpose was to bring cash flooding into the Clinton Foundation and its related charities, effectively using her office as Secretary of State to line her own pockets while blocking Putin's efforts to resurrect his beloved USSR. Putin had spent his entire life learning how to counter the American government. Faced with Barack Obama's complete disinterest in the region and Hillary Clinton's unchecked avarice, he had no tools available to him to drive a wedge between the United States and the countries he was working so hard to bring back into the fold.
And now, after eight years of dealing with President Obama, Vladimir Putin finds himself facing the very real possibility that the greediest, most despicable capitalist of them all stands poised to enter the White House on a platform that looks very nearly identical to the old Soviet definition of "democracy". The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton coupled with the possibility of having to counter her arrogance if she gains the White House is too much for him to accept. He has dealt with her before. It is not so much her being a powerful woman that causes him grief. After all, in almost every diplomatic sparring match they have had so far he has bested her time and time again. The difficulty for Putin is her ability to use her own personal greed to tap into the greed of newly minted capitalists in Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and all of the other postage-stamp sized nations surrounding him. Capitalism has always been Putin's nemesis and for him, Hillary Clinton represents the worst kind of capitalist of them all: a self-centered narcissist able to con her allies into believing she actually has their best interests at heart. For Putin, the only thing worse than a greedy capitalist is a hypocritic one and that is how he sees Hillary Clinton.
This is why Putin has put the entire Russian nation on a warfooting. This is why Putin is willing to join forces with China, the only country he hates more than America. This is why Putin has begun working to undermine the NATO alliance by drawing Turkey into his bosom with promises of pipeline investments and free agricultural trade. This is why Putin is willing to start a nuclear war to defend a petty Syrian tyrant from certain death at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists funded, trained, armed, and organized by President Barack Obama. This is why Putin is bombing every rebel group in Syria and Northern Iraq except ISIS. For Vladimir Putin, conflict with the United States is no longer a war of ideology or even a war of supremacy. It has become a personal war between himself and Hillary Clinton.
Bloomberg: Russia Joining China to Counter US Missile Defense
Independent: US Behaviour Could have Nuclear Implications
Business Insider: US-Russia Relations Reach Biggest Chill Since Cold War
Wikipedia: Al Nusra Front (a.k.a, Jabhat Al Nusra)
Wikipedia: Korean Airlines Flight 007
October 08, 2016
Independent: Russia Launches Massive Nuclear War Training Exercise
Reuters: Russia Builds up Forces in Syria
Washington Times: Pakistan Strengthens Ties with Russia, Threatens India with Nuclear War
Business Standard: Russian Lawmakers Approve Unlimited Use of Force in Syria
The Hill: Pentagon Brushes Aside Russia's Syria Warning
I could go on, but why bother? No one is reading this blog. No one is reading the headlines that really matter. Thanks to the foreign policy ineptitude of Barack Obama, the incompetence of Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State, John Kerry's inability to reverse the deterioration in international ties, and Samantha Powers invisibility at the United Nations, the magical detente achieved by President Ronald Reagan has ended. Once again we stand on the brink of global thermonuclear war, a three-way suicidal last hurrah by The United States of America, The Russian Federation, and The People's Republic of China. North Korea and Iran are both prepped and ready to do their part as well. As of this morning, Pakistan has jumped on board the Russian juggernaut.
It no longer matters who wins the election on November 8th. If the boys with their hands on the big red buttons have restrained themselves long enough, then I will still vote for Donald Trump. Whoever wins, if war does not start in November it will most certainly start in February. A year from now I will be dead and you will be dead while the United States of America and most of the Northern Hemisphere will be a smoking, radioactive ruin. Clouds of radioactive dust and debris will fall from the skies for the next decade. Almost all forms of life as we know them today will be dead long before that decade ends. It is fitting that scary clowns are terrorizing the American countryside. Sending in the clowns has always been last act of every good circus.
So thank-you, liberal progressive America. Gays can now marry, armed black street gangs have more civil rights than the unarmed innocent blacks they prey on, our police are afraid to shoot deadly felons, radical Islamic terrorists and Mexican drug cartels have formed deep alliances, Chinese slave labor is the foundation of the modern industrialized world, Swiss bankers can no longer keep their secrets, and solar panels are everywhere even though their best conversion ratio is around .07%. You have achieved your liberal progressive, neo-Marxist global utopia just in time to watch it all get blown to hell!
But hey, don't stop now. Keep railing against Donald Trump. Don't back off those cries of "bigot", "misogynist", "greedy billionaire", and all those other delightful labels you love to apply to anyone who disagrees with you. Your Kenyan-born messiah* has brought in your new world order and if we are all really lucky, it might last until June. I'm betting not. My money is on global thermonuclear war in the middle of November, February 2017 at the latest.
It was good while it lasted. Thank God I was born in the United States of America. Thank God I had a chance to help Ronald Reagan become president. Thank God I was able to visit a dozen different countries and raise a family before it all went to hell. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going to sit over here on the sidelines and strum my ukulele while the world burns. I did the best I could, but no one was listening.
(*) Yeah, yeah, I know. He was born in Hawaii. Despite his long educational career as a foreign student, his Malaysian passport, and the Time Magazine article that declared, "Kenyan-born Senator Barack Obama visits his birthplace in first major overseas trip!" Funny how quickly that headline disappeared when he decided to run for president. Sure, he was born in Hawaii, but his loyalty has always been elsewhere. What other honest conclusion can I reach when he drags us to the brink of nuclear war in order to protect a small army of terrorists in Aleppo who call themselves, "Al Nusra Front"?
October 02, 2016
I started this blog on June 3, 2003. Yesterday was my 650th post. Today I am asking myself why I even bother.
American presidential politics has always been a knuckle-bruising, knock-down, drag-out fight to the death. I have seen some outrageous television commercials, horrendous media bias, and outright falsehoods knowingly perpetuated by respected academics, all in the name of winning the White House. I thought the 2012 election was going to go down in history as the worst of the worst. It was so bad I was certain the end result would be civil war.
2012 was nothing compared to this year: childish insults, sexual innuendos, sexual scandals, pornography, pornographic satire of candidates, deliberate falsehoods, sycophantic devotion to one candidate by a worshipful press, grassroots supporters walking around in a religious fervor dedicated to hunting down and burning at the stake anyone who dares beseech the reputation of their idol. And it's on both sides of the aisle! The level of insanity in this campaign is unprecedented. People I thought were good friends have resorted to calling me names, insulting my parentage, and responding with derision to every opinion I offer, regardless of how carefully and rationally I present it.
As I outlined on August 15th, "War is Coming", we stand on the precipice of a global thermonuclear war. The international tensions and pressures between the three prevailing superpowers have not been this bad since JFK's assassination. No one in America even cares that China has captured 3.5 million square kilometers of open ocean and claimed it for their very own. Russia is accusing the United States of supporting terrorists and threatening to attack our military installations in Europe and the Middle East. Putin is not even trying to be subtle or diplomatic. He flat out threatened attacks on American military installations and the President brushed it aside without even a mention. The American media won't even report it! I had to read about it in an online British publication! And nobody in America cares. They are too busy arguing over which corrupt, self-centered narcissist is less qualified to be president! No one even mentions their preferred candidate's strengths, all they do is bad mouth the opposition!
Thirteen years. 650 posts. My most popular post is six years old and has barely 400 views. Apparently the world has judged my viewpoint meaningless and irrelevant and I am beginning to wonder if they are right. Meanwhile, a musician with a love of Karl Marx and a hatred of the Constitution earned 5,000 views on his very first blog post, even though he has never produced a record and never performed in front of a audience larger than a few dozen drunks in a sleazy, lower Manhattan beer joint. 5,000 views for a post praising drug dealers and pimps while condemning farmers and factory workers. What the hell is wrong with our nation?
I'm 55 years old. I'm tired. I don't know why I bother writing. No one is reading it anyway. They're all too busy watching The Walking Dead, Vampire Diaries, and Game of Thrones.
October 01, 2016
Video too long for you?
Here is the official transcript at CNN
It amazes me, sometimes, how short our memories are. Back in 2008, when Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton were dueling for the Democratic nomination, there were two issues foremost in everyone's mind: NAFTA causing it to be more efficient to produce goods in Mexico and ship them across the border into the United States than to pay American workers to produce the very same goods, and the astronomical rise in both healthcare costs and health insurance premiums. Here we are, eight years later, and both of these remain huge problems in the United States. It is still cheaper and more efficient to produce consumer goods in Mexico or in China or in Vietnam or in Indonesia or in Thailand or in Cambodia or in Pakistan or in India or in any of a hundred countries, and then ship those products into the United States, than it is to pay American wages and benefits. And this is still true despite a nearly 30% loss in purchasing power from stagnant wages amidst rising costs in rent, food, fuel, and healthcare, none of which are used to calculate the Consumer Price Index in official statistics!
Despite President Obama and Representative Pelosi teaming up in their efforts to force the Affordable Care Act through the House of Representatives, followed by President Obama and Senator Reid using a bizarre rule of "consolidation" to pass the failed House bill by "consolidating" it with the much smaller Senate bill that had just barely passed and sending the result straight to the president for signing, health insurance premiums have doubled, tripled, and in some states, quadrupled over their already insane 2007 levels. Over the past four years, dozens of American companies have shifted their headquarters to Ireland, Belgium, Belarus, the Philippines, China, and even Vietnam in order to stop paying American taxes and remove the need to comply with American safety regulations. Some companies, like Apple computer, have never made their products in the United States. Even Donald Trump and his wife Ivanka were compelled to produce their clothing and personal accessory product lines in China because either the productive capacity they needed was no longer available in the United States or it was simply too expensive. My own car, a Ford, was assembled in Mexico using parts made in dozens of different countries. Trade agreements signed by presidents from both parties, ratified by congressional representatives from both parties, and negotiated by trade officials appointed by both parties, have eviscerated American manufacturing. Sure, President Obama's economic polices have added 5 million jobs to the economy over the past eight years (3 million of those jobs are in States with Republican governors). However, during those same eight years, 25 million jobs have moved overseas!
In short, nothing has changed!
And that is only one of the reasons why I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton.