Category: Articles (Click title to add comment)

Posted on

Pearl Harbor – Attack

Much has been recorded about this attack by the Japanese. I’ve enjoyed several books that go into great detail about every stage of the attack. One of the most enigmatic facts is that the attack was expertly and precisely carried out; this is wrong. I’ll address this aspect of the attack in another article. Today’s article focuses on the exceptional good fortune that fell upon all of the USA’s aircraft carriers in that they were at sea, and thus, escaped the attack.

Almost without exception, historians and official sources have explained the missing carriers on pure luck; this is also wrong. There is much debate as to whether the USA knew in advance of the “surprise” attack or not. The most prominent reason we would be ignorant of an impending attack is that FDR’s policies forbid any cryptology, code breaking, saying “…good neighbors don’t read other neighbor’s mail.” However, we got many warnings from other nations. Most warnings were based on pure logic. Japan’s next step of aggression would logically be an attack on the US. There is very good evidence that the highest levels of our government did know; much of this is from declassified documents. Japan was waging war all up and down the Asia coast but a large number of its capital ships, warships, were nowhere to be found. Our intelligent services and those of several lessor countries predicted the attack. If so, then why were we taken by surprise and why didn’t we make plans to repel the attack?

At first, Germany and the Soviet Union were allies. They agreed to invade Poland and divide it between them. Germany from the west and the USSR from the east. However, the ultimate prize Germany wanted was the USSR. After the war was going well in favor of Germany, they let their intentions be known by invading the communist USSR on June 22, 1940. And as always the German Blitzkrieg went well and was extremely effective.

With Germany knocking on Moscow’s door, the USSR needed the help of the USA to take the pressure off of them. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war; publically to help Briton. He established the much-touted Lend-Lease bill where the USA could remain neutral but supply England and the USSR with war materials. However, FDR had been “illegally” providing Britain war supplies before this. The passing of the bill justified FDR’s actions, and history has praised him for it. But FDR wanted more, much more. The threat of the Japanese was just the ticket. He wanted war. In truth, the war was inevitable. The only questions were when and how.

Let’s get back to the attack and the missing aircraft carriers. Did FDR and the military brass want the US fleet decimated? Did they want 2,400 men and women killed, as happened, during the attack? No. That was the last thing they wanted. First, the carriers had to be out to sea. Our carrier’s flight decks were covered with wood. It was a throwback of construction from another era. They would be extremely easy to sink, even by a near miss or flying debris from another target. They were sent out to sea on menial tasks and without escorts, very unusual. If they had been in port, moored and sitting still, they would stand no chance. Forget all the attempts to justify wooden decks, the facts are that the British steel decks sustained much less battle damage, even when struck by kamikaze planes.

It was thought that battleships could hold their own. Especially in the high concentration of being at the port in Pearl Harbor. They were so overconfident, that the normal amount of ammo for each gun emplacement was inexplicably reduced for this weekend alone. Ammo was actually removed from the normal stores at the gun emplacements. Even so, the Japanese were surprised by how quickly and effectively the USA’s defenses responded. The US did not know that the Japs had a torpedo that could function in the shallow harbor of Pearl Harbor. We trusted that if a torpedo was dropped in the harbor it would sink into the mud at the bottom. You can only imagine the shock by the brass when the damage reports came in.

I read an interview with a very high ranking Naval officer. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and before we were at war, he was making contact with the upper echelons of the navy to feel out if he might be able to take command of Pearl. He was told in no uncertain words that, “You don’t want it.” It was a mystery, but he dropped his inquiry. After the attack on Pearl, the current commander was made a scapegoat, and his career ended in shame.

The world was at war; nothing could reverse that. FDR realized that war for the US was inevitable. He had no knowledge how “war” had progressed. He was still living in the post WWI days, ignorant of what Japan was about to serve up to us. But, he was not alone; most of the (promoted during) peacetime brass were counseling him.

Posted on

What is History Resolved?

I have found that many historical conclusions are wrong and are proven so by the passing of time and the availability of recordings after that historical event. In the last eighty years, historians and publishers have found themselves like-minded and have taken this opportunity to draw conclusions that are contrary to the facts. They do this to put forth “history” that agrees with their political views and not the facts; this is because the logical conclusions are embarrassing to their favored party. These political views are almost always liberalism and the home to liberalism – – the Democratic Party. Once history has been bent and published to suit their goals it is then deemed “settled” which means that every reporting of history thereafter must agree with them or they will be shouted down by the all-powerful media.

History must be recorded without political or other influencing traits; it shouldn’t take on the traits of propaganda. This is the reason that history must be resolved with logical and common sense conclusions: Thus, the need for HistoryResoved.com 

Currently, I have found myself joining the ranks of the elders. As such I have the opportunity to RESOLVE some of the many errors in the recording of historical events because I have first-hand contemporaneous knowledge of them. This means that I can meld historical events with my oral history and hopefully give them legitimacy My oral history will be much more accurate because it hasn’t been passed down the ages as if it is a game of Telephone (where a phrase is giving to one person who passes it to another, and another until it gets to the end where the original phrase has been totally destroyed). Of course, oral history is an oxymoron; history means recorded events, oral ones exist only briefly in the air and profits only each person that hears it. If the events are not set in stone, so to speak, then how do we know it is accurate?

Historians doubted the accuracy of the Bible until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They were a record of history that agreed with the previously recorded Bible. Whether the historians agreed with the Bible or not they had to concede that it was recorded accurately.

Today’s historians, propagandist, will try to disprove my conclusions using the overused tool of switch and bait. I can’t cover every little detail in my posts. The distractors will point out some point of minutiae that was not addressed adequately and say, “See he didn’t take that into account.” These are distractions and distortions and will not be a factor in the primary supposition.

A prime example is my essay titled; What’s wrong with the Republican Party: from Lincoln too (but not including) President Trump.

Posted on

Hostage-Active Shooter How to survive


Update: There have been two recent examples of the below course of actions that were very successful. See at the end of the article.

I wonder why authorities don’t give better instructions on what to do and how to act if they are involved in an active shooter situation. In nearly all (I think there is one exception) the shooting stopped as soon as a second gun arrives at the scene. In one case the shooter was killed by that gun but in most cases, the shooter commits suicide. Several years ago a man pulled a gun at a wedding being held in Temecula CA and started shooting. The men closest to him jumped on him and stopped the shooting before too much damage was done.

This may sound crazy, but the best response to an active shooter is to charge. The last thing the shooter wants is to be captured, thus, that’s why they commit suicide when the possibility of being captured or wounded and taken alive presents itself. At the infamous Vergina Tech shooting a lone gunman walked leisurely between rooms, even returning to some to kill the wounded. In one of those rooms, brave Air Force ROTC Cadet Matthew La Porte did charge and was promptly dispatched. Why? Because it takes more than one person. Usually. If everyone in each room (he entered and shot in several rooms) had the mindset that if a shooter enters their room, they will charge, there would have only been three to five persons shot. And some of those would have probably lived. That sounds bad but at Virginia Tech 32 persons died and 23 wounded.

It takes time for a shooter to fire at one person and then another. There is a good chance that the first person will block the shooter and the second one can reach the shooter. Then the third person and more can pounce on the shooter. Unless the shooter is several feet away, then it will take three or more bodies to block his aim until others arrive. Plus, use whatever is available. In the Virginia Tech instance, men and women could have picked up desks and hold them between them and the shooter as they charged. The desks won’t stop bullets but there is a very good chance the shooter will try to shoot around them, and thus, making him miss. Everyone else should yell as loud as possible. That will frustrate the shooter who may be trying to give orders, also, it has been shown that unexpected loud sounds can disorientate a shooter. Distance does play a part. If you charge someone more than ten feet away, and you are among the first one to five persons charging, things don’t look promising. In the Virginia Tech incident, he only had 15 bullets in his magazine. Worst-case scenario, 15 persons would have been shot. But again, most of them will survive with injuries. If there had been someone that could tell when the shooter’s gun is empty, it takes a few seconds to reload, and that would be a good time to charge.

The shooter entered and exited the same rooms multiple times. What happens when a gunman enters the room? His gun and hand enter first. Someone hiding at the door jam could just reach out and grab it as he stuck it through the door opening. That would have been completely unexpected and would frustrate the shooter. When all else fails and you can’t escape or hide, try playing dead. It has worked for several persons. Are Americans brave enough to make such an ad hoc action?

In nearly all active shooter incidents the incident ends when the second gun gets there. It forces the shooter to commit suicide or risk being wounded and taken prisoner. The one thing almost all shooters fear is having their face plastered all over the newspapers and TV.

Yes, look at the 9/11 plane hijackings. One glaring element that everyone has missed is, that the terrorist’s elaborate plan only worked for an hour and seventeen minutes. The first plane crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46 am. By 10:03 am the plan fell apart and the brave passengers of United Flt 93 tried to take back their plane. From that time on a takeover would not work. Enlighted Americans would have pounced immediately. Americans as a society are very brave.

Hostage situations: If you can escape, escape. In one instant a teenaged girl didn’t want to leave her best friend behind, so, she returned and was killed. Her friend was left for dead but lived. Had the first girl escaped odds are that both would have survived. In a hostage situation, the best way to handle it is for a witness to escape. The hostage taker is much less likely to kill or otherwise harm the remaining hostage when there is a good chance of prosecution if caught. In several police departments it is taught that if someone attempts to take an officer hostage or kidnap the officer, the officer is to resist. Pull their gun and fight it out. History has shown that police officers do not fare well when someone is able to get them to an isolated place. They are killed and the suspect has the time to make sure the officer is dead, no playing dead here. And when officers pull their guns, even when the suspect has their gun pointed at the officer, the officer does much better. No one wants to kidnap a wounded officer. Too much trouble. And if the officer is shot and not able to resist, then play dead. Officers in these situations often survive their wound, when kidnapped not so much.

In Salt Lake City a man took an entire maternity ward hostage along with several newborns. He had several guns and had a bomb out in his truck. He took two hostages, nurses, out to get it. He told everyone that he was going to blow up the entire ward and all the babies with it. When outside one brave nurse tried to grab his gun, but, when that failed she tried to escape and was shot in the back and promptly died. Had the second nurse taken her cue and also attacked the man they probably would have been able to get the gun away. The two went back onto the ward without the bomb. The hostages included a woman in labor and her boyfriend. The man told the boyfriend to go outside and retrieve the bomb which was now in the bushes just outside the door. When he exited the building police ordered him not to go back inside. He yelled that his girlfriend was inside and he had to return. He picked up the bomb and took it to the man, thus, endangering many more persons than that were being held, hostage. It was, in fact, a very real and powerful bomb.


What should the boyfriend do? For one, if he didn’t want to abandon his girlfriend he should have refused to go outside and face the consequences. By doing the cowardly thing, the “touchy feely” thing, he endangered the entire ward with its ten or so hostages plus others that had not been evacuated. The man did not make demands that once met would result in the release of everyone. He made demands and stated he was going to kill everyone even if the demands were met. Once outside he should have stayed out, but again, if he didn’t want to abandon his girlfriend he should have returned without the bomb. The hostage-taker eventually gave up even though the police had refused all of his demands. This was probably the same outcome had the boyfriend also refused to do his bidding. We will never know, but, we do know that several additional persons were put at risk. Keep in mind that the hostage taker had already said he was going to blow up the ward which included his girlfriend and the boyfriend, so, nothing was gained by the bomb being taken inside, quite the opposite. The hostage taker would have been denied one additional threat for the negotiations.

If someone is trying to beat or choke you to death, die. At least play dead. If someone wants you dead give them what they want. This has happened several times. Most murderers don’t realize how hard it is to kill someone and they become satisfied that the deed is done well before it is and stops.

Recent Examples: On April 27, 2019, in Poway California and then again on April 30, 2019, at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte there were two active shooters.

In the CA instant, a shooter entered a synagogue and started shooting. A brave woman placed herself between the gunman and his intended target, the rabbi, disrupting his attack. Others then pressed an attack and chased the suspect away. One of those persons actually took a shot at him. The shooter quickly gave himself up to the police when they gave chase. As it turns out, the shooter’s gun jammed. Why it jammed we don’t know. It could be that the disruption by the woman caused him to unintentionally do something to the rifle, but what we do know, is that he was denied the pause he needed so he could put all his attention on the weapon so he could troubleshoot and clear the jam. Three others were wounded but survived. Had this action not been taken many more would have died. In another recent shooting at a synagogue, eleven persons were killed.

In the UNC shooting, it was another ROTC cadet who pressed the attack when a gunman entered and began shooting. He was able to knock the gunman down while others jumped on him and took him into custody. The cadet and one other died of their wounds. Four others were wounded, two severely, but as of this report all four have survived.

It’s impossible to measure how many lives were saved by these brave people. One thing we do know, there weren’t thirty persons killed; at each location.

Posted on

Police Code of Silence? NOT!

All you need to know:
The disproportionate amount of attention given to law enforcement officers; which is almost always negative, by the news media gives people the feeling that more is “at play” than there is. The media is not hesitant to bait others into saying or doing what they themselves wish, usually to the detriment of the baitee. If the persons can’t be baited, then the media will twist their words.

The media wants to portray the police in a way that falsely gives the impression that police selectively enforce the laws and gives more attention to a crime if the victim is white and less attention if a prostitute or homeless person is involved. Especially if the suspect is not white. This is ridiculous. Officers are predominantly law-abiding, civic-minded soccer moms or dads. Their goal is to be happy and to be happy with their family and friends. It is not going to work to be evil and cruel; someone completely the opposite of when at home. It’s the news media, the reporters, the writers, and especially the producers who have much more in common with crooks than law enforcement.

Details:
The current prejudice against police officers is glaring. Just look around at current events. If someone makes an allegation against an officer it is assumed true by the weight of this prejudice. All one has to do is make an allegation against the police and the media instantly picks it up and reports it as true. And if it can’t be proven true then it must be because the officers are hiding behind a “blue wall of silence.”

There is no vast understanding among all officers to lie to defend other officer’s actions. In today’s world, police officers are the first to turn in dishonesty by fellow officers. Police officers are usually building their careers, ones that would include promotions. If a carpenter is arrested for shoplifting it isn’t news, if a police officer is arrested it is news. Police bad conduct is disproportionately reported.

If a police officer is making an arrest for some crime it goes to reason that that person would be willing to lie if it could help themselves.

Years ago individual police officers began audio recording their activities. This was after the advent of small recording devices. The reason was that if someone made a complaint against the officer there was an audio account. Once played in front of the accuser the complaint was usually dropped. Of course, there is police misconduct, but it is being addressed very aggressively as it should be. Officers should be held to a higher standard, just not the standard of perfection. There will always be those that become officers for the sole reason to do crime.

The public’s attention is naturally drawn to officers and their actions. When the Rodney Glen King (police misconduct was recorded by a private person, see that incident) incident occurred I heard more than one TV news report suggest that “If this was recorded by chance how often do they really occur?” Nearly everyone has a camera now and nearly everything an officer does is recorded. Where is the avalanche of misconduct by police officers?

Keep in mind that when someone makes a complaint against an officer it is often because the officer has been called there to keep the peace, settle a dispute, arrest someone, and/or protect the prey against the predator. There is almost always someone that infuriated by the officers and thus a possible complaint. Many times the person being preyed upon is black as well as the suspect. There is much more black on black and black on white crime than white on black.

Today, most agencies have a very good ratio of black officers to white ones. I’ve heard many complaints that an agency has placed too many black officers in their predominantly white sections and too few in the predominantly black one. FACT, many black officers don’t want to work in black neighborhoods. Why? Because they are treated very harshly in black sections.

Trivia time, just for fun:
An off duty LAPD officer went to a little bar in a medium sized beach town on the coast of Southern California. While there it became know to some drunk college types that he was a police officer. He judiciously left the bar. He was followed by five men who confronted him and threatened to beat him. (P.S. all involved were white) Knowing he was about to be beaten, he drew his weapon and warned the men. Being drunk, they ignored it. He fired a round into the parking lot pavement. Being drunk men continued toward him until he shot one of them.

The incident was investigated by the local police. The man who was shot died. The other men claimed that the officer shot without a warning and without provocation. The officer was arrested. LAPD Internal Affairs began an investigation. The norm in cases like this is for the police department to wait until the criminal complaint is adjudicated before starting their Trial Board. It was taking a long time for the criminal trial to begin; nearly a year. All-the-while, the officer was being held in jail because he couldn’t come up with the bail.

By law, LAPD has only one year to adjudicate their civil case and since that date was approaching they convened a Trial Board. The officer is allowed to have another officer to act as his representative during the board. That officer visited the scene in the beach town to search for the slug that should be in the parking lot’s pavement. The town’s homicide detectives searched and couldn’t find it and the LAPD Trial Board Advocate should have searched for it. Eventually, he found it. He called the local police to pry it out of the pavement so it could be compared to the officer’s gun, which was being held as evidence by them.

Ballistics proved that it was the warning shot fired by the officer, just as he claimed. When confronted with this finding the other men crumbled and admitted that they were lying. All criminal charges were dropped along with LAPD’s charges.

In recent times the best way to get ahead in a police department is to “burn” another officer. This is especially true in large agencies. It is because of this, and their discrimination against police officers that they didn’t find the evidence.

In another instance:
A woman was getting lewd phone calls, lots of them. She complained and a wiretap was placed on her phone. This was back in the day wiretaps were done. The phone number was traced to an LAPD officer that lived not far from her. He was arrested for the misdemeanor and the LAPD convened a civil Trial Board. His defense rep (an LAPD officer of his choice to serve as a pseudo attorney) was frustrated because it was an open and shut case, yet, the officer kept claiming his innocence. As time dragged on his wife divorced him.

During the trial board, the LAPD called the phone tech that did the phone trace. He confirmed that he did the trace and it was accurate. When it was the defense’s turn his rep ask the tech if he did a phone trace and was it traced to; and then he read the officer’s phone number. The tech replied no. He took out his notes and read off the number the trace was to. The trace was to a number similar to the officer’s but where the last two digits were transposed. No one had noticed this before. The officer was presumed guilty. Wrongly, he had been arrested, lost his family, and nearly lost his job over this prejudice and careless mistake by an advocate who wanted to help his career by burning a cop. As it turned out, the correct number belonged to a known sex offender.

Okay, just one more, even more serious:
At the outcome of the Rodney King incident, the sergeant in charge was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and other add on charges. Stacy Koon, the sergeant, after serving most of his two-year sentence, was transferred to a halfway house. A normal procedure when releasing a felon back into the public. The transfer was published by local media. A black man armed himself and went to that house. Koon was not there. Not able to find Koon the man opened fire on two completely innocent white people killing them.

The modern media fans these inaccurate flames of hate. Any black person can attack an officer (white or black) and claim reverse racism. Many deadly attacks on police have been blamed on perceived racism. In Baltimore MD, when a black arrestee died in the back of a police van it was claimed to be because of racism by the officers. Yet, the arresting officer was black. The transporting officer was black. The police commissioner was black. The mayor was black. But the media allowed the thread of racism to mingle with the facts. And rap music stars, don’t get me started. NWA (_igge_ With an Attitude, today we can’t even mention their name) Tupac, Little Biggie, Snoope Dogg all admit they got their start by selling drugs to their neighborhood children and others. But if they claimed they were harassed and preyed upon by the police because they were black, not for being drug dealers. Even if the officers were black.

Posted on

U-2 Spy Over-Flights Of USSR

What you need to know: CIA pilot Frances Gary Powers was doing a top secret (spying) over-flight of the USSR in a top secret U-2 spy plane when he claimed to be shot down. He failed to follow any of the standing orders if shot down. He failed to push the destruct aircraft switch to keep the top-secret aircraft and just as valuable its top secret camera system from falling into USSR hands, and he failed to take the poison given him. Despite the claim that he was shot down, the top-secret aircraft was whole except for minor damage. He suffered even less damage. All this was after crashing from over 70,000 feet. The USSR did not have the ability to shoot down an aircraft at that altitude. He was a double agent for the USSR.

The Details: In the 1960s USA President Dwight D. Eisenhower needed to see what the Soviet Union’s military threat really was. He was frightened that they had the capability to do what they boasted of. Lockheed Aircraft was able to produce an aircraft that could overfly the USSR. It couldn’t fly high enough to evade radar but too high to be shot down, and that was good enough. The USSR would never publicly acknowledge that the USA could overfly their country and they could not stop it.

The U-2 can fly well over 70,000, feet AGL (above ground level) and the USSR had nothing that could fly that high, neither missiles nor planes, thus, they had to sit quietly and not say anything. They were unable to demand the USA to stop without having to admit to the rest of the world that they were not able to stop us.

Then came a mission flown by then CIA officer Francis Gary Powers on 1 May 1960. He was overdue. To the horror of the CIA and the president, the USSR announced that it had shot down a U-2, flight. There, on television, for the world to see was Powers, in remarkably good health for having been shot down and ejected from a disintegrated airplane. Well not quite. It seems that the aircraft didn’t disintegrate and was, in fact, in remarkably good condition. Nearly completely intact. Despite the plane freefalling for about 70,000, feet it crashed with no “crush” damage (caused by a falling plane hitting the ground at a high rate of speed) and nearly no other damage. And we had the images to prove this, on Soviet TV. The Soviets got a nearly intact airplane. The Soviets got a top-secret plane and top-secret photo and imaging equipment. Powers failed to initiate the self-destruct mechanism on the plane as he was ordered to do. Powers also failed to use the poison he was given to kill himself (yes, it’s true, these things do happen) before being captured. Powers stated that he didn’t use the poison because, “…had hopes of escaping from the USSR.” Yeah, an American deep inside the USSR would be able to make it a thousand miles without being captured.

I remember this incident very clearly. The fact is, our CIA was certain that Powers was a USSR spy even if they couldn’t admit it. One of Power’s stories was that he had some kind of engine troubles that caused him to lose enough altitude to allow the Soviet missiles to reach him. Then another one where he said the missile reached his altitude but just nicked the plane which then fell like a leaf over 70,000, feet to land with no “crush” damage, as would be expected. However, his injuries along with the damage done to the fallen U-2 plane did not ring true. The Soviets were broadcasting images of the pilot and plane that showed little damage. But, what could the CIA do? The USA would have to expose valuable intelligence assets to try to disprove the shoot down.

About five years later Powers was released back to the USA in a spy swap. He was not welcomed home as a hero. He was not treated the same as our shot down pilots of the Vietnam war. Nope, he returned and was not offered any position anywhere. Not with the CIA or any government vendor. His considerable abilities were not desired anywhere. Not by an airline or even by flying tours. He got the only job he could, and that was with the sympathetic news media. He became a helicopter pilot for a Southern CA news station.

Eventually, he met the same fate that all persons seem to meet when the Soviet Union is fearful that some embarrassing information might be made public. For instance, as in a bestselling book or autobiography. His chopper fell from the sky and he was killed. He ran out of fuel because “someone” had worked on the fuel gauge without telling him.

Of course, there are several cover stories manufactured by the media over time. Often they do more harm (for Powers) than good. For example, when Powers was debriefed by the CIA upon his return he proudly told them that he gave the USSR some misinformation. He told them that he U-2 could not fly over 68,000 feet while it can fly well above that. But, didn’t the Soviets see that he was flying at a higher altitude. This was a tacit admittance that he was not flying at the altitude he was supposed to. And then there is the one where the Soviets had an unarmed Su-9 fighter in the area and he was instructed to ram the U-2. (During WWII both British and Nazi pilots ramed planes when necessary) As the story goes, the Su-9 missed the U-2 because he was flying too fast to maneuver to the U-2. Really. Please note that the Su-9 can only fly to 55,000, feet altitude. Powers must have been well below where he was supposed to be.

Posted on

Fire & Ice, Oil & Water: Just like Conservatives and liberals (They Won’t Mix)

All you need to know:
Liberals are not “Progressives,” President Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive; not really Republican nor Democrat. Liberals are a 180, from him. They have soiled their liberal reputation as many of their machinations come to light and as such, they seek a new identity: One with honor. Conservatives won’t let go of their belief in Christ and/or their Christian values of right and wrong. LIberals refuse to say what is right or wrong. Liberal won’t be satisfied until Christians not only ACCEPT them, which they already do but also APPROVE of their behavior. Christians can’t, it is in their Bible (1 Timothy 1:10, Leviticus 18:22, and many more). It seems every other religion is allowed to believe in their “bible,” but Christians aren’t.

Details: Conservatives keep asking “…why can’t we all just get along.” Liberals never ask this. They make no effort to find common ground with Conservatives. It seems Conservatives are too simple-minded to recognize this fact and keep understating liberal’s goals. Here is one rule that one can always use: If it hurts or hinders humans then Liberals are for it. Think about it: abortion, plastic bags, salt, large soda drinks, and on and on. Often positions whose sole purpose is to offend Conservatives, like neutral gender public bathrooms. Does it really do any harm to require people to use the bathroom that the sex they were born in dictates; emotional or otherwise? LIberals want, demand, senseless things that cause endless annoyance to common sense and yet either makes little difference in the scheme of things or addresses life and death issues on the side of death–abortions. Liberals are only liberal when it comes to gambling, drugs, sex, and other vices (the more promiscuous the better). But not when it benefits humans such as new dams, drilling for oil, new roads, new buildings, and/or more convenient shopping (strip malls).  

But, the reason we can’t all get along is that conservatives have a litmus test just as do liberals. Conservatives, whether they are Christians or not, accept and acknowledge that Christians can practice their faith unfettered. The liberal party has absorbed the gay community to the extent that they encourage gay behavior. The gay community is comprised of many rich members who donate to their causes (read Democrats) freely. All the substantial Christian churches and/or organizations have openly said they accept the gay community just as they are. But the gay community demands APPROVAL from Christians. Bible-believing Christians can’t approve the gay lifestyle because it is forbidden, many times, in the Bible. The gay community sees organizations that freely teach that the gay lifestyle is wrong, even sinful, as a threat.

Conservatives tend to be more the law and order types; liberals are the opposite. Conservatives acknowledge what is right and what is wrong. Liberals will not. I’ve seen numerous liberal politicians who while being interviewed refuse to say what is right or wrong. Just one example: When the MO. governor called the rioters, who were setting cars and business on fire (after they looted the business) in Ferguson Mo. thugs, he was forced by high ranking Democrats, to publicly apologize to the thugs; and he did this on every interview afterward. I distinctly remember a reporter trying to get him to say the rioting, the theft, and the arson were wrong, but he wouldn’t. Conservative reporters had no problem calling the rioters thugs, and much more. Here is a testament as to whether Conservatives are more law and order types; I’ve been in many courtrooms where a defendant is on trial for a crime and the defendant–99.9% of the time– clean up and try to appear clean-cut and as Conservative as possible. I’ve never seen a Conservative or for that matter even a liberal defendant, who was on trial dress down to appear as a Liberal. You get the picture, unkempt.

Posted on

McCain Hero or Pseudo-Hero?

Only a Democrat would disagree with the premise that John McCain spent much of his Senate years undermining the conservative values that his party, Republican, stood for or at least tried to stand for. He was sent to the Senate to fill Barry Goldwater’s shoes, not Nancy Pelosi’s. Goldwater was extremely conservative. It was because of members like McCain that Republicans often– usually–failed. McCain was given a pass because he was a war hero. Americans blindly accept any malfeasants if committed by a “hero.” Does America know that mafia “made-men” also served in WW-II? And some even got medals for their heroism? When these crooks returned to the USA should they have been given a pass on the extortion, loan sharking, bookmaking and more, that they committed upon this return?

Today we learn that the McCain organization actively worked behind the scenes to undermine the democratic principles of the country he served in. He was complicit in the scheme by traitors to overturn the will of the people by defaming President Trump in the hope of impeaching him. FoxNews and a court filing reveal that that contrary to McCain’s perjurious statements, he was sending his agents all over the world to collect information concerning the infamous Steele Dossier and then he provided it surreptitiously to news outlets to be “leaked” to the public. A dossier that all who were involved with it knew was not true. He practiced very poor morals at the least.

Does someone who works contrary to his constituent’s desires and the reasons they sent him to Washington. And then he lies about it, and pays those agents (spies by any other name) to bring down the Party he was supposed to be strengthening. Should he be called a hero? He wore one face publicly while behind the scenes he was the opposite. e

McCain was a darling to the mass media. When it was learned that while he was a POW in Hanoi, and he was offered to be set free and he rejected the offer. The media portrayed it as a heroic gesture by McCain, thus, proving him a hero. Not really. The media neglected to tell their readers that the military code of conduct forbids him from accepting an offer that is not made to all the POW.

Hanoi said the release gesture was because John was the son of a high-ranking officer in the US Navy. This is contrary to all that the communist stand for. Communist are mean, hateful, evil people. They give up nothing out of good will. But we must not read too much into this. The point is that he was not a hero for denying the offer of being freed.

Here is an exception: Hanoi did make the offer to another POW. Before being released he was given the task of memorizing the names of every known POW. He at first refused, he did not want the disgrace of being released early. Upon his release the US Military nearly court marshaled him. He eventually convinced the military that his acceptance of the release was something all the other POWs wanted: It would help to ensure that they would be released at the end of the war.

Finally, there is proof that what most believed about McCain is true. He served his country while in the Navy. Just like millions of others. They were all heroes. McCain’s heroism stopped when he returned. His career and life since is filled with less than honorable occurrences from graduating 894th out of 899 in his academy class, constantly defying authority, breaking rules, and to many–many affairs (he readily admitted to this). One writer correctly listed him as, “the maverick, the former maverick, the curmudgeon, the bridge builder, the war hero bent on transcending the call of self-interest to serve a cause greater than himself, the sore loser, old bull, last lion, loose cannon, happy warrior, elder statesman, lion in winter.”

He was all over the place. One thing he wasn’t is conservative. He did not represent his state well. One final blow of lack of loyalty was when Sarah Palin was not invited to his funeral. McCain, no doubt, requested that before his demise.

Posted on

Why Guilty For Lying To FBI But Not For Crime Being Investigated?

When one is in the crosshairs of the FBI one doesn’t stand a chance.

All you need to know:
The FBI is not held accountable for their actions and has become a “loose cannon.” If they don’t like you, for any reason, they can terrorize you. The FBI in concert with the Democratic Party attempted a coup to overthrow President Trump’s election results.

Details: We see a lot of people being found guilty of lying to the FBI but not guilty of the crime being prosecuted. This phenomenon of placing one under investigation and then taking a plea deal for lying is all too common with the FBI; it often occurs when the FBI can’t prove the original charge. 

The reason for the success of this tactic is that the FBI does not record any interviews. When they ask the victim a question the only account of both the question and the answer is the written account of the agent. And no, the victim can not record the session either. Often, later in the investigation, the same question is asked, but this time in a different way and the victim will often answer differently. Why? Because the victim may perceive the subject of the question differently than from the first, and thus, answers the new question differently. Then FLASH, the agent produces the first account, in a 302 (the agent’s written report) and shows it to the victim: If offered a plea deal the victim must take it, after all, it is his/her verbal account against the agent’s written one and a lesser sentence versus one for years in prison.

There have been several court cases where a defendant is guilty of the actual crime being investigated, and yet. the judge tosses out the case because there is no recording of statements when the opportunity, by the FBI, was abundantly clear. In this tech-filled world, why would the FBI not record them? Recordings are required in other courts whenever possible; why not hold the FBI to the same standard of excellence that local law enforcement is? 

Yes, of course, the vast rank and file of the FBI are perfectly honorable. Really? How do we know? If they don’t follow commonly accepted practices (of ethics), the same ones that all other law enforcement agencies do, there’s nothing to compare them to. They should at least match the quality being achieved by our smallest police departments.

One infamous event: At the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta GA, Richard Jewel, who was working as a security officer, discovered a suspicious backpack. Thinking it might be a bomb he alerted authorities and he and fellow officers began trying to move the throngs of attendees out of the way. It was a bomb and it detonated before the clearing was finished. One person was killed and over a hundred were injured. Richard was heralded as a hero by all but the FBI. They thought it suspicious that an uneducated common man could be doing his job at that level of excellence. 

A very public investigation was started by the FBI. With the press present, Richard’s house was searched– twice. The FBI said that he matched a profile of a lone bomber who would plant a bomb just to find it and become a hero. Richard obtained a layer, who was an ex-FBI agent.

The FBI was so convinced of his guilt that they approached him, when his attorney was not present, and ask if he would be a part of a training exercise to be used to teach law enforcement personnel. He was flattered. They took Richard to a recording studio and gave him a script to read. In the script, Richard realized he was playing the part of the bomber, not the hero. He questioned this and hesitated. In his script, he was confessing to planting the Olympic bomb. Meanwhile, his attorney was trying to find him and he did find him just before Richard was about to be recorded. The recording was set up to sound as if it was obtained by a wiretap on Richard.  It had to be a wiretap because the FBI doesn’t record statementnts, unless it benefits them.

Eventually, the real bomber was caught and found guilty of this bombing plus three others at different locations. He was a civil terrorist.

Would the FBI send an innocent man to prison just so they could clear a very public crime? On a hunch? Yes, but only because they wrongly thought him guilty. Richard successfully sued three news outlets that went along with the FBI”s leaked lies. He was eventually acknowledged as a hero and was very popular. He went from certainly going to prison to a career in law enforcement.  It is very probable that the FBI agents were never punished, the FBI won’t tell.

The upper Escalon of this FBI, in concert with the Democratic Party, attempted nothing less than a silent coupe. Had Hillary won the presidency democracy, as a true democracy, would have died in the USA. We have had major security breaches and crimes committed by Democrats who are then given a pass while the tiniest tweet by President Trump is heavily investigated. There can be no argument to the fact that the FBI attempted to overthrow the Republican Party. When candidate Trump said to the press that his campaign was being wiretapped the main-stream media, and even myself, thought him over-dramatic. The media blasted him. Who would wiretap a US Presidential Candidate? After all, this isn’t Russia. 

What a shock to find out that our own FBI WAS wiretapping Trump. That they sent in a mole to try to entrap his campaign. The FBI and the media just couldn’t believe that they could fail in doing this, but they did. While Trump isn’t perfect he has proven himself to be much more honest than the deep-state Washington DC types. The FBI as it is today must be, in effect, overthrown. It requires someone in charge that will clean house. I personally I still have a wait and see position on that.

Liberals have openly claimed that they will overthrow the government. Huh? When did they say that? In the ’60s the communist supported radicals said they would slowly infiltrate the government, and our institutions of education, and overthrow it before the public caught on. The current FBI and Democratic Party are the proof it is working. Oh, and just one more tidbit; John Brennon, director of the CIA under Obama, was a card carrying communist. Before joining the CIA he wondered if his support and vote for the communist presidential candidate, in the election just before he applied to the CIA, would derail his security clearance by the CIA. It didn’t. It appears it enhanced his career, thus, we had a communist as the director of the CIA.

Posted on

Finally: Scientific Evidence God Does Exist

DNA model
Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Is there a God?

All you need to know:
YES. So-called scientist says that it is unscientific to believe in creation; science has proven evolution. Really? Every since science was officially practiced (discovered), man has been trying to make life: Something that could live. So, our (creation believers) challenge to you (evolutionist) is to make something that lives. We will let you use all of recorded science, all medical practices, hundreds of years of countless prior attempts, all written documents, billions of dollars of medical equipment, billions of dollars of computer equipment, and anything else you may need. Just make something that lives. If it happened by accident you surely can do better than chance.   

The Details:
It was recently reported that the young (people) in the USA are increasingly turning away from religion. One of the most common reasons is this:

1)      I learned in college that there is no God. All the professors believe in evolution because there is no scientific evidence of creationism.

So, I’m going to prove there is a God. And no, this isn’t a new cult teaching or a revelation from a current profit. For many of you, you will be disappointed to know that I’m using the old fashion Christian Bible and SCIENCE. 

You only need to read this paragraph to know if it’s creation (God) or evolution (no God only nature) who spawned life and all that is in the world. To settle this discussion all evolutionist need to do is create something that lives. They claim life happened accidentally in nature due to billions of years of “chance.” If so, create something that is living. And, we will let them cheat by using billions of dollars of medical equipment, billions of dollars in medical research, and billions of dollars of computers. Scientist has always attempted to create life. Before the discovery of DNA, scientist thought it would be a simple thing. Try as they might they just can’t create a living organism, no matter how basic. We will settle for an amoeba. Creationists don’t need to prove anything. Just look around and you will see life everywhere and in every size and shape. There are over 10 million different forms of life on earth; each one has different DNA. Thus life would have had to “accidentally, through chance” happen for each of those forms. Plus just look at our world and all the wonders and beauty in it. If all this didn’t happen through evolution (a one chance in a billion, billions) then it had to have been created. Who else but God could do it?

It’s crazy that modern Darwinism claims to be steeped in science. The discovery of DNA in the modern era threw that into a tailspin. A co-discoverer of DNA (a Nobel Prize winner) is a creationist and when he was asked if he thought it possible for DNA to “happen as a random act of nature, (as in Darwinism)” he answered “No.” Then, attempting to explain evolution, he concluded: “We were seeded.” Huh? Yes, this modern creationist explains DNA as having come from outer space as a seed (just like Adam in the Bible).

One reason for the seeding explanation is that Earth is not old enough; not by billions of years, for a chance combination of the billions of particles of DNA placed exactly in order and then reduced to the size to fit into a single cell, so small a microscope is needed to see it. Something that man can’t do even now.  Then it must also be able to reproduce itself. And then, it must mutate into the ten million different life forms that are currently here on Earth.

Evolutionist had to introduce two new fields of “science” to try to explain this, theoretical biology and mathematical biology. Why these two words? The evolutionist cannot prove evolution in a way that meets recent scientific standards: They throw in “theoretical” as in theory (something unproven) and try to mask it as science by adding “biology” to it. By doing this it makes it sound as if it is science: But it isn’t. It’s biology that they can’t prove scientifically.

And then “mathematical” biology is added to try to bolster a scientific claim that it is mathematically possible to overcome the insurmountable odds against random selection in nature to produce life. Using math to prove biology? Shouldn’t they use biology to prove biology? They are trying to prove “theoretical” biology by using”mathematical biology. The evolutionist has to massage the numbers to explain that the Earth is old enough for DNA to go through a billion combinations of possibilities to finally produce life. They do this with the old bait and switch method. They talk scientific biology and then switch to the theoretical and mathematical biology; unproven sciences.

Evolutionist can’t explain life by using widely excepted standards of proof for scientific discoveries. For a scientific discovery to be excepted it must follow these rules: The discoverer must have made the discovery, must have it published in a scientific journal, must be able to fully explain it in writing, and then others, not associated with the first group, must be able to use those writings and come up with the exact same product/conclusion. Evolutionist can’t even meet the first part of this. To do so they would have to produce something that lives.

Enough is enough. Let’s just settle this right now. Scientists have billions of dollars of medical and research equipment at their disposal. In fact, several decades ago when the computer reached the speed of one megahertz, they confidently predicted that within ten years they will be able to break the DNA code. (Note; that was several decades ago and they haven’t been able to do it. Today we have computers that are more than a hundred times that speed.) We creationist challenge evolutionist to make a life form. Any life form. Just make something that lives. Of course, it then must be able to reproduce. It should be simple for them, after all, it occurred by accident in nature here on Earth; so they claim. An Earth that was nothing but water and dust blowing around. They throw in static electricity to give it the power to combine. You know, like Frankenstein.

Evolutionist can’t believe there is a God. They challenge us to explain where God came from. I don’t know where God came from. I don’t know where or how my TV came to be. I don’t know who invented it, who produced it, or who brought it to market, but I know TVs exist and I’m going to watch it, none the less. Radio waves carry a mind-boggling amount of information magically (so it seems) through the air, yet, I can’t see or feel it. However, scientists can prove its existence by using accepted scientific principles. A wristwatch is billions of time simpler than DNA, yet, I’ve not heard of someone finding one on the ground, placed there by spontaneous mixing of elements. Stone Hinge is a very basic formation. One can tell it was man made by merely looking at it. Evolutionist accepts the placement of a few boulders in a way contrary to the norm to prove they were man-made. But they won’t accept that DNA was was God made. 

Evolutionism is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which includes–and is accepted by all–that everything is in a state of decay. Everything, according to the evolutionist, except life. Instead of the wind and dust and electricity trying to seek their natural state, they combined and formed a higher state–life. The one exception?

So all you creationist, when fronted by an evolutionist, just ask them to show you. No excuses. They have all the equipment to do this. JUST SHOW US!

PS Fox news reported that paleontologists have discovered fossils of 130 million years old insects. Here is a quote from the report: It also “proves through direct fossil evidence how some morphological traits related to hatching and linked behaviors, at least in insect embryos, have been subject to a high degree of evolutionary conservatism,” according to the study’s abstract. What’s evolutionary conservatism? They are saying that there is no evidence of evolution.

PPS A new report explains the recent sighting and tagging of a bluntnose shark: Teams from “…OceanX and Florida State University, the bluntnose sixgill shark is largely still an unknown to researchers, despite having been on the planet for nearly 200 million years.” Yet,  no evidence of evolution. 

Posted on

California Dumping Precious Drinking Water

In drought-prone California liberals, who are in charge of that state, began releasing billions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean. Water that California’s farmers and rancher desperately need. Why??? Because a tiny fish called the delta smelt is endangered. The population of the smelt has been decreasing quickly and liberals took a hard look at the problem.

In keeping with liberal thinking, the politicians asked, what would hurt people the most? The answer was to dump vitally needed fresh water into a river that runs into the ocean. The justification used (keep in mind that the reason is to hurt people); the diversion of fresh water onto farmer’s and rancher’s land must be depriving the precious smelt of needed fresh water, so, let’s give them our precious water. Water that is being wasted (in liberal think) upon growing crops and raising food stocks. Things that are absolutely necessary to the human population. The science behind this thinking? None. Some liberal thought that this justification sounded good so they went with it.

Nothing is dependant upon the smelt. No industry, no environmental cleanup, no recreational activities, nothing.

In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) gave the opinion that diverting fresh water to ranchers and farmlands did not adversely affect the smelt. Liberals took them to court and after being harassed for years and running out of money for courts, they reversed their opinion. It was judges that made the final decisions. Those (liberal) judges found “experts” of their own, ones that agreed with them and the ruling: Human to hell, out with the fresh water. After years of dumping water, there is no measurable benefit to the smelt. It is all for naught, yet, liberals continue to dump the water which has caused over 200,000 acres to go fallow and cost tens of thousands of food-related jobs. This has cost Californian’s billions of dollars.

Prologue: The vast majority of liberals believe in evolution, the survival of the fittest, but, when a weak link is about to disappear they do everything to save it. Doesn’t evolution teach that life forms evolve to fit their environment and needs? Those that don’t go extinct, as they should. New life forms are being discovered every day and if none are allowed to go extinct how long will it take for them, with the help of liberals, to push humans out of this world?