September 21, 2017
Amazing! I didn't have any knowledge of this, though I am familiar with the shooting down of KAL Flight 007 (had a book about it, loaned it to a guy I should have known would never read it or return it).
Although he died back in May of this year, Stanislav Petrov's death has only recently been reported by mainstream media in the West. That's a sad state of affairs since Petrov literally saved the world one day when a nuclear war was closer than ever.
Wikipedia explains what happened:26 September 1983, just three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm.
In order to understand how big of a deal that call was, you've got to imagine what it was like in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was U.S. president. Tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States were rising -- fast. This was not only due to Reagan's persistent fiery (and correct!) attitude towards the Soviets but also because the Soviet Union was suffering. A lot. They couldn't win the war in Afghanistan and their economy was on the brink of collapse.
At that moment, with tensions on the rise, with a weakening Soviet Union and a U.S. president who seemed hell-bent on bringing the fight to Moscow, Petrov was the only one with common sense enough to understand that the U.S. wouldn't suddenly launch a nuclear war, even though his computers said that's exactly what had just happened.
Had Petrov been wrong, his decision would've led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. It would've literally been wiped off the map... and there wouldn't have been a second chance to strike back at the American enemy.
What made Petrov different from his fellow officers was his civilian training. The system told him that the Americans had fired at least 5 missiles at the Soviet Union but he just didn't believe it. After all, he argued, if the Americans went to war, they'd go all-out. Five missiles wouldn't cut it. Besides, he thought, the alarm system was brand new and therefore not as reliable as it should've been.
That's why he made the decision not to inform his superiors about the alarm. He let it happen. Shortly after, of course, he was proven right: there was no attack coming, the system had failed.
There is little doubt that if any other officer was on duty at that moment, the world would've had a nuclear war on its hands right then and there. They would've informed their superiors that the Americans launched missiles at the Soviet Union, and the Soviet leadership would've instantly and immediately returned fire. If that had happened the U.S. would've had to answer in kind, of course, resulting in utter destruction and tens of millions of deaths on both sides.
It didn't happen very often during the Cold War -- if at all -- but Petrov was a Soviet officer who saved countless lives. And he did so because he broke with the hierarchy and structure of the Soviet system, deciding that he as an individual knew better than the collectivist system created by his "superiors."
If that doesn't sum up the failure of communism in one paragraph, I don't know what does.
Timothy, Jack and I have all discussed, on occasion, the danger of an EMP attack on this country, by North Korea or anyone else. We all have the impression that our government is not paying enough attention to the issue, though in fact that may not be the case -- they have just not said anything about it.
Austin Bay, a respected military expert, writes the following in PJMedia:
There's a lot more here. But one thing bothers me, that Bay does not address. An EMP attack may well cripple our ability to respond. It's true that we have guided-missile submarines ("boomers") circling the globe at all times, and very likely there will be one or two close to North Korea; but an EMP would surely make it impossible for government and military officials to communicate with them, to give the attack orders.
If North Korea detonated a nuclear device 200 kilometers above the Earth in order to create an electromagnetic pulse, would the U.S. counterstrike North Korea with conventional and perhaps nuclear weapons?
The answer had better be "hell yes."
Everyone agrees: an EMP attack over or near U.S., Japanese, or South Korean territory is a physical attack that would wreak havoc with communications, the power grid, and civilian physical infrastructure.
This quip makes the point with bumper sticker clarity: "EMP kills EMS."
American emergency medical systems, or EMS, depend on mobile communications to route EMS ambulances to accident sites and citizens in physical distress. An EMP attack would knock out a seizure victim's cell phone, the county EMS communication center, and the communications on the EMS ambulance. It would likely fry all of the electronics on the vehicle. If the ambulance has an electronic microchip key and a fancy-superkeen electronic ignition button, it might not even start.
EMS also relies on GPS, or Global Positioning Satellite location system. An electromagnetic pulse would damage GPS receivers. An EMP's fritzing electrons in space could impede satellite to ground signals in the area for days, even though GPS satellites orbit 22,500 miles above the Earth.
An EMP attack could damage the SCADA systems monitoring and controlling critical infrastructure such as dams, factories, water and sanitation systems, oil refineries, and natural gas pipelines.
In short, an EMP attack destroys the electronic neurons and sinews of modern society.
The Vatican has now put us into the basket of deplorables. According to Breitbart:
"Speaking in New York at the 10th Conference for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Archbishop Paul R. Gallagher, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, noted that the rising tensions over North Korea’s growing nuclear program "are of special urgency,” while sharply criticizing President Trump’s handling of the situation.
"The international community must respond by seeking to revive negotiations,” Gallagher said. "The threat or use of military force have no place in countering proliferation, and the threat or use of nuclear weapons in countering nuclear proliferation are deplorable.”
The Archbishop went on to say that building up a strong military—one or Mr. Trump’s stated priorities—is counterproductive and hearkens back to a Cold War mentality.
"We must put behind us the nuclear threats, fear, military superiority, ideology, and unilateralism that drive proliferation and modernization efforts and are so reminiscent of the logic of the Cold War,” Gallagher said, in evident reference to the American President"
I guess we should all just be nice and go on a picnic together! Apparently Archbishop Gallagher missed it when North Korea first developed a bomb after intense negotiations and a serious agreement. Perhaps he missed it when they restarted their enrichment program despite a settlement in good faith. Maybe he was busy on the day North Korea conducted nuclear tests, or tested rockets that serve only one purpose - the delivery of weapons to attack other countries. I guess he failed to notice the missiles going over Japan.
The man and his boss canThernot be such fools.
They say the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I would argue neither is Christianity. Jesus does not want us to lay ourselves bare before tyrants and butchers; if He did there would be no tyrants and butchers. Turning the other cheek is a polemic about personal behavior, not a guide to international relations. It has always been understood that there is such a thing as just war, and that sometimes a nation must go to war to protect itself. In this case America is threatening to go to war to protect other nations as well. That is why the State is given the power of the sword...
Pope Francis and his social justice buddies seem to think that Barney the Dinosaur is the real Messiah.
Meanwhile Il Papa is chumming it up with financiers of international terrorism. He is of the ilk that refused to fight Islam prior to Pope Urban II, you know, the ones who let two thirds of the civilized world fall to the rapist hands of the Islamic horde before anyone could bestir themselves to take a stand.
here is something I should comment on briefly; a peewee football team turned their backs and kneeled at the playing of the National anthem in a game in Belleville Illinois the other day. Warner Todd Houston has the scoop:
"The 8-year-old kids from the Cahokia Quarterback Club football team took a knee as the anthem played before their Sunday, September 17 game, according to Fox Insider.
"One of the kids asked me if I saw [people] protesting and rioting in St. Louis,” Coach Orlando Gooden told the local Fox affiliate. "I said yes. I said, ‘Do you know why they are doing it?'”
The coach added that one of his players replied saying, "Because black people are getting killed and nobody’s going to jail.”
At that point, the coach claimed it was a "good teaching moment” and agreed to let the kids protest the anthem at the game:"
A couple of points here; first, while the race of the coach is not mentioned, one can assume by his name - Orlando Gooden - that he is black. Does this matter? Maybe not, but maybe so. And his was a visiting team from Cahokia, which is 58.8% African American, according to the last census. Apparently Mr. Gooden has been inculcated with black grievance, whether he admits it or not.
And he is apparently willing to pass this along to innocent children. Had he been honest - and read the judge's ruling, which exhaustively explained why police officer Jason Stockley was innocent - he would have explained that the law was followed to the letter here and that, perhaps there was a miscarriage of justice in this case (there wasn't) but that our legal system is designed to let the guilty go free rather than punish the innocent and that this is a good thing, especially if you are falsely accused. This WAS a teachable moment, a moment to explain why rioting is a bad thing and why we should respect the law, but Gooden would rather stoke anger and turn this young children into anti-social thugs.
"What I teach my kids is love, integrity, honesty, fairness, respect and boundaries,” the coach claimed.
Since the protest, Coach Gooden did note that he has received some blowback from people critical of the protest.
However, Gooden is unrepentant. "As long as I have support of my parents and team, I’m perfectly fine, and I’m covered under the First Amendment to peacefully protest and assemble,” he said.
Hmmm. Where is the fairness here? None was extended to the cop in question. Neither was respect for others, as we are all Americans and to turn your back and kneel during the National Anthem is a gross disrespect, an "f%$$@ YOU!" to the rest of us. It should also be pointed out that he is not exercising his freedom of speech so much as making the young children on his team exercise his chosen viewpoint.
Perhaps the primary purpose for peewee football or any other athletic endeavor for 8 year olds is to teach them respect and self control and good behavior. It is a socializing exercise. Gooden's job is to teach these kids to respect their country and their fellow men and to be good citizens. Football is secondary in this. Increasingly the Left is politicizing everything, turning the institutions that are designed to make good citizens and a peacable, functioning society to their radical advantage. This is so vile because this man used his authority to essentially brainwash a bunch of little kids into hating their country. What benefit is there to the children? None whatsoever, but Mr. Gooden can feel like a big man.
By the way, it should be pointed out that the man who tried to assassinate the Republicans in Congress came from Belleville, so was not far removed from Mr. Gooden. These eastern suburbs of St. Louis are radical Democratic strongholds, and one must wonder about what they are teaching over there. It's clearly not civics, or history, or mutual respect.
The league should expel Mr. Gooden.
Down in Alabama a nasty feud is underway between the forces of cornpone Washington insider politics and a man of principle. Luther Strange aka Sen. Strangelove has the full backing of the D.C. Establishment and perhaps more disturbingly President Trump while his opponent - former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore - finds allies among the Tea Party and conservative groups. Juge Moore has shown himself to be unmovable in his beliefs, being twice kicked out of his position as Chief Justice for refusing to take down the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refusing to obey the SCOTUS imperial directive on gay faux marriage. Moore is the kind of guy we on the right have been seeking; a man of principle. Strangelove is the pollar opposite, a swmap creature who sells himself, sort of like a zombie bayou hooker.
If America is ever going to be saved it will be by outsiders and men of principle, like Judge Moore, not by the Luther Strange types. And America is in immediate and desperate need of salvation; contrary to what Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP Establishment thinks, this situation cannot continue for much longer. This is not matter of political winds but rather a cat five hurricane which has left America facing ruin. The rioting across the nation, the murder of police, the national debt, all may seem disconnected but they are not, and they will continue to get worse as long as it remains business as usual in Washington. These are not passing fads, but rather long term trends that had been established by bad policy over decades, policy the insiders simply do not want to end because they ultimately mean money and power for the insiders and for their plutocratic friends. Floods of immigrants are not wanted by the average joe, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants more and more, bot caring about the average joe but about bringing in cheap labor and perhaps watering down the effective power of dissatisfied Americans.
There comes a point in the life of every great nation when it is put up or shut up. Sometimes there is a renaissance and the nation renews itself, but often these very problems that stalk America today wind up destroying these earlier nations, and they will do so to the U.S. as well. We are no different from anyone else; we just had a better political and cultural setup. But we've thrown that away in favor of the very things that have destroyed numerous nations in history, and we will not avoid their fate.
We cannot afford a Luther Strange.
Below is an article from Americans for Limited Government that makes the case for Moore and against Strange:
By Peter Hong
You can tell a person by the company he keeps, especially in politics. You can tell more about where a politician stands or is going to stand by those with whom he surrounds himself than by the words that come out of his mouth.
Nowhere is that clearer than in the Alabama Senate GOP runoff scheduled for September 26th. At first glance, little seems to separate appointed Senator Luther Strange and former State Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore: two older, white, Republican political figures who basically agree on most issues.
But as sides are being drawn, the dividing lines between the two are bold and stark.
First, consider Strange, the former Alabama Attorney General who was appointed by disgraced, then- Governor Robert Bentley to the seat left vacant by current U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Strange counts among his supporters: Senate Majority Leader McConnell; the National Republican Senatorial Committee; most members of the Senate GOP Conference, including fellow Alabama Senator Richard Shelby; and a bevy of DC and Alabama lobbyists. Bankrolling the multi-million dollar Strange effort are McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Rifle Association.
On the other hand, Roy Moore, who was twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to take down a replica of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, includes among his supporters: many members of the House Freedom Caucus, including his former opponent Rep. Mo Brooks; Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham; former Governors Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin; Breitbart News’ Steve Bannon; Ann Coulter; and the Senate Conservatives Fund.
In other words, it’s pretty much a GOP family feud pitting the candidate of the GOP Establishment (Strange) against the candidate of the "rest of us” caucus (Moore). The race pretty much tracks the current front lines in the internecine battle for control of the Republican Party.
There is one notable exception. President Trump is supporting Strange, a peculiar decision, given that most of the energy behind his anti-establishment, take no prisoners campaign is behind Moore. Even Trump-aligned super PACs are split on the race: America First Action is running a digital ad campaign for Strange while Great America Alliance is hosting Sarah Palin and Sebastian Gorka on behalf of Moore.
The President himself is appearing at a pro-Strange rally in Alabama on Friday, to be followed on Monday by Vice President Pence. After Trump’s endorsement before the August 15th primary helped Strange squeak past Brooks to make it into the runoff with Moore, the President’s Twitter account went quiet on the Alabama race. This radio silence led many to wonder if Trump had abandoned Strange after he fell well behind Moore in the polls. The situation was further complicated when Bannon left his post as White House chief strategist and declared war on Strange and other incumbent Republicans in Congress.
Despite a tremendous financial advantage, both in actual campaign dollars and the multi-million dollar effort by McConnell-aligned PACs on Strange’s behalf, "Big Luther” finds himself swimming upstream. After finishing nearly 10 points behind Moore in the primary, Strange has never been ahead or tied in the polls, even the push polls released by his allies.
Perhaps realizing that he could not be seen as a puppet of the unpopular McConnell and win, Strange announced that he was switching his position supporting the use of the filibuster. While his newly found opposition officially sides him with President Trump and against McConnell, the move may seem a bit disingenuous, given that in April, Strange signed a bipartisan letter supporting the dilatory tactic. If Strange is willing in his first few months in office to switch positions so blatantly for political gain, what – Alabama voters may wonder – would prevent him, once elected, from switching back? Or from flip-flopping on other issues?
Aside from his ties to McConnell and the dreaded Establishment, Strange has his own personal areas of vulnerability, such as being the subject of a disturbing number of ethics charges. Plaguing the former attorney general is the deep impression in Alabama that his very appointment to the Senate was tainted by the criminal activities of ex-Governor Bentley. Republican voters in Alabama who want to put this sordid tale of sex and corruption behind them may not see Strange and the cloud of scandal enveloping him as the most prudent choice.
The largest obstacle facing Strange may be something he can't-do anything about: that Roy Moore, while not the Trump-endorsed candidate, may be the most "Trumpian” choice in the race.
Like Trump in 2016, Moore is not only the anti-Establishment candidate; he actually frightens the Establishment. Based on his record on the Alabama Supreme Court of refusing to back down on principle, a Senator Moore could very well make even Tea Party favorites Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul look pretty Washington by comparison. For Alabama Republicans wanting to poke the Establishment in the eye, a vote for Roy Moore would be like a gouging.
Also, like Trump, Roy Moore may be impervious to the millions of dollars of negative advertising being run against him by the Establishment. In Alabama, Roy Moore is a known quantity – and no amount of money is likely to move the needle in any significant way. If you’re a Republican in Alabama, you may think Roy Moore is nuts, but he’s your nut. And you might just resent the millions of dollars being spent by the Washington Establishment to persuade you otherwise. You might also wonder why this money is being spent to defame a Republican in Alabama, as opposed to going after any number of vulnerable Senate Democrats across the country.
It may be that this Trump-like appeal is exactly what gets Trump supporters in Alabama (and there are a lot of them) fired up for Moore, in spite of the Trump endorsement. And if Roy Moore becomes Senator Moore next Tuesday, he won’t owe a thing to anyone inside the Beltway – including Trump and McConnell.
Take cover Washington – the rising crimson tide of Hurricane Roy may come crashing down on a swamp near you!
Peter Hong is a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government
September 20, 2017
There will be a rally featuring Steve Bannon in St. Louis.
Steve Bannon to Headline "Put Americans First Rally” Sunday Sept. 24 in St. Louis, Missouri
Breitbart.com chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon will headline the "Put Americans First Rally” Sunday September 24, 2017 in St. Louis, Missouri.
The "Put Americans First Rally” will start at 3 PM at the Marriott St. Louis Airport
The mother of a man who police said attempted to rob a Starbucks in California, but was thwarted by a Good Samaritan, reportedly said her son plans to sue because the hero used "excessive force."
The video of the July robbery went viral. Police released the footage showing Cregg Jerri, 58, struggling with a would-be robber in a Transformers mask who tried to stage a hold-up with a knife and toy gun at a Starbucks in Fresno.
Jerri, at one point, approaches the robber from behind and bashes him over the head with a chair. Eventually the two hit the ground and grapple. Police said Jerri was stabbed in the neck as he tried to grab the knife.
The Fresno police chief reportedly called the report of the lawsuit "ludicrous.”
September 19, 2017
Something quite different from what I usually send around. Will get the day started with something other than politics.
From "Friend Eddie," including his comment.
"My dad was 30 years old when Earp died."
From the interview:
"The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting—grandstand play—as I would poison."I was a fair hand with pistol, rifle, or shotgun, but I learned more about gunfighting from Tom Speer’s cronies during the summer of ’71 than I had dreamed was in the book. Those old-timers took their gunplay seriously, which was natural under the conditions in which they lived. Shooting, to them, was considerably more than aiming at a mark and pulling a trigger. Models of weapons, methods of wearing them, means of getting them into action and operating them, all to the one end of combining high speed with absolute accuracy, contributed to the frontiersman’s shooting skill. The sought-after degree of proficiency was that which could turn to most effective account the split-second between life and death. Hours upon hours of practice, and wide experience in actualities supported their arguments over style.
When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man’s muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean.
In all my life as a frontier police officer, I did not know a really proficient gunfighter who had anything but contempt for the gun-fanner, or the man who literally shot from the hip. In later years I read a great deal about this type of gunplay, supposedly employed by men noted for skill with a forty-five."
Read the whole thing.
VDH has a good piece on the limits of "diversity." Pertinent, I think, to the ]link=http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/hobby_lobby_a_black_protester_and_my_racist_shoulder_bag]woman's "cotton bawl.".
Diversity Can Spell Trouble
A word from Dana Mathewson
Most people, including blacks, have better things to do. Kind of makes you believe all this stuff is orchestrated, doesn't it?
I don't remember any protests back in the 60's when Harry Belafonte sang:
"Now, when those cotton balls get rotten,
You can't pick very much cotton
In them old cotton fields at home."
As nasty as Harry's become these days, he'd probably be out there protesting himself now.
Some background; some people need to go to jail .
The government wiretapped Paul Manafort.
From the article:
"According to the CNN reportthe wiretapping and surveillance of Manafort started sometime in 2014 and then was discontinued after nothing of criminal value or significance was gained. [NOTE: FISA warrants must be updated in 90 day increments; continued surveillance involving U.S. persons must be justified; if nothing exists the court orders the surveillance to cease the warrant is no longer valid.] However, according to the same leaked source reporting from CNN the wiretapping began again in 2016."
Read it all.
Well maybe Hillary isn't strong enough to throw a Molotov cocktail or club someone with a spiked baseball bat herself, but that doesn't mean the old bat can't participate indirectly in anarchy by financing thuggery.
Gateway Pundit reports:
In building investigations, Daily Caller first discovered that Hillary transferred a mass sum of money from her campaign over to Onward Together:
Clinton transferred $800,000 from her failed 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group’s launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC reveal.
Now, today, it has been revealed by Offended America exactly where that money is going:
Daily Caller reached out to five different Antifa linked groups, and only one was willing to deny donations from Onward Together. Soros-linked group, Indivisible, denied receiving financial support from Clinton or Onward Together.
"Onward Together has not given any financial support to us,” Helen Kalla, an Indivisible spokesperson, wrote to Daily Caller.
Kalla added that Clinton’s group has "been amplifying and highlighting our work through their digital networks,” which she explained has consisted of "retweeting [Indivisible], and they’ve highlighted our work via their emails to their list too.”
END OF QUOTE
Hillary is trying to relive her college student days when she supported the Black Panthers. And just like in the old days, she has a self-serving rationalization for fomenting anti-government attacks. I predict there will come a time where Atty. Gen. Sessions - and Donald Trump realize that they cannot let her seditious acts go unpunished because she is becoming, once again, a growing threat to Law and Order.
A black (her race is a significant factor here) woman has decided to accuse Hobby Lobby of racism for selling a decorative artificial cotton stalk. To reply to one Tweet's question, no this story is not from The Onion. But it may well be from the anti-religious Left.
The NY Post reports:
A Texas woman has been getting ridiculed online for being "too sensitive” after she blasted the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby for selling faux raw cotton stalks — which she found offensive.
"This decor is WRONG on SO many levels,” Daniell Rider posted on Facebook this past Thursday, along with a photo of the phony textile plants.
"There is nothing decorative about raw cotton…A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves,” she said. "A little sensitivity goes a long way. PLEASE REMOVE THIS ‘decor.'”
Rider, who is black, appeared to take the picture of the cotton herself after spotting it at a Hobby Lobby in Killeen, TX.
END OF QUOTE
One has to question the sanity and sincerity of this woman who "just so happened" to pick Hobby Lobby for her accusations. As many readers know, Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case which decided the closed corporation had no legal obligation to provide birth control coverage to their employees. The article also mentions that a college president at Libscomb University felt compelled to send an apology letter to black students who visited his home and saw decorative cotton plants.
Now about two years ago, I had two pairs of jeans that had seen better days. Looking in the newspaper one day, I saw that an idealistic group of people, in connection with the Cotton Council, were collecting old cotton clothing items such as jeans in New York's upscale Bloomingdale department store. The cotton items collected would be recycled into home insulation for poor people, making winter less brutal for many low income families. In appreciation for those that donated cotton items, the Cotton Council would hand out cotton shoulder bags (essential student or small mail carrier bags) to each donator. After going to Bloomingdale's, I received my bag complete with Cotton Boll logo on it - how "racist." I've carried this very bag in public in New York City and not one black person (wearing a cotton shirt or blouse) has come up to me saying I was glorifying oppression of blacks. Although that might change. As is, I've recently switched to a fancier half-backpack shoulder bag. But one wonders why there weren't black people standing outside Bloomingdale's with picket signs. I believe the reason for that is most black people have a life filled with much better things to do than get freaked out over a decorative cotton boll symbol, one seen on television commercials for decades along with a nice song praising cotton as "The fabric of our lives."
So will black people now start boycotting blue jeans? Or insisting white people who wear cotton clothes such as blue jeans are racist? Only the hard leftist blacks or the insane. But I repeat myself.
September 18, 2017
For all you "word buffs." Well, it's not a word, exactly, it's an abbreviation. And I got a kick out of the fact that it was originally coined by someone of whom I'm a bit of a fan: British Admiral Lord "Jacky" Fisher, a colorful and talented officer in the WW I era.
I found this on Tammy Bruce's site.
Kudos to the lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary for tracking down the earliest usage of OMG.
And no, it’s not the invention of a texting teen.
Let us now put down our smartphones to mark a peculiar anniversary. One hundred years ago, on Sept. 9, 1917, a retired admiral of the British navy fired off a letter to Winston Churchill, the future prime minister. The letter was shockingly prescient in one curious way: the admiral abbreviated "Oh my God!” in a most millennial fashion, as "OMG.”….
In his letter, Lord Fisher complained to the much younger Churchill, then serving as minister of munitions, about Britain’s cautious naval strategy against Germany. In a sarcastic tone, he closed the letter by writing, "I hear that a new order of Knighthood is on the tapis—O.M.G. (Oh! My God!)—Shower it on the Admiralty!!” ("On the tapis” meant "under consideration.”)
Lord Fisher’s letter went unnoticed for nearly a century until it was unearthed by lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary, when they added an entry for "OMG” in March 2011. The OED makes a point of tracking down the earliest known example of every word or phrase, and initial research had taken the interjection "OMG” back to 1994, in an online forum for soap-opera fans ("OMG! What did it say?”).
The editors asked one of the OED’s longtime library researchers, Jon Simon, formerly a research librarian at the Library of Congress, to track down another mid-’90s example of "OMG” that cropped up in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. But Mr. Simon didn’t stop there: He looked carefully through the Google Books database of digitized texts until he found the surprising 1917 letter, included in Lord Fisher’s memoirs published two years later….
I just found this at Tammy Bruce's website: http://tammybruce.com/2017/09/chelsea-manning-calls-u-s-police-state-after-harvard-fellowship-revoked.html
Note to Chelsea: A "police state” would have dealt with you differently. And would have involved a rope. Or a bullet.
Chelsea Manning has condemned Harvard after the university revoked her visiting fellowship following criticism from CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other agency officials.
"This is what a military/police/intel state looks like,” Manning tweeted early Friday, adding she thinks the Ivy League university’s reaction is akin to the CIA determining "what is and is not taught at Harvard.”….
Manning was imprisoned in 2010, and in 2013 she was sentenced under the Espionage Act to 35 years in prison for leaking nearly 1 million classified and sensitive diplomatic cables and documents about the Iraq War to the transparency group WikiLeaks. But she was released from a military jail in May after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama….
Hillary Clinton donated big time to Antifa terrorists. According to Gateway Pundit:
"Hillary, who long during the campaign trail condemned "dark-money” Super-PACs, has funneled over 800K from her Campaign over to one of these very same outfits. It has been revealed that the failed presidential candidate’s Super-PAC, "Onward Together”, is heavily backing "resistance” and Alt-Left extremist groups such as ANTIFA.
Hillary, who long during the campaign trail condemned "dark-money” Super-PACs, has funneled over 800K from her Campaign over to one of these very same outfits. It has been revealed that the failed presidential candidate’s Super-PAC, "Onward Together”, is heavily backing "resistance” and Alt-Left extremist groups such as ANTIFA.
In building investigations, Daily Caler first discovered that Hillary transferred a mass sum of money from her campaign over to Onward Together:
Clinton transferred $800,000 from her failed 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group’s launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC reveal.
Now, today, it has been revealed by Offended America exactly where that money is going:
Daily Caller reached out to five different Antifa linked groups, and only one was willing to deny donations from Onward Together. Soros-linked group, Indivisible, denied receiving financial support from Clinton or Onward Together"
Antifa is a terrorist organization according to the Department of Homeland Security. Hillary is a sponsor of terrorism.
Now 18 U.S. Code § 2339C - Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism states quite clearly that the punishment for funding terrorist organizations consist of:
Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever violates subsection (c) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
Whatever happened to "lock her up!" Now more than ever Hillary should be brought to justice.
September 17, 2017
Jeff Jacoby, in Townhall, recounts a time when our military was concerned about more important diversity than the kind of "social experimentation" that seems to occupy so much of its time these days.
It was early September 1956, the High Holidays were approaching, and Elihu Schimmel was in the Cold War's coldest theater.Mazel Tov!
The young internist, an Orthodox Jew, had graduated from Yale Medical School in the spring of 1954 and gotten married the following year. A week after his wedding, he'd entered the Navy with the rank of lieutenant. Now he was the medical officer on the USS Lindenwald, a dock landing ship steaming in the Arctic Ocean as part of a squadron charged with supplying the DEW Line — the far-flung Distant Early Warning network of radar stations built to detect incoming Soviet bombers in case of an attack on North America. For three months each summer, before polar ice made the seas impassable, multitudes of military personnel brought construction materials, communications equipment, and fuel to the web of northern bases stretching across Canada.
As the only Navy doctor in the Arctic Ocean that summer, Schimmel was responsible for the medical care of men on dozens of ships. Often he had to be transported — by helicopter, by launch, by seaplane — from the Lindenwald to another vessel to see a patient. But with Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) just around the corner, Schimmel was wondering whether a few men could be moved in the other direction. Specifically, a few Jewish men: enough to assemble a minyan, a quorum of 10, so that services could be held on the most sacred days of the Jewish year.
There were a few other Jews on the Lindenwald. One was an Army private named Sam Levin, who was assigned to the 588th Transportation Company. Hundreds of men from the 588th were serving on ships throughout the area, and Levin knew quite a few of them, including several who were Jewish — enough, he told Schimmel, to make a minyan. If they could get those guys aboard the Lindenwald by sundown on Sept. 5, they could hold proper Rosh Hashana services — perhaps the first ever to be held in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
But would the Navy and Army be willing to indulge a few Jewish service members? Would it go to the trouble of transporting men to the Lindenwald and let them temporarily skip their regular duties for religious reasons? Schimmel didn't know, but — nothing ventured, nothing gained — decided to ask.
He approached the Lindenwald's executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Paul Hurry. Without hesitating, Hurry told Schimmel that he and Levin could count on the Navy's support, assuming there was no objection from the Army. So Schimmel went to the Army colonel commanding the 588th. Recounting the story to me last week, he couldn't recall the colonel's name, but he's never forgotten his response: "Done. Absolutely. I'll have the orders drawn up."
They were as good as their word. By the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 5, a handful of Jewish troops from other Navy vessels in the Arctic were aboard the Lindenwald. That day's shipboard "newspaper" — a mimeographed handout called "DEW Line Daily" — matter-of-factly listed "the schedule of Jewish Services for the High Holidays," to be held in the Crew's Lounge that evening. For the benefit of curious readers, it went on to explain the significance of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in Jewish culture ("days of repentance and of rededication ... called collectively the Days of Awe ... according to tradition, everyone is judged ... ends with a final sounding of the ram's horn").
At 1900 hours (7 p.m.), an announcement was broadcast over the public-address system: "Attention all hands: Jewish divine services are beginning in the crew's lounge. The smoking lamp is now out in all parts of the ship." In Navy jargon, it was a directive banning anyone from smoking anywhere on the Lindenwald: a gesture of reverence for the tiny group of High Holiday worshipers.
After Rosh Hashana ended, Schimmel dashed off a quick letter home. "We had 100% attendance, which fortunately was just 10 boys," he wrote. "Only one other boy read Hebrew . . . so we had services mostly in English. Took 2-2½ hours both days. . . . Ship & Army personnel were very cooperative and interested in the services — Commodore (via chaplain) came through with an official dispatch to release all Jewish personnel for services — I really never expected any airborne lift to assemble us! I'm very grateful."
Schimmel's Navy stint ended the following July, and he went on to a distinguished medical career in Boston. Now 87, he is still grateful at how readily the military accommodated his religious needs. "I never encountered the least whiff of negative reaction," he told me. Having grown up in an America where casual antisemitism was widespread and bigotry toward minorities far from taboo, he'd had no reason to think the Navy would be particularly enlightened.In reality, the U.S. military establishment is remarkably broadminded about religion. As far back as the Spanish-American War, thousands of Jewish troops were granted furloughs to attend High Holiday services. During World War II, with more than half a million American Jews in uniform, military commanders authorized High Holiday services and Passover seders, many of which were attended by hundreds of service members. Some of those services ached with poignance: In 1945, some 500 Jewish GIs assembled on Rosh Hashana to pray in Verdun, France — a city from which every Jew had been eliminated during the Nazi reign of terror.
Gathering a minyan aboard the Lindenwald from ships throughout the Arctic took some operational doing. But according to Jonathan Sarna, the prominent Brandeis University historian, such "non-trivial logistical exercises" advanced two goals important to US policymakers.
One was displaying America's commitment to religious liberty, reinforcing the contrast with the Soviet Union, where religion was banned and believers were cruelly persecuted. The other was strengthening cohesion within military units by refusing to countenance anti-Semitic (or anti-Catholic) prejudice, and by bending over backward to treat religious minorities with courtesy.
To this day, Elihu Schimmel glows when he recalls the respect with which he and his fellow Jews were treated as they prayed aboard the Lindenwald in 1956. When the High Holidays begin at sunset next Wednesday, Jewish soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines on duty around the world will again gather in prayer, with the full support of the US military. May those men and women, and the grateful nation they serve, be blessed with a safe and sweet new year.
Steven Hayward, in Power Line, contrasts Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan. This gets quite analytical and I think it's very instructive. I've added a few emphases to point up some of what I think is "the good stuff."
I stayed up late last night because I couldn’t reconcile myself to Stanford’s bizarre loss to San Diego State, and decided to tune in to Boob Tube News—I mean, CNN—which was running a documentary called "The Reagan Show,” described thus: "Made up entirely of archival news and White House footage, this documentary captures the pageantry, absurdity, and mastery of the made-for-TV politics of Ronald Reagan.” Supposedly we were going to see "behind the scenes” for some candid footage of Reagan in action.Dana sez: I think we need to give Mr. Trump some room here. Remember, when Mr. Reagan came to the White House he had experience in this sort of thing -- as politician AND dealmaker -- from his time as governor of California. Mr. Trump has only the experience of dealmaker.
It started off promising enough, with clips of Reagan going through three takes to tape a TV campaign spot for John Sununu’s campaign for governor of New Hampshire, but the otherwise smooth Reagan keeps stumbling over the pronunciation of "Sununu.” Finally Reagan quips, "Oh hell, why can’t his name be John Smith?”
But before long the film becomes a parade of what CNN no doubt thinks will be a damning portrait of the old clichés about Reagan—that he was an out-of-touch figurehead president. But ironically the effect is just the opposite, as it amounts to a perfect highlight reel of the media’s relentless hostility to Reagan. We see clips of a lot of "journalists” (or "Democrats with bylines,” to be more accurate) who are still on the scene today, such as Chris Wallace and Brian Ross, asking question after question with premises drawn wholly from liberal orthodoxy. "The Reagan Show” could be a clinic in media bias.
But one other aspect of it reminds me of the present moment. To be sure, Reagan’s White House had lots of factional infighting, and often had to clarify mis-statements from Reagan or contradictory messages coming from different nodes of the administration. Kind of reminds me of the Trump Administration. The story the Wall Street Journal flacked over the weekend that Trump was reversing course on the Paris Climate Accord, which was quickly and firmly disavowed by the White House, reminds me of nothing so much as the contradictory messages that came out of the Reagan Administration on arms control and US-Soviet relations. These often arose from competing factions in the State and Defense departments, and inside the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and National Security Council. (I do worry, though, that with Bannon gone the internal balance of power may have shifted to the pro-Paris, pro-climate alarmists near the president.)
At the end of the day, though, the Reagan Administration knew what it was doing. I suspect the Trump Administration is not nearly as chaotic as the media portray.
Which is not to say that there isn’t quite a bit of chaos inside the White House, proceeding ultimately from Trump himself. What’s up with his recent deals with Chuck and Nancy? I have a theory: Chuck and Nancy are easier to buy off than, for example, the House Freedom Caucus. He’s been doing it for years in New York City.
But one wonders about Trump’s vaunted deal-making ability. He appears to have bit on the first offer from Chuck and Nancy on the debt ceiling and on DACA. Here the contrast with Reagan is most instructive. Tip O’Neill used to say he hated negotiating with Reagan because Reagan always got 80 percent of what he wanted. Reagan’s strategy was patience and firmness. Most of his deals on taxes or the budget took months, not days or weeks, to achieve. (Also true for arms control—remember how he won the "zero option” on European missiles, which everyone hooted at when he proposed it; it just took six years to get.) He’d say to Tip, "Gosh, you know, I won 49 states, and I have a mandate to fulfill.” He’d stand firm until Tip reached yet another level of concessions, at which point he’d say, "Done!” And Tip would walk away fuming that he’d been had again. A Soviet official once compared Reagan to a lion, sitting calmly in the underbrush watching tempting things go by, and then suddenly reaching out with a big paw and swiping the prize that most appealed to him.
Maybe this is just craven political triangulation from Trump, Bill Clinton-style, which can be good politics, though probably bad policy. Or maybe this is the real, unprincipled or liberal Trump that we feared would emerge eventually. Maybe it is something in-between, in which case we’ll have the confusing spectacle of conservative judicial appointees and center-left policy on everything else.
Western state forest acreage equivalent to Minnesota is at risk. Already this year, more acres than in New Jersey have disappeared in wildfires – 1.1 million acres in Montana alone. The infernos exterminate habitats, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin western soils. Many areas will not recover their biodiversity for decades.
Far more horrific, the conflagrations destroy people’s homes – and kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames. Radical environmentalists naturally blame "dangerous manmade climate change” for the death and destruction.
Thankfully, the Interior and Agriculture Departments have proposed long overdue policies to manage our western forests properly, remove dead and diseased trees, and prevent the horrible fires that have destroyed so many forests and killed so many people and animals in recent years.
Finally, some commonsense western fire policies
New DOI and DOA policy to cut overgrown, diseased, dead and burned trees is long overdue
President Trump promised to bring fresh ideas and policies to Washington. Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.
Westerners are delighted, and I’ve advocated such reforms since my days on Capitol Hill in the 1980s.
As of September 12, amid this typically long, hot, dry summer out West, 62 major forest fires are burning in nine states, the National Interagency Fire Center reports. The Interior Department and Ag Department’s Forest Service have already spent over $2 billion fighting them. That’s about what they spent in all of 2015, previously the most costly wildfire season ever, and this season has another month or more to go. The states themselves have spent hundreds of millions more battling these conflagrations.
Millions of acres of forest have disappeared in smoke and flames – 1.1 million in Montana alone. All told, acreage larger than New Jersey has burned already. However, even this hides the real tragedies.
The infernos exterminate wildlife habitats, roast eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve for lack of food, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin soils. They turn trout streams into fish boils, minus the veggies and seasonings. Future downpours and rapid snowmelts bring widespread soil erosion into streambeds. Many areas will not grow trees or recover their biodiversity for decades.
Most horrifically, the conflagrations threaten homes and entire communities. They kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames.
In 2012, two huge fires near Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, Colorado burned 610 homes, leaving little more than ashes, chimneys and memories. Tens of thousands of people had to be evacuated through smoke and ash that turned daytime into choking night skies. Four people died. A 1994 fire near Glenwood Springs, CO burned 14 young firefighters to death.
These are not "natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or "ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.
Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.
Thus, even selective cutting to thin dense stands of timber, or remove trees killed by beetles or fires, is rarely permitted. Even fire fighting and suppression are often allowed only if a fire was clearly caused by arson, careless campers or other human action – but not if lightning ignited it. Then it’s allowed to burn, until a raging inferno is roaring over a ridge toward a rural or suburban community.
The result is easy to predict. Thousands of thin trees grow on acreage that should support just a few hundred full-sized mature trees. Tens of billions of these scrawny trees mix with 6.3 billion dead trees that the Forest Service says still stand in eleven western states. Vast forests are little more than big trees amid closely bunched matchsticks and underbrush, drying out in hot, dry western summers and droughts – waiting for lightning bolts, sparks, untended campfires or arsonists to start super-heated conflagrations.
Flames in average fires along managed forest floors might reach several feet in height and temperatures of 1,472° F (800° C), says Wildfire Today. But under extreme conditions of high winds and western tinderboxes, temperatures can exceed 2,192° F (1200° C), flame heights can reach 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and fires can generate a critter-roasting 100,000 kilowatts per meter of fire front. Wood will burst into flame at 572° F. Aluminum melts at 1,220 degrees, silver at 1,762 and gold at 1,948° F!
Most of this heat goes upward, but super-high temperatures incinerate soil organisms and organic matter in thin western soils that afterward can support only stunted, spindly trees for decades.
These fires also emit prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants – including mercury, which is absorbed by tree roots from rocks and soils that contain this metal, and then lofted into the sky when the trees burn.
Rabid greens ignore these hard realities – and divert discussions back to their favorite ideological talking points. The problem isn’t too many trees, they insist. It’s global warming and climate change. That’s why western states are having droughts, long fire seasons, and high winds that send flames past fire breaks.
Global warming, global cooling and climate change have been part of the Earth and human experience from time immemorial. Natural climate fluctuations brought the multi-decade Anasazi drought, the Dust Bowl and other dry spells to our western states. To suggest that this summer’s heat and drought are somehow due to mankind’s fossil fuel use and related emissions is deliberately delusional nonsense.
Neither these activists nor anyone in Al Gore’s climate chaos consortium can demonstrate or calibrate a human connection to droughts or fires. Rants, rhetoric and CO2-driven computer models do not suffice. And even if manmade (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide does play a role amid the powerful natural forces that have always controlled climate and weather, reducing US fossil fuel use would have zero effect.
China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam alone are building 590 new coal-fired power plants right now, on top of the hundreds they have constructed over the past decade. Overall, more than 1,600 new coal generators are planned or under construction in 62 countries. People in developing countries are also driving far more vehicles and making great strides in improving their health and living standards. They will not stop.
Western conflagrations jump fire breaks because these ferocious fires are fueled by the unprecedented increase in combustibles that radical green policies have created. These monstrous fires generate their own high winds and even mini tornados that carry burning branches high into the air, to be deposited hundreds of feet away, where they ignite new fires. It has nothing to do with climate change.
Remove some of that fuel – and fires won get so big, hot, powerful and destructive. We should also do what a few environmentalist groups have called for: manage more areas around buildings and homes – clearing away brush that federal agencies and these same groups have long demanded be left in place.
Finally, we should be using more of the readily available modern technologies like FireIce from GelTech Solutions. They can suppress and extinguish fires, and protect homes, much better than water alone.
The last bogus eco-activist claim is that "fire isn’t destruction; it’s renewal. It creates stronger, more diverse ecosystems.” That may be true in managed forests, timber stands in less tinder-dry states, and forests that have undergone repeated, non-devastating fires. For all the reason presented above, it is not true for government owned and mismanaged forests in our western states.
Over 50 million acres (think Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires, says Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), whose Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 would codify many of these essential regulatory changes. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.
Over 50 million acres (equal to Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.
These forests could and should create jobs and generate revenues in states where far too many lands, timber, oil and minerals have been placed off limits – primarily by urban politicians, judges and radical activists who seem determined to drive people off these western lands, turn them into playgrounds for the wealthy, and roll back other Americans’ living standards and well-being. Cleaning out dead, diseased, burned, overgrown trees would bring countless benefits. It would make our forests healthy again.
Above all, the new Interior-Agriculture approach would demonstrate that Rural Lives Matter.
34 queries taking 0.0122 seconds, 104 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.