Nobody wants to take your guns?
Bringing this forward from my old blog:
Whenever I, or others, object to registration or bans on transfers, or other forms of gun control and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and ?nobody wants to take your guns.?
Well, perhaps we should consider these nobodies?
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls? And immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act? Which would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns. Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)
My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned. Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)
I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say “Sorry. It’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option, keep your gun but permit it. Andrew Cuomo
I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state. Michael Dukakis
If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all. U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea? Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post
Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog. Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94
To get a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!?  John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step. Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA
Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed. Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe. Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them? Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here. U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TVs 60 Minutes, 2/5/95
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come. U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.
I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers? No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun. Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think, I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means. William J. Clinton, 8/11/93
The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take, we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases. U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

I don’t believe gun owners have rights? Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report Handguns in America, October 1997
We must get rid of all the guns? Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on The Phil Donahue Show? September 1994
The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough. Sarah Brady 7/1/88
I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994
We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true?? U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93
My bill establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns. U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93
I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily? Given the political realities? Going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, this is a great law. The problem is solved. And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then well have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal? Total control of handguns in the United States? Is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition? Except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors? Totally illegal. Nelson T. Shields of Handgun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker? Magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

 Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun. President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned. We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them. The Washington Post Legal Guns Kill Too?  November 5, 1999
There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution. USA Today, Michael Gartner Former president of NBC News Glut of Guns: What Can We Do about Them? January 16, 1992
I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012
 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution :
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013
And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. NIJ Memo on a new Assault Weapon? Ban. 2013
The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection? (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)
The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them, Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013
California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of Assault Weapons to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine.
SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future. California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of an Assault Weapons to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the bullet button or similar device.
SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.
California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were grandfathered for possession if registered in previous Assault Weapons gun control schemes.
Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.
California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered high-cap magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. (High-cap means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40s AK pattern rifles or 60s AR pattern rifles.)
We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it? We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.? Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, a moment of opportunity and seeks to ban handguns (2013).
People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed. Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  Final Solution anyone?)
We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate. Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey’s State Legislature, May 9, 2013
No one in this country should have guns. Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013
Proposed Missouri Bill to ban assault weapons.  4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
New York sends out Confiscation letters.
It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion. Leland Yee, California State Senator.
Shannon Watts (head of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense?): @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes. (Twitter, 2014).
Upon review of all the parties evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake. (The assault weapons being described are semi-automatic weapons meaning one shot fired per pull of the trigger of fairly modest power, near the low end of center fire rifles.)  As for the claim that said weapons are not particularly useful for home defense.  I address that here.
2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. Bill introduced in Missouri House.
NJ.com editorial boards advocates for mandatory gun buybacks.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_gun_buyback_programs.html

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over gun confiscation, don’t expect it to make much difference.

Gun Surrender without the anonymous provision:
We’ll take that weapon into safekeeping as a matter of practice. It’s pretty easy, he said of the surrender process. We are working to find ways in which we can make it easier for people to turn in weapons and firearms.
Callers will provide their name, telephone number and address, and the reason for surrender. Once the firearm has been checked to see if it was involved in a crime police will mark it for destruction.
(So, basically, people with illegal guns, or guns used in crime, will stay away in droves.  The only purpose of such a provision is to take legally owned guns from people.)
Another shooting in another gun-free zone (Florida requires guns on college campuses to be locked up and cannot be carried) leads to calls for gun prohibition:
I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.openthebooks.com/

I will be building a 12 X 12 X 8 shed in my basement in panels which I will break down, transport, and reassemble on site at the farm. I have found this to be a pretty easy way to get things like a shed assembled in the warmth of a shop, then quickly re-erected at the field site.

I will be laying the deck tomorrow, much as the Navee lays a keel, then later welds a ship to it.

The project is meant to be easy enough to easily be duplicated (Too many "easy's) by any of you boneheads.

It will live at my Hide Site farm which is located here:
http://real-man-truckworks-and-survival.com/index.php?topic=3051.new#new

Here is the stack of lumber:

 Last Friday I went to my local truck stop for dinner and sat next to a truck driver and he seemed to be in a good mood so as we waited for our dinners we started to talk.  He is a few years younger than I and has been driving long-haul trucks for the past ten years.
  As many of the other long-haulers, the career change was forced for a reason and it was his farm went bankrupt.  He kept the house and five acres of land and the rest went to auction, so he took up long-hauling.
  I asked him why he was so upbeat and he said he just got a job offer from a local farm equipment dealer.  It seems that because of Trump's tax cuts, farmers are now ordering new equipment and he needed a new salesman.
  Thank you, Pres. Trump!


Take that you commie OB lovers!
Another win for the Trumpster, and another kick in the teeth to the establishment

Good times!

Over the Christmas holiday, while in my softer mood, I have thought about how to me, all of you are "knucklehead" or "Bonehead" or similar.

Not fair lumping you all into a group where you obviously belong, however not taking note of who you really are

While thinking about it I realized that:

Shawn is the instigator of things and agitator of people (ITAP or "The I-Tap")

Kenneth, his alter-ego is just a nice guy...Part bonehead, we can all agree, but a nice guy. He serves to be everyone's friend, their buddy. So I guess for now on, he's "Buddy-Ken" or just "B-K"...Edit: Naw strike that. I just watched Shawn take another shot at Ken. I immediately realized Ken's nick name ought to be "Dart-Board"

Mikey, aka Cudda kid (or something like that) is the cunning one. Able to twist anything anyone said in earnest into something pun-like and humorous. A great twister of the truth, he shall be "The Pun man from Chicago"

Charles, the Texas Red Neck watches from the shadows and waits for the perfect time and setup. While we go about debating this or that, he comes in with the precision of a supreme court justice and fires the kill shot. He shall be "The Sniper"

Bobby, Bobby is just plain old grunt! Can I get an amen...Grunt it is!

Blaine is a grunt as well. A killa at heart, he still carries a badge, so we aren't going to mess with him for now...Staunch-Up!

JR is this big lovable old (Emphasis on old) guy, once a cop, with the heart of a servant. Him...??? I'm feelin, "Pops"

We have a couple Daves'. Heck walk in any room with three men, and you have a couple Daves'! ;-)) One is a smart butt, and, well, the other one is too. We probably have twenty or thirty other daves, but who's counting. Whenever I think of either of these two some words immediately come to mind: Shut Up Dave! So either one of then is SUT! Make the louder one SUT-up, and the close contender SUT-JST (Just stop talkin')

There's more, but I just ran out of Quoffee...

Merry Christmas all!

Thought I'd provide a spot to show your gifts to make the rest of us jealous!

I like Broadway and good musical shows. Looks like I scored big time in that department!

EXCLUSIVE: Six U.S Agencies Conspired to Illegally Wiretap Trump; British Intel Used as NSA Front to Spy on Campaign
Posted on September 20, 2017 by Investigative Bureau

From the beginning it was a set up to find dirt on Trump campaign insiders and if possible to topple Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Before and after the 2016 election. And while this operation had many moving parts and alternating players, the mission to unseat Trump never changed. And it remains ongoing.

Paul Manafort was wiretapped. Cater Page was wiretapped. Donald Trump Jr. was wiretapped. Jared Kushner was wiretapped. Gen. Michael Flynn was wiretapped. And likely there were others.

And none of it was very legal.

In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate’s choice for president of the United States.

 And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed.

The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names: James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA). And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.

President Barack Obama’s White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.

Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump’s associates:

Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).

Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian’s visa by True Pundit.
 
Thomas Paine
@Thomas1774Paine
Replying to @PreetBharara
Mr. Bharara, @PreetBharara Why did you sign off a rare visa allowing Ms. Veselnitskaya into the United States? She was banned by @StateDept

Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.

Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway.
The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele’s dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.

Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm.

It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it was approved.

FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.

“This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings,” one federal law enforcement source said. “I don’t think they ever thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence.”

We of the Christian belief should make some attempt to learn and understand this growing Islamic culture.

A veteran of several wars and many combat tours of duty, I really wish it were otherwise, but the truth is striking in its blatent hatred for us

Today's lesson:

 Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23 all have the same message; 58:22 simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—"even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin." But Koran verses further call on Muslims to have enmity—hate—for non-Muslims: "We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone"

Just sickens me

Bad enough that Islam is awash with homosexual sodomy any Thursday night with the use of younger boys, that is reason enough to bar that culture, but now this???

New term, courtesy of Islam: Erotic zoos!


https://conservativetribune.com/animal-brothels-open-germany/

https://www.facebook.com/TheDeclarationIJR/videos/10156330634612971/

I picked up a reconditioned Dewalt 20 volt scroll saw for a killer price, $114! I think it costs $269 or something like that, so I couldn't pass

Anyone notice these Costco 12 days of Christmas specials which pop up every day?

Well, if you are getting notifications in your in box, DO NOT OPEN that email.

I have been buying stuff every single night...C-A-N-'T  R E - S I S T

Two days ago, I scored a 22' little giant ladder for $149

Last night a Covercraft tactical Molle seat cover for the chebby

and now, in my inbox

is today's specials

Just lying there like a siren's song luring the hapless sailor to his doom...

THE ANGRY MAN

 

The Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field.

In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.

He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of appointed judges and political winds.

The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.

The Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.

His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or any of a hundred others. What does matter is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are wholeheartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.

The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant so that you can keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry Man is the backbone of this country.

He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed, when people exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.

The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he finances doesn’t.

Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.

When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live or die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing to lose and he will never give up.

Obama calls him a Clinger. Hillary calls him Deplorable. Bill calls him Redneck. ISIS calls him an Infidel. Donald Trump calls him an American.


    THE ANGRY MAN

Then:


https://www.youtube.com/embed/9WoM2bHfr48



Oldie but goodie!

The new breadwinner in the family..
 
An emergency room physician in Chicago tells of a woman in her late 20's came to the ER today with her 8thpregnancy
She told the doctor: "My Momma told me that I am the
breadwinner for the family."
He asked her to explain. She said that she can make
babies, and babies get money from the State of Illinois
for the family. It goes like this:
The Grandma calls the Department of Child &
Family Services, and states that her unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids.
DCFS agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care.

The Grandma then volunteers to be the
foster parent, and receives a check for
$1,500 per child each month in Illinois.
Total yearly income:$144,000
tax-free and nobody has to go to work!
In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home!
Not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid), plus a monthly card entitling them to free groceries and a voucher for 250 free Obamaphone minutes each month. This does not include WIC and other welfare benefits...that they are "entitled" to.
Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the
family.
And now Illinois is hopelessly overrun
with people who vote only for those who
will continue to keep them on the dole....
No wonder our country is broke!
Worse, the Muslims have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country within 25
years. Muslim populations are growing faster in Illinois than any other State. Read the above again, until it sinks in, and then ask yourself if your Children, Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren will survive these severe changes to America !!!
Are You alarmed yet?   Is anybody listening?
Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or what....?
Don't forget to pay your taxes!
There are a lot of "breadwinners" depending
on you..forward this to as many as you can!!!!

I AM NOW UNEMPLOYED

Matt Lauer (Today Show / NBC)
Charlie Rose (CBS / PBS / Bloomburg)
Garrison Keillor (Prairie Home Companion)
Harvey Weinstein (Hollywood Producer)
Kathy Griffin (Comedienne)
Kevin Spacey (Actor)
Mark Halperin (Political Analyst / MSNBC)
Glenn Thrush (Reporter / NYT)
Jeffrey Tambor (Actor / Transparent)
Andrew Kreisburg (Executive Producer / CW)
Louis C.K. (Comedian)
Brett Ratner (Director)
Michael Oreskes (NPR)
Matt Zimmerman (Senior VP / NBC)
Jeremy Piven (Actor)
Mark Halperin (NBC)
Terry Richardson (Photographer)
Leon Weiseltler (Atlantic Magazine)
James Toback (Director)
Roy Price (Director / Amazon Studios)
Andy Dick (Comedian)
John Lasseter (Pixar / Disney)
Chris Savino (Nickelodeon)
James Toback (Director)
Mathew Weiner (Writer / Mad Men)
Anthony Weiner (Former Congressman / NY)

MY JOB IS IN QUESTION
Sen Al Franken
Rep John Conyers
Ben Affleck (Actor)
Many other Senators, Congressman, Hollywood & DC elites


I AM STILL YOUR PRESIDENT
Donald J. Trump

OK, the factory batteries made it a little past six years for me. I purchased the truck in October, it was built in July or August. I replaced the batteries, AC Delco in November of 2017. Call it six years and a month of service.

Here's the candidate, my 2011 2500 Silverado with a LML diesel and 80,000 miles on the clock

Well, thanks to a member donating $50 just now, we are off and running on the Christmas 2017 project. That's an early start to what has become a really cool thing we get to do here for some peeps we don't even know.

I think that many of you get about as excited about this as I do. Heck last year I was out in little girl stores buying stuff I had no idea about, and it was FUN! This, honestly is one of the coolest things we do from this RealMan corner of the interweb.

So, no decisions have been made yet but I do have some candidates for our giving this year. First is a place called "The Talbot House." It is a place where children of drug addicted parents who are in rehab get to stay or are cared for from afar while their parents try to fix their broken lives. There is a christmas gift tree out that I could pull names from, as in a gift per name and see what we could do to sow some happiness into an otherwise bleak situation.
Second on my list is a local old folks home. Living there are some guests who no longer have any family and are wards of the state just living out their days. I don't know how many people there are or how we might respond, but that would be a worthy cause. And frankly I DO NOT care about this policy or that which restricts things like not playing Christian music, or saying "Merry Christmas" or speaking of our savior. In a word, "To Hell With All That!" Well, a bit more than a word, but that's how I feel and given my size and fearsome (Ugly) look, no one will say anything when I raise a might word of praise for our king!

Next (and I may be leaning this way a bit, I know of a woman with two girls, one four, and one older, living in an apartment, whose worthless husband walked out abandoning his family. We could sow into that family like last year's effort.

So with no particular goal in mind, I guess we're off to the races to make a CHRISTmas ho-down for some needy people. Like always we will do it mostly anonymously and keep our generosity between us and our God (The way he likes it).

So boyz and girlies, if you are so so convicted, donate away and watch the amount grow over on the donations page. And check this out...a DP (Don Prediction): This year's amount will be more than last year's amount...and I bet (because the Lord likes this) it will be a bunch more!

Oh and if you have something to say as far as which direction you'd like to go with our giving this year, please share it here. Of course, like always, I won't pay any attention at all and end up doing whatever I think, but at least you'll think you influenced the decision. And that will make you a happy person!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-TQQE1y68c

https://www.acuity.com/about/flagpole

Don Comment: OK, acknowledging that i know a bit less than nothing...An alliance between Saudi-Arabia and Israel??? Impossible, right? Secular viewpoint would classify that notion as fiction. However, allow me to Bible-up here for a moment. In the times during/after tribulation and the great catching up of Christians, when we meet our king in the sky, mankind is all but eaten alive by the terrible events that follow. Remember where the remnant of man finds refuge?? In the shadow of mount Sinai. Where is Mt. Sinai? In modern day Saudi Arabia. I think one of my long distance Chinook flights back during Desert Shield was over neat that place...
And how big is Israel in these end times? It's huge! It encompasses most of modern day Saudi-Arabia. And how could that be you ask? Could an alliance between the two former enemies lay the groundwork for such an event???




Saudi Arabia has united with Israel against Iran – and a desert storm is brewing

Mass arrests are the Crown Prince’s opening salvo in a fight against corruption and an embrace of moderate Islam

John R. Bradley

The Spectator

Despite his youth and inexperience, he has risen rapidly through the ranks, amassing previously unimaginable powers for a single royal. This, and his refusal to govern through consensus — as is customary — has caused deep resentment, jealousy and anger. His most prominent critics and rivals were therefore carted off on corruption charges to the Ritz-Carlton, turning it into the world’s most luxurious prison. Eleven senior princes were among them, as well as dozens of businessmen, and current and former ministers and provincial governors. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal — the wealthiest Arab tycoon who holds significant stakes in Citigroup, Twitter and countless other companies — got caught up in the dragnet.

At least he is still alive. Mansour bin Muqrin, deputy governor of the Asir region bordering Yemen, hailed from a rival branch of the ruling family sidelined after King Abdullah’s death in 2015. He boarded a helicopter with seven senior advisers, and amid speculation that he had instructed the pilot to head for a foreign country. Then his helicopter was blown from the sky, killing all on board. No official cause was given, fueling conspiracy theories. However baseless, the incident must have given further pause for thought in these febrile times to anyone then thinking of trying to flout the blanket travel ban.

AdTech Ad

The country’s Attorney General says that this was only the first phase of mass arrests, and that trials would soon get under way. The front-page headline of the newspaper Al Jazirah a day after the purge encapsulated the new reality: ‘No place for traitors in the age of Salman.’ Welcome to the new Saudi Arabia.

For the Crown Prince’s supporters — vast swathes of the country’s young, eager for progressive social change — his way may be dictatorial but his motives are honourable. The purge represents the opening salvo in a fight against corruption that comes with an embrace of moderate Islam, a determination to relax the strict segregation of the sexes and introduce entertainment venues. Why should ordinary Saudis have sympathy for the arrested if they have, as alleged, been engaged in massive criminal schemes involving bribery and money laundering? When did any of those speak up on behalf of the oppressed masses?

Bin Salman’s power grab is in itself spectacular. But the wider significance of this can only be fully understood in conjunction with events in Israel. The Jewish state is hardly a natural ally for Saudi Arabia, but they have long shared a common enemy: Iran. Both fear the latter is exploiting the opening created by the fall of Isis, and the triumph of the Assad regime in Syria, to dominate the region. Iran and its proxies — whether the Houthi rebels in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon — are in the ascendant, and neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia are going to sit on the sidelines.

So the two have been working together: close diplomatic cooperation, intelligence sharing and perhaps more. Israeli media recently reported that a senior Saudi prince, possibly Bin Salman himself, paid a secret visit to the Jewish state. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli alliance is still deeply controversial in both countries, but details are starting to leak out.

Amid the recent madness, for example, we saw the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a Saudi puppet. He was summoned to Riyadh, where he was forced to read a letter announcing his immediate departure, the official reason being that he feared an assassination attempt by Hezbollah. But why would a prime minister visit a foreign capital to resign? The odds are that he had no idea he was resigning until he landed in Riyadh to meet Saudis furious at him for holding talks with both Iranian and Hezbollah officials. His departure has shocked the region.

But it didn’t shock the Israelis. A leaked memo shows Israeli diplomats being instructed to back the Saudi version of events, and start to join Riyadh in denouncing the Houthi rebels. Such diplomatic coordination is dangerous, given that an alliance has the potential to create a massive backlash among ordinary Saudis. For generations, they have been taught that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and Israel is the eternal enemy.

This brings us back to the night of the long knives. An outpouring of anti-Israeli sentiment might, only a few months ago, have provided a rallying cry for those determined to oust the Crown Prince. They would have likely turned to Al-Waleed bin Talal, a fierce critic of Trump and the most vocal Saudi supporter of the Palestinians. But he is in prison, presumably as a warning to anyone who shows opposition to the young new broom.

The military hostilities have already started. Houthi rebels in Yemen fired a ballistic missile at Riyadh, which was intercepted by the Saudis, who then announced that both Lebanon and Iran had ‘declared war’ on the kingdom by supplying the rebels with missiles. Iran denies it, and military analysts say it would be hard to ship whole missiles to Yemen. The Saudis, though, are adamant, and they say that retaliation will follow.

Whose side will the West be on? Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, recently left Riyadh after his third visit this year, staying up talking with the Crown Prince until the small hours of the morning at a ranch in the desert. Robert W. Jordan, a former American ambassador, says that the recent purges were conducted after ‘what people would call a green light from President Trump’. And all this while Israel was conducting its biggest-ever aerial military drill, just a month after its largest-ever land military drill — both simulating war with Hezbollah.

So two months after his 32nd birthday, the Crown Prince has established himself as a despot, albeit one hailed by the West as an enlightened visionary. He has tightened a military alliance with Israel, all but declared war on Iran and prepared Lebanon as the first scene of this war — with Hezbollah as the first target.

John R. Bradley’s books include Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis

Bergdahl and Military Swamp Holdovers

Susan Stamper Brown

Posted: Nov 06, 2017

“I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”  -- Gen. George S. Patton.



Americans are outraged over the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing November 3 that should have led to serious prison time, or worse. But, face it, we now live in a country where deserters who cause fellow soldiers to be maimed or killed are treated as heroes if weak leftists are in charge.

   

He should be in prison. The only difference between Bergdahl and the guy who used a Home Depot truck to mow down and kill people in New York recently is that Bergdahl displayed his allegiance to the enemy on foreign soil.

   

Bergdahl walked because the military swamp remains filled with senior leaders who climbed the ranks curtsying to former President Obama’s social experimentation and his upside-down value system whereby one treasonous deserter is worth five senior Taliban terrorists.

   

Obama exchanged five of Gitmo’s finest for Bergdahl, then hosted a sickening spectacle at the White House Rose Garden where a touchy-feely Obama spoke to Bergdahl’s parents “courage.” Meanwhile, Obama’s favorite fact-twister, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, made her rounds, propagandizing that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.”

   

Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers had a different story to tell on the Fort Richardson, Alaska Facebook page.

Time.com recorded comments which included: “I say we welcome him home with a firing squad,” and “He’s a piece of trash and everyone from [Fort Richardson] knows it – the only person less American than that man is the president for giving up 5 hvt’s [High-Value Targets].”

   

Another said: “Maybe if you knew the truth and the sacrifices made from people in our units in Alaska to find this douche… I feel worse for the kids who have to grow up fatherless cause their daddies died looking for this punk.”

Now, “this punk” walks, thanks to, in part, the judge in charge, Col. Jeffrey R. Nance, who once said at a Fort Bragg hearing: “I will consider the president’s [Trump’s] comments [regarding Bergdahl] as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence.” Nance was referring to Trump’s less-than-complimentary comments about Bergdahl.

   

Obviously, Col. Nance did just that, essentially presenting Bergdahl a snowflake award, punishing him with the equivalent of a hand slap, despite six soldiers killed and others permanently maimed.



In my opinion as a retired military officer’s wife, Bergdahl’s dishonorable discharge devalued my husband’s honorable one.

   I also believe Obama’s and Rice’s comments about Bergdahl helped to tip the scales of justice in the wrong direction, not Trump’s.

   Furthermore, as a military wife during wartime, I attended way too many funerals for those who gave their all for something that had meaning and purpose. Not searching for a selfish son of a gun who thought only of himself, not the lives and families his actions might destroy.

   

At times and when politics aren’t in play, military justice can be swift, painful and fair. Not this time, and especially not for the brave warriors maimed and killed while searching for Bergdahl.

   

Col. Nance rewarded a traitor and Obama freed dangerous enemies most likely to face us once more in some future battle, plain and simple. It’s fair to say the Taliban interprets Obama’s prisoner exchange and Nance’s decision to let Bergdahl walk as weakness to be exploited.

   

Even this blonde columnist understands Americans are safest when our enemies see strength. Let them hate us, but they darn sure must respect us.

   On a side note, given his rank, odds are, Nance is close to retirement, especially after trashing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as many in the military community suggest. One can only pray.

   

Anyhow, it’s a sad day in America when a traitor is freed from a life sentence while fellow soldiers received their's searching for him. What an insult to every veteran who served honorably.

https://www.axios.com/heres-whats-in-the-gop-tax-plan-2505430314.html?stream=top-stories&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=alerts_all

Here's what's in the GOP tax plan
The House GOP tax plan keeps the 39.6% tax-rate for the wealthiest Americans ($1 million income for married couples), caps the mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes at $500,000 (down from $1 million), and will allow only $10,000 of property tax to be deducted, according to a summary released this morning.

Why it matters: Lawmakers are finally seeing the full details of the proposal this morning. Already some Republicans had expressed concerns and powerful lobbying groups like homebuilders had expressed opposition.

What comes next: Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady told reporters this morning he expects an analysis of the bill from the Joint Committee on Taxation later today, but it's been mapped at meeting the $1.5 trillion deficit addition cap.

Other details, with more to come when text is released:

Individual taxes:

Increases standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.
Individual tax rate brackets, per the Wall Street Journal's Richard Rubin (subscription required):
25 percent rate starting at $90,000 for married couples, $45,000 for individuals (everyone below that pays a 12 percent rate).
35 percent rate starting at $260,000 for married couples, $200,000 for individuals.
39.6 percent rate starting at $1 million for married couples, $500,000 for individuals.
Expands the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600 and provides a credit of $300 for each parent and non-child dependent.
Makes no changes to deductions for charitable contributions
Elimination of student loan and medical expense deductions and the adoption tax credit, per the WSJ.
Doesn't change contribution rules for 401(k)s
Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000.
Repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Doubles the estate tax exemption immediately and repeals the tax in six years.
Business taxes:

Lowers corporate tax rate to 20% and lowers rate for pass-through entities (often small businesses that report taxes as individuals) to 25%
There are two approaches to pass-through guardrails. The simple approach allows businesses to classify 70 percent of income as wages and 30 percent as income. The second option allows business owners to have more income classified as business income, rather than wages.
Interest deductibility capped at 30 percent of interest, per the WSJ.
International taxes:

One-time tax on U.S. companies' repatriated foreign profits; 12 percent rate on cash and a 5 percent rate on illiquid investments, per the WSJ.
Eight year repatriation payout

ROSS RANT

A lot of good things are happening in Asia now. The Japan election solidifies Abe, and he now has the votes to make more good things happen in Japan to build on the improved economy they are experiencing. Japan is now even more dependent on the US in light of N Korea, and that will afford the US leverage to work on improved trade terms.

 

Xi is now the absolute ruler of China and will remain so for many years. The recent party congress puts him in a position to do almost anything he wants. Xi understands that China is now a major player in the world and he cannot let Kim ruin the opportunities China now has to improve their economy and to work on solving the over leverage and aging demographics issues which are serious risks to the regime. He also fully understands that a war in N Korea will ruin everything, and bring about a potential confrontation with the US.  That is not what Xi needs when he now has a seemingly good working relationship with Trump, and a potential to work out trade terms on a reasonable basis. Working with the US is far more important than continuing to use N Korea to create problems. The Chinese now understand backing Kim is not in their long term interest, and he needs to be shut down. Eventually someone will assassinate Kim, and it may well be the Chinese who set it up. My view is China will put the screws to Kim and use sanctions and embargos to try to get him to give up nukes. It is unclear if that will work, but in the end Kim will either fold or be killed. Kim may do something very stupid and try to attack Japan, or Guam or a US carrier, but it is unlikely as China has said publicly if he does that they will not be there to help him. I believe in the end, Kim folds or dies, and the nukes go away. It will be very tense, but Kim is all alone now, and China seems to realize that the US, S Korea and Japan are too key to its future to side with Kim. If this does play out this way, Trump will have accomplished a major foreign policy victory. We will know how this ends sometime in 2018.

 

India is taking huge steps to get its economy and politics on a much better footing. They just bailed out the banking sector due to many bad loans, and that should strengthen the ability of banks to lend and help grow the economy. Many other steps are being taken to clean up a corrupt mess of an economy, but it will take years to accomplish. Labor laws and land issues are still a huge issue. The whole corrupt business culture has to be changed for there to be real progress. India also is playing the US off against China and is now receiving major military assistance from the US. This is of tremendous help to the US to offset issues with Pakistan and China. This is also much to the US benefit as it shows XI, we can play the game in SE Asia also. India is the potential balance to China in Asia and the military bulwark against Pakistan. The tight relationship of the US and India lets us exert much greater pressure on Pakistan to go after terrorists. This will take time, but the fact that the US is now back in force in Afghanistan, and will assure they do not lose to the Taliban, combined with our close ties to India, leaves Pakistan in a tough position and with China now cooperating with the US, Pakistan has nowhere to turn.

 

All of this is very good for the world economy. It also means that Asia will be a much more key player in the world economy. China has severe financial and economic problems and needs to have peace and cooperation if Xi is to succeed and avoid an uprising of the younger generation. If Kim is eliminated and peace prevails, then the US will have real influence in Asia and everyone will benefit. China will continue to challenge the US militarily and economically, but not in a way, nor to the extent it could lead to a military confrontation. If things work out as I think they will, Asia will be a major growth opportunity for US companies. We will know a lot more by next summer.

 

The Dems are getting desperate to try to kill the tax reform. They will fail. Research shows that 70% of lower taxes for corporations does flow to wages. Corporate taxes really do matter as to where companies locate and where they keep idles cash. Lower corporate taxes are a major good growth stimulator to the economy. It would seem there is no way they will touch the 401K rules unless they have a much better idea that allows retirement savings to increase, but why change what works so well.  Seems politically stupid to touch this but maybe they have a better idea. The average retiree has a net worth other than the house of just $80,000, and the 401k has become much more important to retirees as most private sector working people now have one. Schumer and Larry Summers have gotten hysterical and strident, and instead should work with the Republicans to put out a bipartisan bill. But they likely realize if a tax bill is passed and the middle class does see more money in their pockets, then the Dems get crushed in 2018. Republicans need to make a big point that the top 10% now pay 71% of all taxes and will pay an even greater share with the tax bill. Several Dems are in a rock or hard place on this bill. It will be interesting to see how the senators up for reelection play it since they will be voting against tax cuts for average voters if they are not voting with the Republicans on this.

 

All of this leaves Europe still the place where the economy is improving, but is still far from good. That is why the ECB today voted to leave rates the same and to only reduce QE, not eliminate it.  With the US now possibly doing 3% growth, and Asia getting its political and economic act together, Europe is the laggard by comparison. Even Africa is starting to grow with  more potential upside than Europe.  While Africa has major structural, political and cultural issues, it is beginning to improve and really grow. They are starting on the road to joining the world economy like other emerging markets have done in Asia, but they have a very long way to go. At some point in the next decade, Africa will be an opportunity for investment. For some long term players, they are there now, but the risks are very high.

 

The Catalan crisis is very real for Spain, and the eastern Europe countries: Poland Hungary, and Austria, are now controlled by the right wing. These leaders are working to have Brussels have less power. They are strongly anti- immigrant. Merkel is much weaker now after the election and Macron will struggle to get his polices fully approved. The EU is growing, but the substantial problems with banking and productivity remain.

 

The truth about what the Clintons and Wasserman and Podesta were doing, and how Holder and Obama were very possibly working in concert with them, will blow up now. The truth is going to come out. It is ugly.  Just wait to hear what the informant says now that he is free to testify-it will get really bad for Obama, Hilary, Bill, Holder, Comey and Wasserman.  It is beginning to smell like Watergate. The payoffs to the Clintons in the uranium deal, and the money laundering by the foundation, will all come out. Comey will be seen to be a very political animal and will lose credibility. There are serious questions as to why the FBI under both Mueller and Comey did not pursue many of these issues, and why the email scandal was essentially covered up by Comey and Lynch.  All of this will be in full gear into the election cycle for 2018, and if tax reform passes and something is done on Obamacare, and if the economy is growing at 3%, the Dems will be the big losers again. My theory is Obama and Hilary needed to try to delegitimize Trump. They came up with the dossier and hid it through Perkins Coie. They also were using the IRS and Lois Lerner to stop right wing groups, and they used huge corporate and bank fines to fund left wing groups. Debbie Wasserman colluded with Clinton to eliminate Bernie. It was all a plan to stop Trump and try to destroy his presidency, and maybe get him impeached in 2018. The obstruction by the Dems in not confirming appointments, and in refusing to cooperate on any legislation, was just a part of the overall effort. As the scandal unfolds, and as it becomes clear that Obama and Clinton conspired to destroy Trump and the Republicans, there is a good chance the Republicans can pick up the seats they need in 2018 in the Senate.  The entire game changed this week, and when the informant testifies it will blow open. I am sure my liberal friends will think this is a political piece and pro Trump, but it is just sitting back and objectively looking at all the events and strings, and how they now fit together. Lois Lerner shutting down tea party groups, the funds to left wing groups, opening the border to a flood of Latinos who could eventually vote Democratic where voter ID is not allowed, and who cld be used as a major issue to fuel protests, the uranium deal, the giant “fees” to Bill for speeches, the foundation being in Canada to avoid transparency, Wasserman conspiring with Hilary, the Pakistani computer assistants to Wasserman, the unmasking by Powers and Rice to nail Flynn, and the infamous dossier and Russia probe. They all tie together into a potential scandal of Watergate proportions. The press is trying to deny there is anything here, and trying to minimize the story, but it will crawl out from the rocks. I ask you just try to be objective and let this play out before you conclude that what I have said is just a partisan view. It is why I have kept saying for months, the Dems will regret ever starting the collusion story. Soon the mainstream media will be all over this as it becomes clear what a major story this is, and the Republicans will deep dive with investigations, and it will explode. We are about to witness a historic moment in American politics.

 

Joel Ross

Dodging the Legal Bullets of this Postmodern World: the Right Way Back to Total War[1]

         

          In this war, America’s ground combat forces have been in near-continuous contact with enemy forces since October 2001.  It is with sadness, anger and frustration that we have witnessed first-hand the following:

 

          - Our military and civilian leadership has failed to stand behind our warrior’s inherent, God-given right of self-defense; often investigating and prosecuting warriors based on ill conceived notions of the ethical, legal and tactical realities of deadly force encounters;

 

          - Senior leaders cannot articulate why and whom we are fighting, leaving their subordinates to guess and, hence, gamble with their lives; and,

 

          - Moral cowardice and incompetence amongst the collective Judge Advocate General’s Corps concerning training and prosecutorial components of their mission.

 

The Right of Self-defense in War and Peace

 

          While our enemies have consistently violated the Law of Armed Conflict by inter alia not wearing uniforms, firing from protected places , using noncombatants as shields, bombing civilian markets, and committing other acts of perfidy; instead of prosecuting such grave breaches, military lawyers have reflexively gone after their own.  Too many Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have wrongfully been placed in the dock – some still in Leavenworth – for simply making “the wrong” call in the clear vision of 20/20 hindsight.

 

          As Lieutenant Colonel John Taylor, USA (Ret.) and one of the authors noted in A Raid Scenario: Second-guessing Those at the Tip of the Spear (http://www.huntingsaracens.org/2015/09/29/a-raid-scenario-second-guessing-those-at-the-tip-of-the-spear/):

 

          “Certain government leaders are in a mild panic over the recent publication of Sean Naylor’s new book Relentless Strike: The Secret History of Joint Special Operations Command. Since it would be inappropriate to comment on the veracity of anything Naylor has written about that command, our focus is on one seemingly innocuous and completely unclassified portion of his book. The following paragraphs are within our particular skill sets – the laws and tactical realities surrounding deadly force encounters – and it bears commenting upon:

 
          When “clearing” a building— i.e., moving through it and eliminating any threats— Rangers flowed through the structure like water, scanning each room in a synchronized choreography that was the result of hundreds of repetitions in training and combat. Only if they found any military-age men would the Rangers pause momentarily to leave a couple of soldiers to watch that room as the others continued through the building. It was not unusual for the Rangers to clear a compound in less than twenty seconds. The living room opened to a hallway that led to a corridor with several bedrooms. In the first, the squad leader and a young Ranger found a man and woman sleeping on mats. Using memorized Arabic, the squad leader, who was a battle-hardened staff sergeant, and the other soldier— a twenty-one-year-old specialist armed with a light machine gun called a squad automatic weapon— told the couple to put their hands up. Neither did. The two Rangers repeated the order, as their colleagues checked the corridor’s other rooms, finding two women and several children. But instead of putting his hands above his head as ordered, the man in the first room made as if to reach inside his robe. The squad leader’s finger tightened on the trigger of his M4. He had less than a second to make a life-or-death decision.
 
          The squad leader made his decision. He pulled the trigger, shooting the man in the head. Realizing what his squad leader was going to do, the specialist did the same, firing a burst with his squad automatic weapon. Their reaction “was aggressive,” said another Ranger later, with studied understatement. If it turned out that the man was unarmed, there would be consequences. The squad leader reported the room “clear and secure” and left the specialist to guard the woman. Above them, the sniper team leader shot and killed the second gunman on the roof. But as soon as the squad leader had left the room, the woman dove toward the body of her husband. Again the specialist had to make a split-second decision. Again his instinct told him to pull the trigger. He fired a short burst and the woman’s head split apart. With the squad momentarily distracted by the firing, a figure darted from the last room left to be cleared and ran up the stairs clutching a pistol. He burst out of the cupola, only for the sniper team leader to put two bullets in his head. The gunman’s lifeless body toppled back through the cupola and fell to the ground floor, crashing into a Ranger, the impact tearing the latter’s night vision goggles from his face. Abu Khalaf was dead. The Rangers had been in the house for less than thirty seconds.
 
          With the house finally cleared and all the adult males killed, the Rangers began the exploitation phase of the mission. An examination of the dead man in the first bedroom revealed a suicide vest. Had the two Rangers not fired when they did, they and perhaps several of their comrades would have died. Honed in nine combat deployments, the squad leader’s instinct had saved numerous lives, as had the specialist’s decision to open fire on the woman. She was the first woman that platoon had shot in about 200 missions. That there had been shooting at all was unusual. Only about 10 percent of the platoon’s missions involved gunfights.
 

          While he is persona non grata at USSOCOM, Naylor has unwittingly hit upon a persistent misunderstanding concerning the use of force that exists among many members of the press, civilian leaders, civilian attorneys, military commanders, and military judge advocates, to wit: a Soldier or police officer who uses deadly force  must always be right or correct in his decision to use deadly force for that use of deadly force to be lawful.  This is absolutely false.  Unfortunately, far too many military personnel are sitting in Leavenworth due to ignorance about this issue.  Let’s quickly examine why we say this:

 

          1. So, what if the suspect was unarmed and there was no suicide vest, would the young Ranger’s actions have been any less lawful?  Absolutely not. Constitutional law in the United States does not require FBI agents and other law enforcement officers to be right; only reasonable.  That same deference must be given to a company of Rangers in Afghanistan, operating under use of force rules that are clearly not intended to be more restrictive than those governing a law enforcement officer operating in a Constitutional Fourth Amendment environment in the United States.

 

          2. Does the fact that the second suspect was a woman have any bearing on the lawfulness of the shoot?  Absolutely not.  A fourteen-year-old girl with an AK-47 can kill you just as dead as a 24-year-old committed Jihadist. Besides, isn’t the current Administration itching to get females into direct combat units?  They can’t have it both ways.

 

          3. Does the fact that 90% of the capture missions did not require the use of deadly force in any way impact the lawfulness of the two Rangers’ use of force?  Not in the least.  Police officers are assaulted at least 60,000 times a year – 15,500 times with a dangerous and deadly weapon – and they only kill approximately 600 suspects a year.  One cannot use metrics to assess the reasonableness of shooting in self-defense.  Each case must be judged according to its own merits.

 

          So, the answer to all three questions, above, is an unequivocal “NO!” But, just as in domestic law enforcement shootings, too many commentators make a big deal about an irrelevancy: the now dead suspect was unarmed.   Clucking their figurative tongues, they write as if that single issue is entirely dispositive on the question of whether a shooting by police was lawful.   It may be one of many factors in the overall analysis or it may be entirely irrelevant to the ultimate lawfulness of the use of deadly force.  It certainly is not the single dispositive factor that many assert. And citizens need to be educated about this because it is critically important both for military personnel and cops today in this increasingly violent insurgency that Fifth Column Islamists have started in The West.

 

          In as easy a picture as we can paint, people who follow directions of cops or military personnel who are pointing guns at them are rarely if ever shot. The sad and frequently repeated situation occurs when a suspect or detainee fails to do what they're repeatedly told to do by lawful authorities or an authority figure and then or they make a furtive gesture or engage in some other threatening conduct.  As a consequence of that refusal and accompanying conduct they get shot and sometimes killed. Then, the poor devils that shoot them, merely trying to survive and do their jobs, get prosecuted.  And this, in a nutshell, is the source of frustration among cops and Soldiers across America and amongst experts in the use of deadly force…"Why are some members of the public siding with those here and abroad who disobey lawful authority figures and place themselves at greater risk by their own freely chosen misbehavior and ill conduct?”     

 

          Why indeed!  The answer to this question is complex.  In addition to commanders’ and their lawyers’ complete malfeasance in understanding the realities of a gun fight, the antecedent causes are the failure of our leadership to succinctly state the strategic purpose of our mission and, concomitantly, the failure of the services’ JAGs to understand their subject matter and mission.

 

Why Do We Fight ?

 

          Any strategic leader facing that question in World War II would have simply stated, “To defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on the fields of battle in order to secure America and the World from tyranny!”  Every warrior, from a young Private in the 29th Infantry Division on Omaha Beach to the Commander, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces Europe (General Dwight D. Eisenhower), gets that reason.  While, individually, they may be fighting to save their platoon mates; morally, they understood their strategic purpose.  After about April 2002 – when American forces accomplished their mission in Afghanistan of destroying al Qaeda’s infrastructure and displacing the Taliban from power – things became muddled at best.  Four-star after four-star, whether guest lecturing at one of the Senior Service Schools or briefing Congress, could never succinctly state why we were fighting.  If they were delusional enough to believe that we could force 32 distinct and separate tribal entities to become a Jeffersonian Democracy at the point of a gun, then they were delusional enough to allow the prosecution and persecution of fellow Americans like Lieutenant Clint Lorance for ordering his platoon to engage suspected Muj or Special Forces Sergeant First Class Charles Martland for allegedly pushing a Muj policeman suspected of buggering a young boy.


          If only we just drank three more cups of tea!  Yeah, right. This is insanity, plain and simple.  Perhaps it was driven by the greed of contractors after a Thursday informal breakfast with members of the Joint Resource Oversight Committee or by ignorant, lazy politicians who continue to view Islam through the rosy lens of Western Civilization.  Anyone who bothered to read David Pryce-Jones’ 1989 classic The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs, had an understanding of the history of Islam’s long fight against The West.  Moreover, if they simply heeded the warnings of CIA Intel Analysts in the mid-Nineties they would understand that these people do not want to be Westernized … to them, it is anathema to their worldview.  The modern Jihadist is a throwback to the Dark Ages.  They possess an Apocalyptic, nihilistic worldview that cannot be understood by the normative Western values by which most Americans operate.

 

          Why, then, did we keep sticking our face into the chainsaw, maiming, butchering and killing our Nation’s finest … then, prosecuting young warriors for what, at worst, were tactical errors in judgment?  This, from a leadership perspective, is the definition of cowardice.  Our senior leaders decided to use a hammer – the military – to conduct precision surgery and were surprised when trauma resulted to the patient!  And, refusing to accept responsibility for such trauma, they go after the weakest victim of their perfidy: the warriors at the tip of the spear.  In the bluntest terms, this enemy needs to be hunted down, root and branch, and destroyed just as ruthlessly as we did the Nazis and Imperial Japanese forces in WWII.

 

JAG Misfeasance

 

          From at least early 2001, when the doyen on ROE and International Law for DoD, W. Hay Parks, tried to instill some sanity into the discussion of Self-defense in the Rules of Engagement in his seminal article in Naval Institute Proceedings article, Deadly Force is Authorized, a small but influential cabal of Army Judge Advocates have tried to undermine Parks’ logic and reason.  We have personally witnessed Army Judge Advocates from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia teach such inane concepts as: “Don’t Shoot Fleeing Hostile Actors”, “Only Use Minimum Force (in self defense)”, “Shoot Once and Assess” or the fantastically ridiculous Five S’s of “Shout” “Show” “Shove” “Shoot” (warning)” and “Shoot” (to stop the threat)!  Then, they helped construct fantastically confusing Escalation of Force (EOF) cards that were supposed to help a young Soldier discern between a hostile threat and an alleged innocent other.  But, more often than not, such directives were used to punish those who allegedly failed to follow them.  Such nonsensical legal guidance has no reference point in the Law of Armed Conflict.  Instead, it attempts to supplant International Law with overly restrictive guidance meant to do one thing: provide top cover for senior leaders.

 

          Commanders, guided by their ever-present counsel, never once consider the following realities:

 

          1. Junior high school ballplayers practice an average of 400 hours a year at their sport and they still suck!  Soldiers, akin to their civilian police counterparts, practice with their weapons approximately 4 hours a year (and most of that is silly qualification courses rather than realistic situational training exercises) and we are demanding NFL-levels of performance?  And, even an NFL linebacker will misread a draw play on occasion.  This, because that linebacker defaults to his recognition-primed decision-making based on practice.  And, no matter how hard people train, the sad fact remains that they will make errors in judgment approximately 13% of the time (seeing a weapon when none is present 9% of the time and not seeing one when one is present 4% of the time).

 

          2. One can’t change a tactical outcome – other than to get more Americans killed – by writing overly restrictive rules.  Warriors at the tip of the spear understand this, so they either ignore silly rules and hopefully survive both the encounter and the ensuing investigation or follow them and get senselessly killed.   “Don’t Shoot Fleeing Hostile Actors”[2] ignores basic military doctrines of pursuit and domination of the battlespace.

 

          3. Most judge advocates - although well meaning - are simply ignorant in the art of war, yet too may commanders abdicate their responsibility and authority to lawyers to write and train ROE.  A few examples from the past 14 years will suffice:

 

          a. Most who have seen American Sniper are familiar with the final scenes in Baghdad where Soldiers are attempting to build a 30-foot concrete wall between Sadr City and the Green Zone.  The movie focuses on the SEAL counter-sniper mission, which did occur.  What was not captured in the movie was the decision by the 4th ID Brigade Commander, whose Soldiers continued to be killed and wounded by sniper fire, to call in an Apache CAS mission that dropped a few vacant buildings on the Muj snipers.  This was a perfectly reasonable and lawful application of force. However, two weeks after the fact, an Army JAG assigned to the Aviation Battalion was reviewing the flight’s videotapes from the encounter.  This legal genius, in the cool comfort of her trailer behind the wire, opined that the Hellfire strike was “excessive force.”  This ill-founded opinion precipitated a six-week AR 15-6 investigation against the battalion commander conducted by a brigadier general.  Then, to add insult to this injury, after the brigadier found the allegation to be unsubstantiated, the Division Commander (ostensibly to cover his ass) still issued a memorandum of reprimand!

 

          b. Every commander ought to know that every weapon or munition issued has undergone an exhaustive legal review at DoD level (most often by the expertise of W. Hays Parks, the aforementioned author of Deadly Force is Authorized). Despite this fact, military snipers and precision riflemen in one theater were temporarily prevented from firing M118LR jacket hollow-point boat tail (like the Sierra MatchKing) ammunition from their weapons because one JAG opined that “the use of hollow point ammunition violates International Law.”  We can’t make up this stuff!  Had that JAG simply understood that DoD had already opined on this matter: end of story. Moreover, had that JAG understood that the open cannelure at the bullet’s tip was not there to cause grievous and inoperable injury, but rather to simply stabilize it in flight, again: end of story.  Instead, as most military lawyers with “inch thick mile wide” expertise do, this JAG endangered our forces’ lives by inserting her nose into matters of which she knew nothing.  This ill effect is often enhanced when the JAG offering such nonsense has a Ranger Tab.  Too many commanders – and JAG superiors – give too much deference to JAGs with short tabs.  As one of our Special Forces friends likes to say, “If you send an asshole through Ranger School, all you will get is an asshole with a Ranger Tab.”  ‘Nuff said.

 

          3.  A SOF element had developed a TTP of simulating an IED attack by filling a HUMVEE with what looked to be grievously wounded soldiers and placing it smoking within a cleared kill zone.  Knowing that Muj ground forces would oft flock to the scene or would conduct “drive-bys” at the site,  the SOF team set up snipers on the fake IED site. You guessed it, this successful TTP was shut down when another JAG opined, “the enemy are merely practicing their right of civil disobedience”.  Sadly, this incompetent lawyer insinuated himself into a tactical matter of which he was incompetent to assess: not recognizing a military-aged male in civilian clothes running toward an IED site firing an AK-47 or an RPG as a Hostile Actor who needs to be engaged is sheer malfeasance.  Yet, time after time, commands have allowed such silliness to have a voice at the table.  That voice then becomes a self-licking ice-cream cone that breeds hesitancy and overcautiousness throughout the command.   

 

          4. During the Battle of Fallujah I, the Army Commander owning the battle space was convinced by his JAG to write ROE that said that forces in Fallujah could not shoot military-aged males unless they were pointing or firing their weapons at friendly forces!  Such insanity is the result both of woeful and willful ignorance of the dynamics of deadly force encounters.  At the ground level, it is probably woeful.  At TJAGLCS in Charlottesville, it is willful ignorance.  For well over a decade, the authors (and others) have attempted to introduce the Judgment-based Engagement Training (JET) Program to the schoolhouse, which would better educate young JAGs to the realities of a gunfight.  We consistently have been stiff-armed and even vilified by many in the throne of power.  These Tartuffe’s have aligned themselves with their EU brethren, introducing and reinforcing the ridiculous notion that force must be “minimal” and that “Soldiers sometimes have to get shot first” in order to win the COIN fight.  This is balderdash, un-American and Unconstitutional.  If these nabobs are afraid of an intellectual knife fight on this matter, what good are they in a real one?

 

          So, unless and until the seats of JAG power acknowledge their ignorance - and possible incompetence - in these matters, commanders and other leaders must do all they can to protect themselves and those in their charge from ill-founded investigations and potential criminal charges.  To this end, we offer the following advice on how to behave if involved in a use of force situation:

Surviving a Use of Force Investigation

         

1. It is okay and expected to give a quick SitRep of what has occurred.  This is important to give friendly forces situational awareness of enemy whereabouts and TTPs.  It is not okay to give a sworn statement to an AR 15-6 Investigating Officer or, worse, a CID Agent without first consulting a competent attorney.  And, please do not fall for that ridiculously stupid, “If you don’t have anything to hide, why do you need a lawyer?,” line of thinking.  In these cases CID is not your friend and most agents are inexperienced young noncommissioned officers looking to make a case or “title” someone.  Remember, even a trout would not get caught if it kept its  mouth shut!

 

          2. As a commander or leader, do not let anyone try to question your people or yourself until at least 24 hours post-incident.  Contrary to popular belief, the most accurate statement may not be the one taken immediately following this type of incident.  “The prevailing practice in law enforcement is to delay the official interview of the officer for some specified period of time after the event. This is strongly encouraged to provide a reflective interval for the officer to allow the distorting effects of flight or fight to dissipate, and for the trained and professional mind to reassert itself and recall events and sequences more accurately.”[3]  While this is a matter subject to continuing research, the consensus amongst experts is that officers “experience perceptual and memory distortions during a critical incident, such as an Officer Involved Shooting.”[4]  In order to obtain the most accurate recollection of such events, agencies usually allow the officer involved two to three sleep cycles before they undergo formal questioning and make a detailed statement.  The consensus is that this produces the best recollection of what are incredibly traumatic events.

 

          The FBI  – as well as most Federal agencies that mimic the FBI Shooting Incident Review Team (SIRT) policy including CID – typically do not allow their special agents who are involved in a line-of-duty shooting to be questioned until at least twenty-four (24) hours post-incident.  Moreover, their special agents are not to be questioned until they have been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel, psychologist and chaplain (if they choose).  Again, this is not obstructing justice, but rather intended to glean the most accurate account of what transpired. “Research indicates that “traumatic situations” inevitably result in some degree of memory impairment. The research suggests that officers may make more thorough and accurate statements if the interview is delayed at least 24 hours, and they get some sleep in the interim.  Sleep helps integrate memories and facilitate both learning and memory integration.”[5] 

 

          So, what is good enough for CID, OSI and NCIS Special Agents is good enough for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.  Do not be bullied by some badge-waving youngster into forcing yourself or one of your warriors into making a statement.  (In full disclosure: a CID Agent once threatened one of the authors with “obstruction of justice” for advising his commander not to make an immediate statement. Rightfully, the author and his commander did not budge.)   

 

          3. The advice set forth in the above two paragraphs should be briefed to every single member of a command both prior to deployment and again in theater.  Moreover, unless there has been clear and convincing evidence that one of your own has gone off the reservation (like the 25th Infantry Division Soldier that snuck off the compound to murder 13 civilians in town), stand behind your men.  One of the best examples of this was what then-Lieutenant General James Mattis, USMC, who, in dismissing the charges preferred against one of his Marines involved in the Haditha case stated: “With the dismissal of these charges you may fairly conclude that you did your best to live up to the standards, followed by U.S. fighting men throughout our many wars, in the face of life or death decisions made by you in a matter of seconds in combat. And as you have always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, you remain in the eyes of the law – and in my eyes – innocent.”

 

          Unfortunately, the likes of Jim Mattis within the force are scarce.  The current political environment hastened the departure of such warriors and enhanced the advancement of moral cowards that would gladly throw a subordinate under the bus rather than push back against their evil superiors.  We are in desperate straights when the military spends weeks celebrating alternate sexual preferences rather than teaching advanced weapons skills in an attempt to create self-sufficient steely-eyed killers.  Whether we can survive this war – and, like it or not, we are at war with a determined enemy – remains to be seen.  Regardless of who is our next civilian leader, our military will take years to rebuild.  Its leaders would be well served to reevaluate the role and scope of its JAG Corps in future conflicts.  Smart and competent attorneys can be a force multiplier for the command, but they must first be weeded from the areas they have grown unconstrained.

 

Fighting with a Total War Mindset

 

          By whatever name it currently goes by – ISIS, al Qaeda or ISIL – the global, radical Jihadi movement is totally committed to destroying Judeo-Christian Western Civilization as we know and love it.  And, the sad fact remains that the United States could kill every last one of them in Syria and wherever they operate if we simply removed the unnecessary encumbering rules of engagement by which our forces currently operate.  Three (3) brigade combat teams, with supporting CAS enjoying Air Supremacy, could shortly eliminate ISIS as a fighting force in Syria… if the commanders were more concerned with killing bad guys than they were with winning the hearts and minds of the local populace and prosecuting their own for ROE violations! First of all, we will never win their hearts and minds unless we soundly defeat them.  Secondly, unlike Nazi forces in WWII, Jihadi forces have no interest in living peaceably with The West: they need to be soundly thrashed just as Jan Sobieski did at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 or Charles “The Hammer” Martel did at the Battle of Tours in 732.

 

          Illogical and legally unsound arguments abound for reasons why we ought not target Jihadi supporters who are not clearly “Direct Participants in Hostilities” under International Law.  In other words, there are those that argue that a man can be a farmer during the day and a bomb-maker at night; so we can’t target him during the day because “he is not directly participating” in hostilities at the time!  W. Hays Parks makes short shrift of such silliness in his seminal article in the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics:

 

Once authorized to commence combat operations and following rules of engagement and the law of war, and thus subject to law of war prohibitions or restrictions previously noted, soldiers are not constrained by the law of war from applying the full range of lawful weapons against enemy combatants and civilians taking a direct part in hostilities.[6] (Emphasis added)

          Accordingly, Jihadi extremists – wherever they reside or operate – cannot hide behind the criminal statutes and protections afforded a criminal in a civilian case.  It has mystified the authors why we allow non-US persons operating intelligence centers/combat outposts out of mosques in both foreign and domestic locales to be free from kinetic targeting.  They are clearly direct participants in a global war being waged by their kinsman.  Logic, reason and compassion are not only useless as tools against them, but they scorn such sentimentalities.

          As witnessed by their decades of barbarism in the name of religion, this enemy is not playing by playground rules and neither should we.  To do so not only unnecessarily exposes our young men and women in uniform to extreme disadvantage and danger, but also ignores the fact that this enemy will only be stopped by overwhelming force of arms.  They do not seek economic parity or peaceable coexistence: they believe that we are living in end times.  At a minimum, they seek to expand the area of Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) to the parts of the world once under Islamic domination, to include Spain, all of the Maghreb and Levant.  Israel must be destroyed in the process.  The West has a very narrow window of time to put this destructive genie back into the bottle. Once ISIS (or any equivalent radical Islamist group) obtains nuclear weapons or components to make a dirty bomb, or saturates Western nations with enough immigrants, the fight is as good as lost.  Accordingly, we must defeat this foe by total warfare – short in duration, but violent of action – so that Europe and America (and others in the Free World) may live in constructive harmony.