Category Archives: Government

War is Failure to Win

Why would I start out with such a title? Isn’t war about winning? The movie about the life of General Patton started out with a speech. Among his remarks, this was said.

“America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war.” “War is the supreme test of man in which he rises to heights never approached in any other activity.”

Patton also said this; “Many soldiers are led to faulty ideas of war by knowing too much about too little.”

General_George_Patton_bwPatton enjoyed war, more than others and even he knew it’s terrible consequences.

War is a failure for people all living on the same planet, who don’t understand how to get along with each other. There have been despots, tyrants, dictators, and rulers of every type. Throughout history, we witness one battle or war after another. The United States, since the beginning has been involved in fighting amongst itself or other nations, over 90% of the time.

Unlike what Patton quoted, Americans will never lose a war, he was wrong about that. Check out the war of 1812 for a start.

War is stupid.

Those who advocate it are either without conscience or unable to grasp the realities of it.

In 1860, with the Southern states ramping up their rhetoric and threatening the union, this is what William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing!

To advocate a pre-emptive war is the moral equivalent of shooting someone on sight because they might commit a crime. If you suggest or listen to the nonsense of a pastor who says, “God wants us to go to war“, you’re listening to the wrong people and misinterpreting the words of the Bible. You may as well be a heathen if you advocate going to war. War is only justified when all other options are unavailable, that means right up to the time they attack. Once they’ve made that choice, you can revisit the decision.

There are too many things that can go wrong in a war, especially when you have China as their immediate neighbor. Think Germany had logistical and manpower problems when they attacked Russia in WWII? Russia lost over 20 million people under arms with many more civilian deaths, fighting against Germany. In rough terms, they lost nearly 20% of their population. China has over 1 billion people, and approximately 300 million, which they could use in their military. Think long and hard what that means? They don’t have any more respect for the potential losses in their population than the Russians did in the 1940’s.

Here’s another person very familiar with the tremendous cost of war.

images_from_war_3

A nun burned to death in the Spanish Civil War

Robert E. Lee

What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world!My heart bleeds at the death of every one of our gallant men.
_________________________________

President Donald Trump has launched a verbal volley at North Korea. On Wednesday, Trump said he would unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea.

Defense secretary James Mattis said on Thursday, “diplomatic efforts to contain the threat posed by North Korea remain the favored means for solving the crisis.” He noted that the UN Security Council, unanimously passed a resolution that tightened sanctions against North Korea.

Russia called on the Trump administration to keep calm, and on Friday Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told state media that his country was working with China on a “double freezing” plan to address the threat.

years_at_war_usa_chartIt may become necessary for the U.S. to go to war, but it shouldn’t do so without being first under attack. To shoot, bomb, or destroy someone, just because they have the means to kill you, isn’t justification to attack first. A person with morals doesn’t initiate conflict. Words are not conflict, even though they can aid an escalation of conflict.

Inside the borders of the U.S. we have strict laws which punish people who start fights or kill others. It doesn’t matter if someone swears at you or someone you know, or taunts you. They must first be the aggressor. Laws also don’t support revenge. Anyone advocating differently isn’t a moral person despite their claims to the contrary.

Whatever will happen, I hope cooler heads can prevail. Predictions of the outcome of any war are for fools and charlatans.

_________________________________

images_from_war_1

A man shot and then run over by a tracked vehicle – Iraq

images_from_war_2

Aftermath of Marines attacking Japanese soldiers

Influencing People Through Fear

People who wish to influence or control others have long since understood one of our prime motivators is the use of fear. It drives our instinct to survive, fight or flight. No normal person wants to sign up for pain & suffering. Secondary control factors include, financial incentives (reward), social status & peer pressure (ego).

torture-devicesGovernments, especially those who have unlimited power to do what they want, have used fear to motivate or control the populace. Torture was part of their tool kit, and the thought of ending up humiliated in shackles, or placed on a rack, was enough to instil fear in most people.

burn_in_hell_graphic

Christianity found their tool with the word, “hell”. You don’t behave, or do what the group thinks, you’re going to end up in a highly undesirable zip code, for eternity.

We see it’s more than peer pressure to influence predictions of climate change, we have government grants for educational and research institutions which measure and computer model predictions. The arsenal of control and scaremongering is reinforced through sympathetic media on “global warming“. If the latest trends don’t follow “scientific prediction”, than it’s called “climate change”. You places your bets, then change the predictions based on latest trends.

Which ever way the thermometer and weather, especially severe weather patterns change, it’s always based on “climate change”. Therefore if you have a drought, a flood, a grouping of tornadoes, it’s attributed to climate change.

Who Decides?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

We’ve been here before – More Lies

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents.

A series of independent public investigations of the allegations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report exonerated the scientists, but found “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA”. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.

In 2011, an analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, of whom some had stated they thought it was possible the CRU had manipulated the data, however concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions”.

So, the hacked emails supposedly didn’t reveal anything that pointed out a bias or a skewing of results. Here’s what some of the email said, you decide. See
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate

You can click on the above link to see more of these emails.

More critical background and science history of Michael E. Mann found here.

Here we go again!

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
| DailyMail February 11, 2017 | The following is an excerpt from their post.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.
Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

The ongoing battle between a radio host and author vs. the scientist.  | Michael E. Mann v. Mark Steyn

ipcc_2001_tar_figure


What is Memorial Day?

I failed to post this yesterday as a follow up to the Memorial Day 2017 dedication I posted on Twitter.

Yesterday wasn’t about me or others that have served, or are serving in the military.

Its about those soldiers, sailors, marines, and air corps, who gave everything they had to the cause of bringing conflict to a conclusion, and to allow people the opportunity to choose for themselves as to how they want to govern.

All the criticisms of the military, our government, our industrial, technological, or wealth, has nothing to do with Memorial Day. There were many people who chose to use it to support their political, ideological, and critical view points. It has nothing to do with that at all.

The United States, for all its flaws, shortcomings, and mistakes, has at its core a desire to keep the world safe enough for people to choose for themselves a way of life. Written in its foundational documents, are the basic humane principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

When a person enters the military, they become part of a history of a nation that wants to protect those foundations. and has been willing to do so at great personal risk, significant loss of life, wealth and reputation. To argue we gave blood for treasure is to ignore that no amount of industry, or military victory, has offset the price we spent, or the blood we spilt, not just for ourselves, but many other nations as well.

Our history as a nation has been to cede back the lands, rebuild the basic civil foundations, and for decades, donate vast resources & money in order for the weak to become stronger. We are not a conquering people, we’re a liberating people.

How do I know this to be true? I’m one of the millions, who over the centuries, left my home, voluntarily gave a portion of my life, to be trained, skilled, and willing to defend this country. We desired no lands, sought no riches, and did things few are willing or able to do.

I have this one day of the year to thank those who were required in the course of their service, to lay down their life to benefit, defend, secure, the liberty of others, including me. That’s Memorial Day. A day which we as a nation should remember those who died for us, yet we so soon forget in our normal, comfortable, and mostly peaceful journey.