Thursday, June 27, 2019

Monday (but really Thursday) Medley of Videos

I'm really behind this week, so, although it is Thursday, here is my Monday (!) Medley of Videos:


A warning about those preppers who focus on guns, ammo, and combat tactics over other preparations such as food, water, medicine, etc. 



"Tornado! The 1974 Super-Outbreak"--The History Guy (14 min.)
The worst outbreak of tornadoes in U.S. history.


BPS notes that, now that NAFTA has been replaced with USMCA, North America represents one of the largest trading blocs in the world, and with an unprecedented level of control over the world's energy production (oil and natural gas), and could become a largely self-sufficient trading bloc--the only one in the world. The consequence that he sees is that the U.S. may abandon the Bretton Woods System or simply let it die. (Although the original Bretton Woods Agreement essentially died when Nixon completely decoupled the dollar from gold, the reality is that the system of international payments and so on, largely lived on). This, he contends, would leave countries that depend on international trade for basic necessities such as energy or food vulnerable.


"Grand Solar Minimum | Latest 'Update'"--Suspicious Observers (4-1/2 min.)


"London is a Sh*thole"--Paul Joseph Watson (14 min.) (Warning: strong language)


"Nazi Europe?! - WW2 - 043 - June 22 1940"--World War Two (14 min.)
The Germans sign an armistice with France, and Italy invades France.

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

June 25, 2019 -- A Quick Run Around the Web

No one seems to know of cases of over-penetrating bullets injuring a bystander (well, other than the  apocryphal story from the Civil War of a woman that became pregnant from a bullet that had passed through a soldier's scrotum, or the much more likely account of a British sniper that got 3 kills with one shot). But, in testing out FMJ rounds on his infamous meat targets, Harrell shows that it easily could happen, even from the lowly .380 ACP.

My subjective impression of these pistols is pretty positive. They are big and on the heavy side, but they performed well with only a few failures to chamber early in testing. It is possible that these new Remingtons mimic the performance of several other modern polymer and steel service guns in that they benefit strongly from a few hundred rounds of break-in.
(Underlines added). The author also notes that "[t]he RP-series Remingtons seem to recoil a bit more noticeably than many of their contemporaries," "[t]he triggers were full of bumps and catches—hard to shoot," and "[t]hey would benefit greatly from a better trigger system."
The rule I would add is shown in your photo. I find it discomforting to ever see a gun with a closed chamber - for no reason. To me, an open chamber, lifted bolt or 'broken' (open) long gun is the 'default' mode, with any closed chamber to be questioned ALWAYS
This person will never be comfortable with other people carrying a firearm for self-defense. Oh, and this comment:
So, why are weapons-mounted flashlights ever safe? The ubiquitous light rails on handguns promote unsafe handling. One cannot shine such a light, looking for a target, without aiming your loaded gun at everything else that you do not intend to shoot.
My short answer: If you are caught in a situation where you have to actually use a firearm for self-defense, you will, at some point, have to actually point the firearm at the miscreant (Ed: one of the recent Marcus Wynne books I read had a character using "miscreant", and it seems to have slipped into my everyday vocabulary). That is, it's hard to shoot an attacker if you aren't actually aiming at him/her/it. If you don't want to search using the weapon light, the recommended way is to use a hand-held light, and reserve the weapon light for when you have found your evil-doer. Nevertheless, if the weapon light is all you have, you can use the flashlight's flood for searching, rather than the center or spot beam cast by the light. Also, flashlight beams don't kill, so really the issue is keeping your finger off the trigger and not jerking the trigger just because you see something move.
  • A firearms myth: "Why You Should Avoid Handloads for Concealed Carry"--Guns America. The real reasons that you shouldn't use handloads for defensive carry are (1) reliable feeding and firing, and (2) reliable expansion and performance. The former is because factory ammo has a consistency of manufacture that is better than most handloaders can deliver; the latter is mostly due to the fact that few manufacturers sell their high-end defensive bullets to hand loaders. But this article doesn't mention either of these, instead focusing on the old trope that some wily prosecutor or his/her civil counterpart, the ambulance chaser, will make some argument that you manufactured deadlier bullets and are, therefore, somehow more culpable that if you had used factory ammunition. The comments left below the article pretty much skewer the author's reasoning.
  • An elegant weapon for a more civilized age: "GUN REVIEW: THE SIG P232 PISTOL"--Guns.com. If the term svelte could apply to a firearm, this would be the one. See, also, "SIG SAUER P232, A GENTLEMAN’S CONCEALED CARRY" from Seven Gun.
  • On a related note: "A Classic Rifle, Back From the Dead"--Recoil. The author describes his restoration of an old, neglected Foremost/Parker-Hale .30-06 hunting rifle. I think he actually improved on the original: he refinished the stock with a higher quality finish, glass-bedded the stock, and sent the barreled action and bolt off to have a Black Nitride finish applied.
  • "Geologist Describes Uses Of Revolvers To Defend Against Bears Over Six Decades"--Ammo Land. Some of the incidents were resolved by shooting near the bear, giving it pause. But, if you have to shoot the bear: "When he has to shoot, he repeats a mantra …placement…  On bears, he aims for the aortic arch on top of the heart."
  • I believe that I've cited to this article before, but it is a good read and useful to remind oneself of certain principles: "Effective Game Killing"--Terminal Ballistics Research. An excerpt:
     Approximately two to three inches forwards of dead center (foreleg) at 3 o’clock is the ball joint intersection of the scapular and humerus bones. And from the front line of the front leg through to the ball joint intersection lies the autonomic plexus. This is a major network of nerves which when hit soundly, causes instant collapse and death. A shot in this area has the potential to destroy the autonomic plexus along with the forward portions of the lungs and locomotive muscles and bones. The autonomic plexus (sometimes called hilar zone) is the most useful aiming point for fast killing. This shot placement is also particularly useful when using cartridges that have enough bullet weight to penetrate bone but not enough velocity to initiate hydrostatic shock or extremely wide wounding.
           It is important to understand that shot placement involves cultural traditions. For example, some cultures (particularly USA hunters) prefer a meat saver shot, striking the lungs behind the foreleg in an attempt to save meat. In Europe, the traditional method has been to aim forwards and although this does cause more meat destruction, this shot placement helps ensure rapid killing. Also, if you look more closely at this subject, you can see how small changes in POI may affect the hunter’s perception of a cartridge. One hunter may state that X cartridge is a very fast and emphatic killer while another may call the same cartridge abysmal - each assessment based on differing traditions or habits relative to the hunter’s point of aim. It is up to you to decide which method you wish to employ. Much will depend on the power and penetrative abilities of your cartridge. Ideally, you should be aware of both points of aim and should be able to switch from one to the other depending on the individual situation. If for example you are hunting with a high velocity cartridge using soft bullets that have the potential to suffer shallow penetration, then a meat saver shot will enable adequate penetration and hydrostatic shock can be counted on for a fast kill. On the other hand, it is very unwise to apply the meat saver shot when hunting large heavy bovines because even if you are using the likes of a .375 caliber rifle, this really is still quite a small bore diameter relative to the size of the animal you are hunting. Instead, a long heavy for caliber bullet of sound construction should be driven through the forwards portion of the chest where it can do the most damage.
      (Bold in the original). Note that the author is discussing rifle bullets, not handguns.
        The bad guys in the cities you fled or want to flee figured out a long time ago that the “Thin Blue Line” is thinnest in the hinterlands. America is the society that is interconnected by Interstate highways. Most of us in rural law enforcement have very strong reason to believe that a lot of burglary and violent crime in our provinces is done by out of town city punks who don’t want to crap where they live. Sure, we have our indigenous country scumbags, but we can generally stay on top of them and take care of them expeditiously.
          Also:
                  The overwhelming majority of encounters between armed citizens and violent criminals end just that way [no shots fired], whether in the depths of the inner city or in the wilderness. Perpetrator begins to attack. Perpetrator sees gun pointing at him. Perpetrator suddenly decides that he has made a terrible mistake, and is about to die from what I’ve come to call “sudden and acute failure of the victim selection process.” Perpetrator either flees or surrenders. End of story. Most of the time.
                    Sometimes, the predator is so obsessed or enraged, so drugged out or drunk, or just so unbelievably stupid that he continues the attack. When this happens, the citizen/victim has no choice but to steady the gun and pull the trigger. This is the moment at which you will need not only the wherewithal to do what needs to be done, but the skill and familiarity with the firearm to allow you to do so.
              • "‘Self-Selection’ Is an Often Overlooked Factor in the Debate About Guns in America"--The Truth About Guns. The author notes that when comparing the Unites States overall murder rate against other countries, we are right in the middle (otherwise known as "average"). And he poses a question similar to what one I've made: "So, with such a huge number of guns in a turbulent society, why isn’t our overall murder rate sky-high?" His explanation:
                      Everyone in my large circle of friends knows I’m a gun guy. I’ve taken many novices to the range to introduce them to safe gun handling. It’s one of my passions. I’ve had many of them chat with me privately about their personal feelings regarding gun ownership.
                       I’ve learned that people generally know when they are not suited to taking on that responsibility. I’d love to have a dollar for every time someone told me they don’t trust themselves to keep a gun around.
                         They worry about their temper, their ability to react appropriately in an emergency, their use of intoxicants, their relationship issues and other factors that affect their mental state.
                           The biggest reason we don’t have an astronomical rate of gun deaths is simple: people generally choose the best option for their own circumstances without orders from the nanny state. This “self-selection” contradicts the idea that we need to be micro-managed for our own safety.
                             As a result of self-selection, much of what the anti-gun lobby claims they want to accomplish has already been done individually by the people themselves at zero cost. No tax money expended, no freedoms restricted, no need for state-mandated mental health exams.
                          As I've had to explain to my sons, the Left's antipathy toward firearms is largely based on self-projection: they wouldn't trust themselves with a gun, so they don't trust anyone else. (For the elites, it is more an issue that they don't want the peasants to be armed).
                          • Related: "Federal HEAR Act Would Outlaw Silencers Nationwide"--The Truth About Guns. Of course, there would be exceptions for law enforcement and federal agencies. Per Wikipedia, "Legal regulation of silencers varies widely around the world. In some nations, such as Finland, France, and New Zealand some or all types of suppressor are essentially unregulated and are sold through retail stores or by mail-order. In other countries their possession or use is more restricted." But not banned.

                          "The "Harrison Horror" of 1878"--The History Guy (13 min.)
                          So the grave robbers of the period called themselves "resurrectionists".
                          • Liberals are all about compassion, acceptance and inclusiveness: "Seeing poor white people makes me happy"--Race Baitr (via Internet Archive since the original article was taken down). Nicholas Powers, a self-described poet and journalist, and, apparently, an Associate Professor of Literature at SUNY, writes:
                          White people begging us for food feels like justice. It feels like Afro-Futurism after America falls. It feels like a Black Nationalist wet dream. It has the feels I rarely feel, a hunger for historical vengeance satisfied so well I rub my belly.
                          • Speaking of liberals: "Psychologists Can’t Figure Out Why Hardly Anyone Wants To Date A Trans Person"--The Federalists
                          • Ditto: "FBI Searches Home Of Embattled D.C. Council Member Jack Evans, Council To Launch Investigation". Evans is a former Clinton campaign D.C. co-chair, who is accused of "influence-peddling and conflicts of interests" (accepting bribes). 
                          • Pulling up the ladder: "US billionaires' group calls for wealth tax"--BBC News. The reason that they are comfortable with calling for such a tax is that they know they will never be subject to it--at least not at any scale that would discomfit them. For one thing, such a tax would probably only apply to income, not existing wealth; and even then, it wouldn't apply to income from municipal or state bonds. Another thing to understanding is that most wealthy have learned the important lesson that it is not the possession of the money that is important, but the control over the money. Thus, they can shift their wealth to various trusts, foundations, charities, etc.--avoiding taxes on the income--but still be in control of the money, and enjoy the fruits thereof. But what this tax would do is penalize anyone new that was climbing the ladder of wealth--someone that might knock the existing wealthy off their perch.
                          • Related: "Who Gets to Own the West?"--New York Times. Billionaires are buying up huge tracts of land in the West, including Idaho, which features heavily in this article. The article relates:
                          In the last decade, private land in the United States has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Today, just 100 families own about 42 million acres across the country, a 65,000-square-mile expanse, according to the Land Report, a magazine that tracks large purchases. Researchers at the magazine have found that the amount of land owned by those 100 families has jumped 50 percent since 2007.
                          You might ask yourself why this matters. Because, like my discussion concerning the control of money being superior to having money, the same applies to land:
                          The Wilkses, who now own some 700,000 acres across several states, have become a symbol of the out-of-touch owner. In Idaho, as their property has expanded, the brothers have shuttered trails and hired armed guards to patrol their acres, blocking and stymying access not only to their private property, but also to some publicly owned areas. This has drawn ire from everyday Idahoans who have hiked and hunted in those hills for generations.
                          That is, owning a key parcel (or parcels) can essentially turn you into the owner of much larger tracts of land or key resources simply by keeping others out. For instance, if you look at a map of the desert regions in the dry Western states, you will see millions of acres of public land. But peer a little closer, and you will notice that the property surrounding the relatively few water sources are privately owned. Those owners essentially own the surrounding land by virtue of their control of the water. 
                                To add insult to injury in the above story, the Wilkses closed roads that have been historically used to access public lands. It seems to me that there should be a public easement by prescription over these roads (for a long time, Idaho only required 5 years to obtain a prescriptive easement or ownership by adverse possession, although it has been raised to 20 years), but there seems to be little will (or money) to fight the issue. 
                               For those who own a cabin (or bug-out retreat), keep in mind that people with attitudes like the Wilkses could easily shut down access to your property, particularly if you have to use a road that crosses their property. You might be in the worst of situations, having bugged out from your urban shelter, but unable to reach your rural shelter.
                          • "The Arab world in seven charts: Are Arabs turning their backs on religion?"--BBC. Of the eleven North African and Near East countries included, all but Yemen reported increased non-religiousness between 2013 and 2018, with a couple (Tunisia and Libya) having marked increases.
                          • "True Colors of Ancient Greek and Roman Statues"--Moco-Choco. While most of us tend to think of Roman and Greek statuary and reliefs being plain white, the reality was that they were painted, often quite garishly. Scientists have used various imaging techniques to determine the original colors, and this article shows some of the results.
                          • Of course immigrants respect our laws: "Ilhan Omar lawyer: two marriages hard to explain"--Spectator. Hard to explain away, her lawyer means. The actual explanation is easy: (1) she married her brother to commit immigration fraud while still married to another man; or (2) she married her brother while still married to another man (ew!).
                          A: Because it is in her nature
                          The r-strategy entails five main psychological traits. Each trait is designed to help an organism out-compete peers in the r-selected environment of free resource availability. This psychology exhibits a psychological aversion to both, competition with peers and the competitive environment. It also exhibits a tolerance for, or embrace of, promiscuity, low-investment single-parenting, and early onset sexual behavior among offspring. It will also tend to not exhibit any group-centric urges, such as loyalty to in-group, or hostility to out-group.  Of these five traits, (competition aversion, promiscuity, single parenting, early onset sexuality, and aversion to group-centrism/ethnocentrism), political leftists exhibit a tolerance of, or an embrace of, all five. Indeed, as we will show, these five urges explain the entire liberal platform of issue positions.  
                          If you honestly approach scripture, you will note that the wicked and decadent cultures and individuals exhibit most, if not all, of these five traits as well. The election of women, such as those mentioned above, is not a sign of progression or advancement, but of a culture circling the drain. Isaiah looked on a decadent culture and proclaimed, in his woe: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them." (Isaiah 3:12).  Those that are pro-immigration lack in-group loyalty toward their fellow countrymen--their own nation--and if you poke around, you will probably find that they have the other r-selected traits as well.
                               In 2014, we published a study on the sexual victimization of men, finding that men were much more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than was thought. To understand who was committing the abuse, we next analyzed four surveys conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to glean an overall picture of how frequently women were committing sexual victimization.

                               The results were surprising. For example, the CDC’s nationally representative data revealed that over one year, men and women were equally likely to experience nonconsensual sex, and most male victims reported female perpetrators. Over their lifetime, 79 percent of men who were “made to penetrate” someone else (a form of rape, in the view of most researchers) reported female perpetrators. Likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact had female perpetrators.

                               We also pooled four years of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data and found that 35 percent of male victims who experienced rape or sexual assault reported at least one female perpetrator. Among those who were raped or sexually assaulted by a woman, 58 percent of male victims and 41 percent of female victims reported that the incident involved a violent attack, meaning the female perpetrator hit, knocked down or otherwise attacked the victim, many of whom reported injuries.

                               And, because we had previously shown that nearly one million incidents of sexual victimization happen in our nation’s prisons and jails each year, we knew that no analysis of sexual victimization in the U.S. would be complete without a look at sexual abuse happening behind bars. We found that, contrary to assumptions, the biggest threat to women serving time does not come from male corrections staff. Instead, female victims are more than three times as likely to experience sexual abuse by other women inmates than by male staff.

                               Also surprisingly, women inmates are more likely to be abused by other inmates than are male inmates, disrupting the long held view that sexual violence in prison is mainly about men assaulting men. In juvenile corrections facilities, female staff are also a much more significant threat than male staff; more than nine in ten juveniles who reported staff sexual victimization were abused by a woman.
                                  The most recent employment report revealed 279,000 new jobs (including revisions to prior months), and an unemployment rate of just 3.6%, which is a 50-year low.  Lest anyone think that this month was an anomaly, the last 12 months have registered about 2.6M new jobs (click to enlarge).  
                                   Over the last two years, the Federal Reserve, still using economic paradigms from decades ago, assumed that when unemployment goes below 5.0%, inflation would emerge.  With this expectation, they proceeded on two economy-damaging measures : raising the FF rate and Quantitative Tightening (i.e. reversal of Quantitative Easing, to the tune of $50B/month). 
                                * * *
                                       President Trump, seeing what is obvious here, has not just pressured the Federal Reserve to stop raising rates (which they were about to do in late 2018, which would have created the inverted yield curve that they supposedly consider to be troubling), but has recently said that the Fed should lower the Fed Funds rate by 1%, effectively saying that their last four rate hikes were ill-considered.  He rightfully flipped the script on them.  
                                         Now, normally I would be the first to say a head of state should not pressure a central bank in any way, but in this particular case, the President is correct, and the ivory-tower is wrong.  The correct outcome through the wrong channel is not ideal, but the alternative is a needless recession that damages the financial well-being of hundreds of millions of people, and destroys millions of jobs.  He is right to push back on this, and anyone who cares about jobs must hope he can halt and reverse their damage-causing trajectory.  
                                           Scientists have found a gigantic freshwater aquifer hidden deep below the ocean.
                                              The surprising discovery, from a new survey of the sub-seafloor off the northeast U.S. coast by researchers from Columbia University, appears to to be the largest formation of this type anywhere in the world — stretching from Massachusetts to New Jersey and extending continuously out about 50 miles to the edge of the continental shelf.
                                                Researchers said that if it was discovered on the surface it would create a lake covering some 15,000 square miles.
                                            The researches briefly explained how the aquifers were created:
                                              "Some 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, toward the end of the last glacial age, much of the world’s water was locked up in mile-deep ice; in North America, it extended through what is now northern New Jersey, Long Island and the New England coast. Sea levels were much lower, exposing much of what is now the underwater U.S. continental shelf. When the ice melted, sediments formed huge river deltas on top of the shelf, and fresh water got trapped there in scattered pockets. Later, sea levels rose."
                                                     After decades of searching scientists have discovered that a vast reservoir of water, enough to fill the Earth’s oceans three times over, may be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, potentially transforming our understanding of how the planet was formed.
                                                    The water is locked up in a mineral called ringwoodite about 660km (400 miles) beneath the crust of the Earth, researchers say. Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University in the US co-authored the study published in the journal Science and said the discovery suggested Earth’s water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity, rather than being deposited by icy comets hitting the forming planet as held by the prevailing theories.
                                                    “Geological processes on the Earth’s surface, such as earthquakes or erupting volcanoes, are an expression of what is going on inside the Earth, out of our sight,” Jacobsen said.
                                                    “I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet. Scientists have been looking for this missing deep water for decades.”
                                                   Jacobsen and his colleagues are the first to provide direct evidence that there may be water in an area of the Earth’s mantle known as the transition zone. They based their findings on a study of a vast underground region extending across most of the interior of the US.
                                                               The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.
                                                                  Too many commanders and their “operational law” judge advocates have neutered U.S. military forces with far too restrictive rules of engagement and investigations. One Army infantry battalion commander reported that during a 15-month command tour in Iraq, he had to endure 600 AR 15-6 investigations (equivalent to a Navy JAG manual investigation), most of which examined the use of force by his troops. When asked when he had time to command, he answered, “Exactly.”
                                                                   Human behavior has not changed much in recorded history. Neither have the basic tenets of war. It takes killing with speed and sustained effect to win wars. The notions that the U.S. military can win with “precision strikes” or “winning hearts and minds” are fantasy. Even the great victory in Operation Desert Storm was a bloody killing field. Just ask the remnants of the Tawakalna Division of the Iraqi Army.
                                                                      During the American Civil War, the Union literally bled the Confederacy dry of fighting-age men. General Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the Potomac killed its fellow Americans by the tens of thousands until General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia could not resist. It was that pressure that led Lee—arguably the greatest tactician on either side—to surrender. Grant killed his way to victory. He had the manpower advantage as well as the economic and industrial power to do so.
                                                                        This country’s “Greatest Generation” killed enormous numbers of the enemy’s military servicemen and civilians in World War II. General Curtis LeMay knew that if he killed enough Japanese they would quit. While brutal by 2017 standards, his approach yielded lasting results—a productive peace with Japan that has lasted since 1945. The legal justification then—the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor—is the same casus belli as the one in the current war against al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL): the 11 September 2001 sneak attack on the United States.
                                                                         Had the United States not killed Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the hundreds of thousands, it is likely they would have fought on and the U.S. military would have been forced to kill millions in close ground combat until they finally quit. The United States and its allies did the same against Nazi Germany. While victory required taking and holding territory, the Germans and Japanese fought until it became clear to them that the Allies would keep killing them until they quit.
                                                                      After receiving some criticism regarding is article, the author responded:
                                                                              There is nothing new about insurgencies. Moreover, we are the insurgents in Afghanistan, not the counterinsurgents. To suggest otherwise is painfully arrogant and ignorant of the British and Russian misadventures in that country. We ought to have done as suggested by noted author, military historian, and Korean War veteran Beven Alexander, who in his 1995 book The Future of Warfare called for the use of overwhelming force to end resistance by eliminating the enemy’s intelligence, communication critical nodes, and supply structure; by killing or capturing their leaders and then leaving. And if the conduct that led us to attack them arises again, we must do it again and again, until they stop. Nation-building will fail in cultures that are fundamentally different from ours, such as the honor-killing tribal cultures of Afghanistan. Permanent war has never been a laudable goal for anyone other than defense contractors. We ought to stop worrying about ISIS recruiting or whether the populace will like us. As Patrick McCrory points out in The Fierce Pawns concerning the First British Afghan Campaign, “They will never like us.”
                                                                                Let battalion-level commanders focus on the close fight. If we overwhelmingly and consistently win the close fight, recruiting will no longer be an issue. Most people don’t want to join a team that is consistently on the losing end.
                                                                          I agree with this because it is essentially what I've said before: the whole Afghanistan affair should have been a punitive expedition to kill as many as we could, as quickly as we could, and then withdraw, rinse and repeat as necessary.
                                                                                  Almost two-thirds of respondents to a new poll believe that the [Mexican] government should close the southern border to migrants, and an even higher percentage support the deployment of the National Guard to enforce stricter immigration policies.
                                                                                    The poll published today by the newspaper El Financiero found that 63% of the 410 people surveyed would like to see the border with Guatemala closed to migrants, a 9% increase compared to two weeks ago.
                                                                                      In contrast, 35% of respondents believe that the government should support migrants and facilitate their journey through the country to the northern border.
                                                                                       Mexico’s commitment to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border as part of an agreement with the United States that ended President Donald Trump’s tariff threat found support among 68% of poll respondents while 29% opposed the move.
                                                                                          Three-quarters of those polled said that Mexico should deport undocumented Central American migrants and 67% said that the southern border should be militarized.
                                                                                           While the deployment of the National Guard found strong support, another aspect of the deal with the United States – Mexico’s agreement to accept the return of a greater number of asylum seekers as they await the outcomes of their claims in the U.S. – was rejected by a majority of respondents.
                                                                                              Just 36% said that migrants should be accepted under the so-called “Remain in Mexico” policy while 60% said that they should not.
                                                                                          Two men, writing about the same thing centuries apart, come to the same conclusion through different methods on escaping the paralysis of fear in day-to-day life:  action is vital for you to be the best you.  You can’t dwell on what might happen if you make a bad decision – but you have to be afraid of the person you’ll be if you don’t take action, or, worse yet, don’t have a goal.
                                                                                                 All of a sudden, a group of Google executives deleted their social media presence after a new expose revealed their plans to use their Internet search engine to destroy President Donald Trump’s 2020 election campaign.
                                                                                                   The sudden disappearance of the Google executive’s social media accounts came on the heels of the latest undercover exposé by Project Veritas that reveals that Google is programming its machine learning algorithms (or AI) to prevent the “next Trump situation.”
                                                                                                      The Project Veritas video reveals that instead of merely doing its job as the world’s leading Internet search and archiving tool, Google is using its power over what Americans see on the Internet as a partisan political weapon to force extreme, un-American leftism on all of us.

                                                                                                Monday, June 24, 2019

                                                                                                Resources from Joel Richardson at "Joel's Trumpet"

                                                                                                Joel Richardson has written several books on Islamic eschatology and how it relates to Christianity's own end-time prophecies, including "Islamic Antichrist" (originally published under the title, " Antichrist: Islam’s Awaited Messiah"). I recently discovered that on his website, he has a "Resources" page that includes several of his books in PDF format which can be downloaded for no charge. He also has links to other articles and sources. Check it out.

                                                                                                Saturday, June 22, 2019

                                                                                                June 22, 2019 -- A Quick Run Around the Web

                                                                                                This video tests certain household appliances and furniture to determine if they can be used as cover (aka hard cover) or are only useful for concealment (aka soft cover). The items tested included a bookcase packed tight with full size books (not your standard paperback novel), a washing machine and dryer, and a sofa. Basically, the only thing that provided cover against bullets, up to and including 5.56 rifle bullets, was the tightly packed bookcase. And the worst for protection from bullets was the sofa which was no better than simply standing in the open.


                                                                                                • First up, I want to thank Greg Ellifritz, who included my article on "when things go bump in the night" in his latest Weekend Knowledge Dump. He has much more than his normal number of links this weekend, and to lots of really great articles on exercise, ammunition, first-aid and medical care, firearms practice and training, escape and evasion, equipment reviews and more. These include a great article explaining the basics of night vision equipment, how to break into your car using a door wedge and a steel rod, and what police (and the well armed citizen) might want as to a duty knife. A couple points:
                                                                                                        As to the knife article, Ellifritz acknowledges that the advice in the article is mixed: some good, and some bad. For instance, Ellifritz contends that "[a] police defensive knife would ideally be a small. concealed fixed blade carried centerline and accessible to either hand." He provides some example knives that he uses. He also adds:
                                                                                                Don’t rely on a folder for weapon retention.  Although officers have used them in the past (the article lists one instance, I have records on about a dozen), deploying a folder under life-threatening attack is far from a sure thing.  The fixed blade is far more accessible.  If you are forced to carry a folder, make sure it can be opened with either hand.  And unlike the advice in the article, a liner lock is probably the worst choice.  Frame locks, back locks, compression locks, and Axis locks are all less likely to fail than a liner lock.
                                                                                                I personally like the liner lock, but I will admit that its robustness depends on the quality of the materials and manufacture, and how quickly you can deploy the blade. I had excellent service from a Benchmade AFCK knife which employed a liner lock. I had an instance where I needed to dig out a couple feet of soil on the shoulder of a road so I could past an obstruction with my car, and the only tool I had was the AFCK. Although the soil was sandy, it still was a lot of digging, cutting some sagebrush roots, and so on, and the knife remained solidly locked up the whole time. But I've had or handled other liner lock knives where the liner/spring material was so thin that I believe it would probably have buckled under force; and others where the liner/spring barely locked behind the blade--i.e., that the lock was so near the edge of the blade joint that I would have worried about the liner/spring slipping and allowing the blade to shut. Just something to check before you buy or daily carry your knife.
                                                                                                        Ellifritz also links to an article by Grant Cunningham entitled "There are no defensive shooting experts." It addresses a question or comment that I've heard before, namely, shouldn't someone teaching defensive shooting have at least some actual experience in shooting someone. It has come up in this blog when I've referenced advice from Mas Ayoob who, although one of the key figures in developing modern defensive shooting techniques and defensive skills for police officers, has not actually ever been involved in a shoot out. One comment I received likened it to learning to land an aircraft, asking, essentially, "wouldn't you rather learn to land a plane from someone who has done it before?" It is a good point--there is a big difference between actual experience and abstract knowledge.  On the other hand, Mas Ayoob, for instance, has spent a lifetime studying shooting incidents, interviewing both police officers and criminals, the investigative reports, and so on. Thus, he has a deep well of knowledge to draw upon rather than a single incident. And he is (or was) a police officer, so it is not like he has not dealt with violent criminals. 
                                                                                                         Cunningham, however, attacks the basic premise of such a question--that people that have been involved in shootings have sufficient experience directly applicable to civilian self-defense. He writes:
                                                                                                      Here’s the dirty little secret no one in this business will admit to: none of us have enough — in most cases any — shooting experience defending ourselves against a criminal attacker, sufficient to derive lessons worth teaching. 
                                                                                                       No one you’ll find — not on Facebook, not on YouTube, not on Instagram, not writing books or teaching classes — has a significant amount of experience using a gun to defend  themselves from violent criminals.
                                                                                                         Yes, you can find military vets who have shot at a lot of people, but that’s a lot different than suddenly being accosted in a parking lot while you’re trying to get your child into her car seat. You can also find police officers who have arrested a lot of people at gunpoint, but that’s different than being surprised by a home invasion. Competitive shooters put a lot of bullets downrange, but a lot of self defense is in knowing when not to shoot.
                                                                                                      But even as I write this, I can almost hear in my mind Gabe Suarez counterclaiming that he, at least, has been involved in multiple shootings.
                                                                                                              I think this parlays into the larger issue of determining whether the teacher and the information he presents is applicable to your situation. I've noted before that when I started carrying concealed and researching the subject, the majority of gun magazine articles on the subject were written by current or ex-law enforcement that based their advice on their experience working as a plains clothes officer. But the reality is that their mission was different from mine, and they certainly wouldn't suffer some negative consequence if their boss found that they were carrying a firearm at work--it was part of their job. Instead, I found the few articles written by people working deep cover or in executive security to more useful for my needs.
                                                                                                        • "Gear Review of the P-14 Gen II+ Night Vision Monocular"--Deft Systems. The product is the PRG (Potomac River Group) P-14. The author found that it was comparable to a PVS-14 during high illumination (e.g., using an I.R. illuminator  or in moonlight), but otherwise like a Gen II in darker settings.
                                                                                                        • "SCOTUS: Prosecutors Must Prove Prohibited Persons Knew They Couldn’t Have Guns"--The Truth About Guns. The case is Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif v. United States. This seems like a straight forward matter to me: the court held that prosecutors must prove all the elements of the crime, and since the statute required that the defendant knowingly violated the elements, and one of the elements was illegal possession of a firearm, the government must show that the defendant knew he was not permitted to possess a firearm. While "ignorance of the law" is generally not a defense in criminal law, the courts have recognized an exception for tax laws, because of the complexity of the tax code. The complexity of immigration and firearms laws may have played a part in the outcome in this case as well.
                                                                                                        • "Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich"--The New Yorker. I don't remember if I've linked to this 2017 article before or not. In any event, it is comprised of snippets of interviews with some wealthy tech oligarchs that are seriously worried about civil unrest, and so have invested in various preps, including bolt-holes in relatively remote locations. Interestingly, though, at least one of the people interviewed didn't want to be too isolated, as he recognized the importance of having people on your side and, in any event, saw himself as a natural leader in a post-collapse world. Must of the article is second hand stories and anecdotes, however, suggesting that this prepper mentality is fairly widespread among the wealthy--at least the wealthy of Silicon Valley.
                                                                                                        • A couple additional resources to consider:
                                                                                                        • First: I fairly often reference the Suspicious Observers Youtube channel, or news that they cover, which primarily looks at solar weather, earth's magnetic field, earthquakes, and space news generally. I watched the channel for about a year before sharing it on these pages because I wanted to get an idea of whether it was reliable. However, the author and host of Suspicious Observers offers additional resources, and one which a reader reminds me of is Suspicious Observers' web-site on our ongoing Magnetic Reversal. It has its own articles on the subject of the strength of our magnetic field, magnetic reversals, why it is important, etc., while also linking to other outside articles. It also has links to related news items (generally new research) and videos.
                                                                                                        • Second: Although probably of more limited usefulness to someone who is not in the military, the army has a web-site for its PS Magazine, where you can read current and past articles on maintenance of equipment, acceptable modifications, tools, etc. It really emphasizes the complexity of the logistics tail for military units. You can also download an app for a smart phone or mobile device.
                                                                                                                 "As of 02-03-2017, there are 1,297,670 suppressors registered with ATF under the National Firearms Act," Justice Department spokesman Dillon McConnell told the Free Beacon.
                                                                                                                  That number is an increase of nearly 400,000 registered silencers since the same time last year, when ATF records indicated there were 902,805 silencers in the country.
                                                                                                                    The ATF confirmed that silencers are rarely used in crimes despite their explosion in popularity. The agency has only recommended prosecutions for 44 silencer-related crimes per year over the past decade. That means roughly .003 percent of silencers are used in crimes each year. Of those 44 crimes per year, only 6 involved defendants with prior felony convictions.
                                                                                                                      I’ve come around on the Remington R51. In my initial review in 2014 I wasn’t a fan, and the gun didn’t seem ready for prime time. Two years later, Remington had worked out the bugs earning the re-reviewed gun a four star rating.
                                                                                                                        I kept the handgun used in that review and have been shooting it ever since and I think I finally found the thing that takes this 9mm pistol from a four star gun to a five star gun, something that should have been a factory option: a threaded barrel.
                                                                                                                          When I spoke to Remington about their new R51 product lo those many years ago, one thing I repeatedly pointed out was that this would be an amazing suppressor host. The Pedersen-designed action means that the barrel is fixed in place. Instead of a Browning-style tilting barrel acting as a short stroke piston during the recoil cycle like pretty much everything else on the market in its class, the breech block itself performs that function. It’s pretty nifty.
                                                                                                                            The net result is that when you want to add a can to the gun you don’t need a Neilsen device (or “recoil booster”). Instead the can threads directly onto the barrel and remains fixed in place.
                                                                                                                              That means less muss and fuss transitioning between handguns and pistol caliber long guns for those who have threads on both. Less cleaning required between range trips. And lower chance of failure due to easier designed mechanisms. It’s a huge win all around.
                                                                                                                          Remington doesn't produce a threaded barrel, but DangerCo takes a standard Remington barrel, and then adds a threaded barrel extension. Although a bit hard to install (but the R51 is not an easy weapon to reassemble anyway), the author found it to be a very good with a silencer. He adds: "Something interesting to note about the Remington R51, and the AAC Ti-Rant 9mm can specifically, is that the sights just barely clear the top of the can."
                                                                                                                          • Why is this even a question? "Is The Revolver Viable for Self Defense?"--Revolver Guy. The author looks at the pros and cons of using a revolver for self-defense. One of the pros he lists is particularly relevant to preppers, though:
                                                                                                                            Revolvers don’t require magazines. A couple of advantages are inherent in that fact. First, it means you don’t have to purchase dozens of magazines. Magazines are expendable items – once they don’t work, they don’t work. Any prudent gun owner with a box-fed repeater should own at least a half a dozen if replacements are readily available, and more if not. This also means that if you don’t have magazines – because of loss, damage, unavailability or whatever other reason – a semi-auto is reduced to being a really fancy single-shot. This is one reason my “hell or high water” handgun is a revolver. There are no magazines to stock, carry, or maintain, and I don’t have to worry about losing them.
                                                                                                                              Also:
                                                                                                                                As Chris Baker of the Lucky Gunner Lounge points out in this excellent article, a mid-sized revolver is well suited to casual gun owners who are primarily concerned with home defense and don’t train a lot. The logic: it is easy to ascertain whether a wheelgun is loaded or unloaded. The gun will survive years of neglect. There are no safety mechanisms to negotiate, no slide to pull back, no controls, buttons, or levers that seem complicated to the uninitiated.
                                                                                                                                • "This is what REAL SHTF looks like in a Farm or Homestead"--Modern Survivalist. FerFal has noted in his book and many articles that SHTF can, in many ways, be worse for the person in a rural environment, and one of the reasons is crime. Because you are so isolated, there is little to no recourse to neighbors for assistance. Or, as one of my readers once put it, "in the country, no one can hear you scream." In this post, FerFal cites to an article from South Africa that, in summary, recounts: "South African farmer’s wife, 45, relives the horrific moment a gunman raped her in front of her children after shooting his way into their home, molesting her daughter and forcing her into sex by threatening to kill her son." This farm family has had enough--they are moving to Australia.
                                                                                                                                • "Canned Bread"--Blue Collar Prepping. A review of the brown bread canned and sold under the brand name B&M (Burnham & Morrill). It is pricey for the amount you get. I tried some years ago, and seriously can't remember much about it other than I thought that the taste was something you would need to get used to. 
                                                                                                                                • "You May Be Surprised What Survival Products Worked and What Didn’t"--Organic Prepper. The author, Daisy Luther, joined several other ladies on a prepping outing, and discusses a few products that worked well ... and other that didn't. Her biggest takeaway was that small, folding camp stoves weren't worth the effort to light and keep going. Rather, she believed that using an oval pot that can be perched on a couple of rocks over a small fire is more practical and useful. She also recommended against high lumen lights and headlamps, noting that "[o]ne of the students discovered her ultra-bright lights were far too visible in the dark and the headlamp was so bright it blinded her partner." She also recommended using cheap butane lighters for starting fires, a pair of lightweight gloves to protect your hands, and a small water filter (such as the Sawyer Mini) and small, lightweight, binoculars. 
                                                                                                                                • "Hot Water Heater Temperature | What’s Right & Why"--The Modern Survival Blog. Typically, water heaters are set at 120 degrees to prevent injuries to people too stupid or ignorant to learn how to use both the hot and cold water knobs. However, as this article warns, "[t]emperatures maintained below 140°F (60°C ) encourage growth of  Legionella bacteria and other microorganisms!" We keep ours set closer to 160 degrees.
                                                                                                                                • "NEOSTEAD 2000: THE SOUTH AFRICAN TRENCH SWEEPER SHOTGUN"--Guns.com. This bullpup shotgun used two magazine tubes over a single barrel, and apparently was the inspiration for Kel-Tec's KSG. However, because the ATF ruled that it didn't have a sporting purpose, the Neostead was never imported into the USA. It was a pump-action, but you had to push the slide forward, and then pull back, to eject a round and chamber a new round--the opposite of other pump action shotguns. According to the article, "[t]he NeoStead has been in production in South Africa and has enjoyed steady adoption by special operations units around the world," and been exported to Europe and South America. The article also noted:
                                                                                                                                  Security forces quickly found that the most useful combat shotguns were the most compact ones available with as large a magazine as possible. It was with these parameters that a pair of engineers began to design a revolutionary new shotgun.
                                                                                                                                    And from an article I found about the KSG:
                                                                                                                                      Kel-Tec founder and chief engineer George Kellgren originally conceived the KSG to overcome some of the drawbacks of the South African Neostead 2000 pump-action shotgun concept – a firearm conceived for special operations and riot control, very similar in design but also much heavier and complex.
                                                                                                                                        On the other hand, Gabe Suarez hates the KSG, and not just because of the teething issues that Kel-Tec had with it when it first came out. He also doesn't believe shotguns need to compete with rifles as to magazine capacity, or even the ability to use detachable box magazines. From his article, "RELOADING THE SHOTGUN IN A GUNFIGHT":
                                                                                                                                          ... [S]hotguns are faster, and create greater tissue destruction than pistols or rifles.  Doing anything to reduce those advantages is ill-advised.  One of those mistakes is making the weapon overweight by adding excessive ammunition onto the weapon itself.  For reference, the highest round count I ever fired in a gunfight. when armed with a shotgun, was a whopping three rounds.  I am aware of one man who fired six before the event was concluded. So it is not a matter of ammunition capacity, but of deployment speed.
                                                                                                                                            And:
                                                                                                                                                     That is not to say we do not want extra ammunition on hand, but it is a simple matter to select a carry method that keeps the light and fast doctrine in mind.  For the professional proactive use, or even the "grab and go" scenario in the middle of the night, having a small bag slung over the muzzle of the weapon is very easy to set up.  When the shotgun is grabbed, the bag is right there, ready to be slipped over the shoulder.  And while some might laugh at the idea, a bandoleer of buck shot can be slung over the shoulder as well and be quite fast, not to mention voluminous, in the supply of ammo.
                                                                                                                                                      As well, the present system of loading during the fight is time proven, battle proven and serves better than any other system, including the magazine fed concept most recently reintroduced by Remington and Mossberg.  That system is to load single rounds into the tube at every opportunity during the fight.  The old school, "Shoot One Load One".  And that done with the muzzle pointed toward the danger area and the eyes downrange (not on the enlarged loading port).
                                                                                                                                                  To play devil's advocate for a moment, many of the same arguments could be used in favor of the lever-action rifle over a more modern rifle. It, too, can be used in a "shoot one, load one" fashion, or, if it runs dry, loaded singly by dumping a new round directly into the chamber and closing the bolt. Yet we don't have anyone saying that a lever-action rifle is better for fighting than a rifle using higher capacity, detachable magazines. 
                                                                                                                                                         In a close quarters situation, you can’t always be as accurate as you’d like.
                                                                                                                                                           Especially with adrenaline coarsing though your veings.
                                                                                                                                                             With a shotgun, you don’t have to be.
                                                                                                                                                               Anywhere in the general vicinity is enough to deter and debilitate an intruder. So a shotgun should probably be the first addition to that gun safe.
                                                                                                                                                            "Anywhere in the general vicinity" only applies to horseshoes and hand grenades. You still need to aim, or at least accurately point, a shotgun.
                                                                                                                                                              The idea behind the approach shooting is that if you move your weapon and reticle, the wobble will disappear. When in motion, the weapon is steadier at any particular moment than when you try to hold it still. So by approaching with your reticle to the target from bottom or sides and breaking the shot when your crosshairs intersect with the target, you may get better results. 
                                                                                                                                                                There is a video produced by Savage Arms at the link that explains and demonstrates this technique.
                                                                                                                                                                • Mr. and Mrs. Smith: "Why You Should Take Tactical Team Training With Your Spouse"--NRA Family. The idea is that you and your armed spouse can be more effective working as a team to counter a threat. On one level, this makes a lot of sense. But it also runs against the grain of the natural instinct of a man to protect his wife. 
                                                                                                                                                                • "COMBATIVES IN THE ERA OF THE CHUCK NORRIS RULE"--American Partisan. The article begins by noting the increased boldness of criminals, including attacks on police, concurrent with harsher penalties and treatment being meted out to both those civilians and police officers that use deadly force to protect themselves. We live in an era where there are many "that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20). Or as this author describes it:
                                                                                                                                                                  We are entering an agonistic age where the old rules are being thrown-out in favor of none.  We must be smarter about how we handle situations and not expect fair treatment by the government and media when we defend ourselves.  Become a harder, smarter target and criminals will pass you in favor of the liberal down the street, which is what the liberal voted for after all.
                                                                                                                                                                    The author raises two primary points in regard to becoming a harder, smarter target. First is to be situationally aware as well as cognizant of pre-attack behaviors.
                                                                                                                                                                      Second, use combatives to deal with close-quarters situations you can’t avoid such an ambush.  Criminals attack you in places where you’re distracted: in your doorway or at your car door or at an ATM or when dealing with kids in the supermarket parking lot.  In these situations, it often doesn’t matter what you’re armed with because they have the drop on you and you have to grapple.  Using the wrong techniques in these situations can get you killed, even if you have a gun.  There are many bullshido artists out there selling expensive techniques and systems that don’t work in the real world, even among the ‘reality-based self-defense’ community.  Buyer beware.  The sources of good advice are few.  James LaFond has written several books on the topic of learning combatives cheaply, but start by getting instruction in grappling or boxing – whichever is available nearby – before moving onto knives and extension weapons.  Finally, gain strength and muscle which are of enormous value in any physical encounter.

                                                                                                                                                                      • "PAIN!"--Straight Forward In A Crooked World. The lede to this article is an account from a car thief who made the mistake of assuming his large handgun would be enough to get people to hand over their cars. He pulled his gun on a guy that, from the robber's perspective, unexpectedly pulled a .22 Derringer and shot the criminal through the throat. The criminal then recounted:
                                                                                                                                                                      So I hear this 'pop' and, next thing I know I feel like I'm gonna throw up or something. I can't talk right and I spat blood all over the place. I didn't know what happened. I'm looking around, but I see blood all over me, and I can't breathe. I'm trying to get out the passenger side of the car, but it's not my car and it was like being in a nightmare. I couldn't find the door handle, and all I know is everything is going bad. I'm thinking 'I don't want to go to jail! I don't want to die!' I get the car door open and fall out on the ground and stumble all over. I'm spitting blood. I'm scared out of my mind. I can't see anything. 
                                                                                                                                                                      The author notes our obsession in the defensive shooting world over matters such as penetration or expansion, and adds:
                                                                                                                                                                            Yet, in my opinion, one largely overlooked category amongst the Defensive Firearm culture is pain.
                                                                                                                                                                               Specifically pain that is inflicted on the Bad-Guy-in-Question when shot by the armed citizen in a defensive circumstance. We talk at length about "shooting to eliminate the threat," whether that means that the wounds themselves lead to a fatal injury, or if the realization that the assault initiated by the B-G-I-Q is now lost, seems to be ethereal in discussion. Or at least prohibited as a topic in polite company. 
                                                                                                                                                                                Though I suspect that a large reason pain is ignored from the discussion of fight stoppage largely has to do with a lack of experience on part of the average defensive shooter. Paper and people of course not being equals, with paper being utilized as a measurement tool regarding accuracy potentials without providing any inclination towards perceived slights, let alone felt pain.
                                                                                                                                                                                 We simply cannot dismiss pain nor the problems it creates for an attacker. Pain affects the mind’s ability to function in a clear and efficient manner. Pain causes fight, flight, or freeze to be re-assessed. Pain means a decision has to be either re-affirmed or abandoned. All of this, while there is the separate dilemma of what to do about the sudden difficulty in breathing, the increasing loss of motor function from one (or more) appendages, the sense of confusion, and the already present tunnel vision that is seemingly increasing. The deer, the elk, the bear, the man, they all feel pain. But the man understands the pain and the causation of it. There is also a severe effect on the human attacker's psychology of “I’ve been shot.” Compound this with the dilemma of the attacker now has to "flee" in order to avoid suffering any further damage.
                                                                                                                                                                                     We should never underestimate an attacker. Ever. A fight for your life is that. A-fight-for-your-life. 
                                                                                                                                                                                     However, it should be that. 
                                                                                                                                                                                       A fight. 
                                                                                                                                                                                         Your attacker should have no misgivings once the dance has started. His life is in just as much jeopardy as yours and, if applied with enough intent from you, his being more so.There are no damage proof super-villains in the world. The PCP laden attacker that soaks up cylinder after cylinder of 357 Magnum is the stuff myths are made of.
                                                                                                                                                                                             Unfortunately, statistics and theories have come to over-ride the discussions to the point of becoming gospel instead of what happens in the reality. Disregarding the physical and mental impact of how one or, if properly applied, multiple gunshot wounds affect the outcome of a gunfight is a mistake. There is only one guarantee in a gunfight and, that is violence of action will occur, but continual application of a proper mind set, training and practice will do much to win the day.


                                                                                                                                                                                           A source with knowledge of the events has made it clear to The War Zone that presence of the mysterious objects in the restricted training airspace off America's east coast was so pervasive that it was largely common knowledge among local flying units. They noted that the majority of the Super Hornet squadrons equipped with AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars—you can read all about this technology and how it was key in detecting these objects in our exclusive piece on the subject—at the time were having the same experiences, as well as the crews flying the new E-2D Hawkeye with its incredibly powerful AN/APY-9 radar suite. It literally became such a common and near everyday occurrence that Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers from the base would talk about it informally with regularity. 
                                                                                                                                                                                              But that doesn't mean formal action wasn't taken. Beyond filing an official safety report after one of the jets almost hit one of the unidentified objects—described eerily as a translucent sphere with a cube structure suspended inside of it—Notices To Airman (NOTAMs) were posted regarding the dangers potentially posed by unknown aerial vehicles flying in the same military operating areas that aircraft from NAS Oceana frequented for training. This action was taken by the base's command leadership as they couldn't figure out how else to address the bizarre issue and its perceived threat to their aircrews' safety.
                                                                                                                                                                                          My theory is that this is all coming to a head now as a warning to China.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  After years of drought, no one in Rio Grande County, Colorado, can remember the last time their namesake river was closed to the public because it was running too high.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    But after the deepest snowpack in over two decades, topped off by a “bomb cyclone” spring storm in the Rockies, the raging, snowmelt-fed river has been shut to recreation in two Colorado counties.
                                                                                                                                                                                              • Liberals upset that people exercise their Second Amendment rights: "Gabby Giffords Calls On Senate To Pass Universal Gun Background Checks"--by Sanjana Karanth at the Huffington Post. The article reports: "The Arizona Democrat is set to send a letter Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) calling on him to bring gun legislation to a vote and detailing the consequences of persistent gun violence in the U.S., particularly since the House passed a universal background checks bill earlier this year." And, if you don't believe that Leftists lie when it comes to gun control issues, take a look at this excerpt from the article:
                                                                                                                                                                                                Currently, only licensed firearm dealers are required to perform background checks, while unlicensed dealers, like those at gun shows or online, can sell firearms without going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Dealing in firearms without a license is illegal; and the dealers at gun shows have to do background checks just like everyone else. As for online dealers, they can only ship to licensed FFLs, who then perform the check. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                    The WAPO documentary opens by indicating their have been over 150 mass shootings in America since 1966 and “all but three were committed by men.” They add, “And more broadly, the majority of gun violence in America is perpetrated by men.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                      You have to be careful here, because "gun violence" means something different to a liberal than a normal person. To a liberal, the term includes suicides and accidents. But suicides and accidents excluded, the majority of gun violence is committed by black and Hispanics. Why doesn't the WaPo want to discuss that?
                                                                                                                                                                                                      • "What Really Happened to Malaysia’s Missing Airplane"--The Atlantic. Probably one of the most detailed accounts of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, its disappearance, and the search for it. It is a lengthy read, but very interesting. While there is a lot of facts that are unknown, it is clear from the data we do have, that diversion of the aircraft and its ultimate crash into the Indian Ocean were intentional. Most likely the senior pilot locked the co-pilot out of the cockpit, depressurized the plane and took it to 40,000 feet in order to kill everyone, then returned to normal cruising altitude as he flew the plane out over the Indian Ocean, before diving into the Ocean at the end. The real mystery and scandal is why the Malaysian military refused to release its radar tracking information of the aircraft, allowing searching vessels and aircraft to waste time searching the South China Sea in the first days after the crash, instead of searching to the southwest in the Indian Ocean.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Interestingly, the article relates that the emergency air masks would have been of little use:
                                                                                                                                                                                                          In the cabin, the effect would have gone unnoticed but for the sudden appearance of the drop-down oxygen masks and perhaps the cabin crew’s use of the few portable units of similar design. None of those cabin masks was intended for more than about 15 minutes of use during emergency descents to altitudes below 13,000 feet; they would have been of no value at all cruising at 40,000 feet. The cabin occupants would have become incapacitated within a couple of minutes, lost consciousness, and gently died without any choking or gasping for air. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Apparently only the pilots have access to more reliable oxygen supplies.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    “[A] major concern is that many states, including New York, use their DMVs to enroll voters. Since New York does not have voter-identification laws like the majority of other states do, this bill increases the potential for voter fraud,” state Sen. Republican ­Minority Leader John Flanagan (R–Suffolk) said Tuesday.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     “This means that New York will soon have the most radical, open-ended law in the entire nation.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       The Green Light Bill, which passed the Senate 33-29 Monday and was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, allows illegal immigrants to obtain “standard” state driver’s licenses that can be used for identification and to board domestic flights.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         But it is also the sole document required to register to vote, according to officials.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      There ought to be a way to attack this under Constitutional grounds or federal voting rights laws as state action that could lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Blood is thicker than water: "The Globalist Clannishness of Indian Diamond Merchants"--The Unz Review. Jewish families have long dominated the diamond markets because of their clannishness, refusing to hire outsiders and discouraging marriage with outsiders. But, because of falling birthrates, there aren't simply enough relatives to go around. Thus, the diamond markets, especially in Antwerp, Belgium, are increasingly dominated by certain Indian families for the same reasons. Key takeaway, from a question about whether the Indian merchants tried to assimilate to Belgium culture:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        “Most of us still live like expats,” he’d said. “We have one foot here, but another foot in India. Belgium is for business only. It’s not our home.” 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Rhode Island Democrat Gov. Gina Raimondo