In 1981 then President Reagan repopularized the hand salute back to his accompanying military guards.

No where in military regulations does it say that the Commander-in-Chief has to salute these men as he exits or enters Air Force or Marine One.  Reagan started it (again) and following Presidents have done it as a sign of respect.

Once, President Bush (Dubya) conducted this salute while carrying his dog.  The dog was in his left arm, and the hand salute was done suitably.

The media are comparing Bush’s salute to this one.  Anything to protect the anointed one.

What regulations DO say is that if someone is encumbered by carrying something they should not salute.  Bush technically should not have, even though he rendered a sharp example.

B. Hussein here, simply displayed his lack of knowledge and respect by throwing this one out there.  He wouldn’t know any better really.  Neither him nor anyone in his closest circle of advisers has ever served.  These Marines are props at best, servants as usual.

Harkin back to the umbrella scenario.  The Marine, in his dress blues would not stand under an umbrella.  He isn’t allowed to.  But he’ll hold one over B. Hussein’s head to keep him dry.  And ole’ Barry loved it.

He doesn’t know, or care.  Period.  (And I mean mine.)

Obama: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL

B. Hussein Obama, 9/10/14

First off, in FM 3-90, the IS no term of “degrade”. That is a civilian term best defined as “to reduce in amount, strength or intensity. The military uses Disrupt, Defeat, and Destroy. While the definition of degrade fits more or less, one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to use military terms when talking about a military operation. Of course this Commander-in-Chief has never worn the uniform of the forces he commands so this learned and retired Sergeant doesn’t expect him to come close to sounding intelligent.

The military definitions:

Disrupt. To integrate fires and obstacles to break apart an enemy’s formation and tempo, interrupt his timetable, or cause premature commitment or the piece-mealing of his forces.

1-16. Disrupt is a tactical mission task in which a commander integrates direct and indirect fires, terrain, and obstacles to upset an enemy’s formation or tempo, interrupt the enemy’s timetable, or cause enemy forces to commit prematurely or attack in a piecemeal fashion (FM 3-90-1) 2. An obstacle effect that focuses fire planning and obstacle effort to cause the enemy force to break up its formation and tempo, interrupt its timetable, commit breaching assets prematurely, and attack in a piecemeal effort. (FM 90-7). This affects the enemy’s ability to effectively coordinate actions, sustain and exploit success, and increases vulnerability to friendly maneuver and fires. For example, massed artillery fires on an enemy march formation disrupt his ability to deploy to an attack formation.

 

Defeat. To disrupt or nullify the enemy commander’s plan and overcome his will to fight, thus making him unwilling or unable to pursue his adopted course of action and yield to the friendly commander’s will.

1-11. Defeat is a tactical mission task that occurs when an enemy force has temporarily or permanently lost the physical means or the will to fight. The defeated force’s commander is unwilling or unable to pursue that individual’s adopted course of action, thereby yielding to the friendly commander’s will and can no longer interfere to a significant degree with the actions of friendly forces. Defeat can result from the use of force or the threat of its use (FM 3-90-1). Defeat manifests itself in some sort of physical action, such as mass surrenders, abandonment of positions, equipment and supplies, or retrograde operations. A commander can create different effects against an enemy to defeat that force. For example a commander’s employment of field artillery fires to attack an enemy force may result in the enemy no longer having sufficient personnel, weapons systems, equipment, or supplies to carry out its mission. Likewise the delivery of massed, synchronized and intense fires can cause enemy personnel to lose the will to continue to fight.

 

Destroy. Physically rendering an enemy force combat-ineffective unless it is reconstituted.

1-13. Destroy is a tactical mission task that physically renders an enemy force combat-ineffective until it is reconstituted. Alternatively, to destroy a combat system is to damage it so badly that it cannot perform any function or be restored to a usable condition without being entirely rebuilt (FM 3-90-1). Destruction results from the use of force to cause massive damage to equipment and material and significant personnel casualties. Field artillery fires are a major destructive element of combat power, and play a significant role in a unit’s ability to eliminate the enemy’s combat systems and affect his will to fight. Destruction 1. In the context of the computed effects of field artillery fires, destruction renders a target out of action permanently, or ineffective for a long period of time, producing at least 30-percent casualties or materiel damage.

FM 101-5-1, Part 5 Key Terms and Definitions &

FM 3-09, Field Artillery Operations and Fire Support

So, according to what B. Hussein said, we will render some amount of civilian-related damage to ISIL, before continuing on and destroying them. This does not mean that we will kill all of them even as much as we should. It means we will pound them until they cannot function as a coherent, effective unit for a long period of time, requiring them to reconstitute (assuming we do not continue operations against them whilst they attempt this.)

 

Now, as to the Secretary of State: (Did you know he served in Vietnam?)

Don’t call it a war, Kerry said:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN, “What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,”

Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”

John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, 9/11/14

‘This Administration prefers to avoid using the term “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” [GWOT]. Please use “Overseas Contingency Operation.'”

Pentagon spokesman March 24, 2009.

The Pentagon and B. Hussein’s mouthpiece quickly used the “w” word:

“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.

Josh Earnest, September 12, 2014.

Luckily, the State Department does not have a weighted say in the planning of military operations. In the same breath, they are equally ill-equipped and prepared to gain the meaningful allegiance and participation of regional “allies” (there aren’t any.) If we were ever to withdraw from the United Nations, there would no longer be a purpose for that entire Cabinet and staff. Imagine THOSE savings.

Ground Troops?

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president.”

Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs, September 17, 2014

 

“They’re not gonna be able to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air, or strictly depending on the Iraqi forces, or the Peshmerga, or the Sunni tribes acting on their own,”

Roberts Gates, Former Secretary of Defense, September 17, 2014

 

“I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq,” Obama told troops at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

B. Hussein Obama, September 17, 2014.

 

“I think that by continuing to repeat that, the president in effect traps himself,”

Roberts Gates, Former Secretary of Defense, September 17, 2014

 

So, Obama is willing to just spread this out, to “run out the clock” of his presidency and let the NEXT president commit ground troops. That way he can hold true to at least one promise, however stupid and hollow it is. In the meantime, ISIL will continue to gain strength, grow in territory, accumulate more (and more) modern weaponry, and will solidify their position (calliphate) so that it will take an invasion of hundreds of thousands to overcome “and ultimately destroy ISIL.”

Thanks, Dickhead.

So, Mrs. B. Hussein Obama, Moochelle has hitched her wagon to childhood obesity and the fight against it. She has a point. Kids today are fat and uncoordinated. They spend far too much time with their nose buried in a smart phone or glued to a gaming console. Kids don’t “go outside and play” anymore. Indeed, in a survey from June of this year, fully 71% of today’s American youth would not qualify for military service. In a society where less than one half of one-percent sign up anyway, that is a frightening prospect for our future security.

http://io9.com/more-than-two-thirds-of-american-youth-dont-qualify-for-1597947127

The problem with Moochelle’s plan is that she is attacking the intake end of the issue rather than the activity aspect. She wants to limit the calories kids intake, the sugars, and sodium levels rather than push activity like her program “Let’s Move” suggests. “Children need at least 60 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous activity.” Kids need “safe avenues to walk or ride a bike to school”.   Schools need to “enhance and expand physical exercise classes, or opening school PE areas in the afternoon and evening for family use.”

http://www.letsmove.gov/get-active

What planet is she living on? What decade is she living in?

When I was in school we had a gym class. It was required. Today, many schools do not even have a gymnasium, let along gym classes or instructors. Budget cuts are one excuse. Physical liability is another. Teachers’ unions want more money from the budgets for salaries and to hire more teachers (who then do less work). Where to find the money? Gym class. Lawyers seek to limit exposure to risk and liability payments for injuries. Since kids are already less active, partaking in rigorous physical activity only means more injuries are likely. Since we already can’t keep our doctor even if we like him, health care coverage is prohibitively expensive. Adding out-lay payments to cover injuries to “fat bodies” trying to do a somersault is ridiculous. Reduce the liability by eliminating the risk—gym class.

If we had gym class as a mandatory part of school, kids would get that recommended time of being active. If it became a core part of the curriculum, meaning you HAD to participate, you’d have less obesity as kids would have to meet minimum standards in order to pass. Imagine failing a grade in school because you failed to do enough sit-ups.

Thinking that schools are going to voluntarily open up facilities for after school activities especially in the evenings for “family exercise” is folly. Over half of American families with children are dual income earning families. Both Mom & Dad are out in the workforce struggling to bring home enough to make ends meet. Often times, with the cost of child care (if the kids are pre-school), or if they select to go to private schools since public education sucks so bad, the extra income earned by the mother being out of the house often times fails to cover the added expenses. It could be one reason why younger married couples are putting off having children for years if having them at all. This could explain the birth rate of Americans falling below the replenishment rate of 2.1. That is another blog topic, though.

http://psych.ku.edu/dennisk/PF642/Dual-Earner%20Couples.htm

The point of the previous paragraph is that after working a full day, few parents are going to want to pack up the kids and go to school to work out. All too often parents are looking to have the school raise their children anyway, but having them exercise their kids was once practice and policy. We should do it again.

Instead, Moochelle is advancing most of her initiative on attacking the dietary habits of kids. Do kids eat too much junk food, drink too much sugar, or ingest too much sodium? Probably. But it would be best examined on a kid-to-kid basis. No two kids have the same metabolic rate so trying to push every kid into a 2000 calorie a day diet isn’t going to have the same outcome across the board.

Many school districts thought they’d found a cash cow generating more income by accepting federal money. They offset was accepting and implementing the new federal guidelines for dietary restrictions. The guidelines restrict sugar and sodium as well as caloric count per item eaten.

For example, a breakfast served by the school for children in Kindergarten through grade 5 has to bed not less than 350 calories but not more than 500. Saturated fat content must be less than 10% with sodium content less than 430 milligrams. Grades 6-8: 400-550 calories, same fat content but 470 milligrams is the threshold for sodium. Grades 9-12: 450-600 calories, same fat, 500 milligrams of sodium. Fruits and grains are where most of the content is to come from and milk is to be the drink served. Period.

Lunch carries many of the same restrictions on calorie count, fat content and allowable sodium. The actual plan by 2022 is for schools to cut sodium levels in offered foods by half. What is the effect?

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/LAC_03-06-12_0.pdf

Kids are opting out of eating at school. At one school in Wisconsin, 70% of the 830 students boycotted the menu. They were followed by middle schoolers. This reduces the money generated by students buying lunch as well as drastically increases food waste. Another example includes a 6-foot 210-pound high school student who is a lineman on the football team. He can burn as many as 3000 calories during practice. Add in the Advanced Placement classes the lad is in—believe it or not, high speed classes require a higher caloric intake too.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/18/high-school-students-boycott-school-cafeteria-over-new-lunch-restrictions/

Given that many “campuses” allow students to leave and return many are. In my neighbor, there are fast food joints and donut shops within a quarter mile.

Lastly, the new restrictions on to menu inevitably raise the cost of the individual meal. Fresh fruits and vegetables versus frozen foods, additional spices to enhance/add flavor versus salt, non-fat or low-fat milk only versus juices, all combine to increase costs. Just like Obamacare—the savings anticipated end up making it more expensive.

This is another in a never ending stream of governmental over-reach. Another example of a program succumbing to the law of unintended consequences. The political elite know better than parents do what their kids need and will regulate how you live/eat/drive/vote/learn in order to make sure you comply with their ideas. It is for your own good, after all. They’re doing this for the kids. That can’t be bad, can it?

So, just over six months ago, I started writing this blog. I started it mainly as a means to get my thoughts onto paper in a more expansive way. I had been posting my opinions on my FaceBook page. I found that most of my “friends” did not chime in. Maybe they want to use FB to trade recipes or post inane pictures of bug-eyed cats instead of debating politics. Maybe they were in total agreement with me and thus didn’t need to respond. Maybe I intimidated them into cyber-silence like some type of digital bully. In all honesty, I think the first scenario is the most likely truth serum. They just want to use FB as a place to chat, to zone out, to post pictures–definitely NOT to think. I just had a different use for it, one that no one in my circle of acquaintances felt compelled to or desired to partake.

Given the deafening silence, I learned that I really had no important need to continue with FB. Sure, I enjoyed reading the cartoon-pictures posted by Ranger-Up. I liked reading the like-minded blasts of B. Hussein from the likes of Allen West (even though his posts came with a series of annoying pop up advertisements). Once I figured out that FB was not the premium way for me to vent, I went silent for 30 days. I didn’t post anything, like anything, nothing. I still read some of my liked pages, I just posted nothing.

During that 30 days, no one else sent me anything either. Nothing.

It was clear then, that as much as I didn’t need FB, no one in my circle of cyber friends needed me to have it either. So, for the second and last time during my life, I deactivated my account. I don’t miss it either. I’ve found I have a minimum of 45 minutes a day extra too, that I am not buried in my smart phone. (Having killed Words With Friends gave me back another hour or so.) What could you do with another 90 minutes or so every day?

I spend some of that time here. So do a few other people it seems. I don’t know a single one of them, and they are not interested in debate, becoming friends, meeting, or anything social. No, the only people thus far to respond to any of my 50-plus blogs are spammers. They are mostly interested in leaving poorly written remarks using a foreign version of clipped English without any regard to sentence structure…oh and a link to their blog or some virus infested retail link.

I had my site set up such that all comments left by a reader went into moderation. This was to prevent someone being able to hijack my site. Remarks were held until I read them and approved them to be posted. And, despite my telling my FB “friends” where they could continue to read my missives, none of though 60+ have done so to date. Instead I’ve gotten only comments from a litany of people that I have painstakingly blocked. Their remarks went directly to spam. It was a futile effort. They just opened a new sending URL and kept going.

Here is a list of “earmarked words” that would have caused a comment to go to the spam folder. It’s an impressively long list.

SeoOptimizationGuide.com/

xivtoyndox@gmail.com

173.232.105.163

sunglasses

SEO

cheap polo shirts

cheap louis vuitton purses

Ralph Lauren

shox pas cher

cheap jordans online

Cheap Nfl Hats

Jordan 10 stealth

garciniabom

I’ve received so many of these that I decided recently to simply block all comments. It wasn’t like I had any discourse going on anyway but now I am free to type away without regard for anyone’s feelings or political correctness. I proceed from the assumption that no one I know is reading this anyway. If I am wrong, they know how to contact me to say so.

But if you are a spammer, especially one using one or more of the above list, fuck you.

“We don’t have a strategy yet to deal with ISIS.”   –B. Hussein Obama, 28 August, 2014.

“This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy,” he said. “Nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important as these things are. The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear. It is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders.” –David Cameron, 29 August, 2014.

The main similarity between the two leaders’ speeches is the seeming lack of a comprehensive, even rudimentary plan on how to deal with this non-nation state terrorist entity. The biggest difference between the two leaders is that only Obama came right out and said so.

Cameron posited ideas on how to begin to thwart the enemy. Control travel to the areas known to be training and operational areas, and more strongly, stopping travel of those wishing to return. The Britons are more likely to be able to do this as well. The Obama administration has made it policy to have a porous southern border. We can’t stop an untrained 10-year old from entering, let alone a team of trained fighters equipped with trade craft skills of evasion.

I was struggling with which is worse—having no strategy or admitting it to the world. I’ve concluded it is the latter. It is akin to responding to a burglar in your home. It is one thing to have a gun with no bullets. It is quite another to tell the burglar you have no bullets.

B. Hussein’s inactivity is self-perpetuating and borders on the criminal. He has known about the increase in power and personnel of ISIS for a year. They’ve been a topic of his daily intelligence briefing. Unlike his predecessors, B. Hussein prefers to read the brief personally rather than attend an in-person live brief. Probably, in this manner, no one can really be sure he actually reads it but they definitely know when he is not in the room for a presentation. But he has known for a year that they were on the horizon. He never asked any follow up questions or pressed for deeper intelligence. After all, ISIS was a junior varsity team, right?

None of our political leaders will admit it. They just can’t bring themselves to say it. I have no reservations.

We are at war. The Muslims (the ones who are active and vocal) are at war with us. They want to kill us because of our religion and way of life. Their religion allows them to use our lifestyle and technology in order to fight us. But they prefer a simpler life of milking camels and roaming the desert sands. There is but one way to stop the slaughter of our civilians that fall into their hands. We have to rise up and kill them first.

We haven’t had a Crusade in over 550 years. That is exactly what is needed now. Start in the furthest lands from Mecca and Medina and begin the eradication. Aside from the death of terrorists, think of the relief to these countries’ economies when we relieve them of the welfare that most of the Muslims absorb. Start in northern, western Europe and work towards the Middle East. Another front on the westerns tips of Africa and work towards the Nile. Eventually they will be confined to their own sand box. We can either leave them be there, or just be done with it and keep going.

I say keep going.

In August of 2014, I did two weeks in Europe with my wife, our kid, and her sister.  It was one of those Viking Cruises that you may have seen n TV (Spend less time getting there and more time being there).  It was our second cruise with Viking.  This one had us starting in Prague (Czech Republic) and ending in Paris.

Czech, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, and France–I’ve been in all six during the last seven years.  Ranked in order of preference:

1) Italy, 2) Ireland, 3) Germany, 4) Luxembourg, 5) Czech, 6) France

Italy was the best trip so far (2011), followed by Ireland (2007).  Italy was clean (except for the shithole called Naples), the food and wine were delicious.  It was easy to get anywhere locally by foot, and the trains were high speed, cheap, and accessible.  Ireland was green and over flowing with beer.  Smoking is prohibited anywhere in a public place.  One beer is enough to put you DUI, so most people walk to pubs.

Germany and Luxembourg and largely the same–very clean.  Orderly.  Things run on time here.  Beer is plentiful and delicious.  I speak a little German so I’m not totally lost.

Czech and France.  I’m glad I went but I won’t be back.  These are wierd culture countries.   Here, most of the men (aged 15-35) seem to be obessed by dressing and looking like their women.  And they are succeeding.  There are few Justin Bieber haircuts here.  Most guys have a jelled “push a wedge up in the middle” hairstyle, or some other forward projecting appendage that could double as a sail on a jetty.  They all wear skinny jeans, most often with some highly female stitching pattern on the back pockets.  None of them seem to project a “package” while wearing these jeans so there has to be some “fruitcup stuffing to the rear” going on.  I would think that would be painful if one sat down.  Maybe they just have small sacks.  Their shoes, if casual are a rainbow assortment of boat style sneakers.  Dress shoes all have a tapered end that projects out about three inches from where the toes really end.  It makes their feet all look like size 14.

In the Czech Republic, a telling sign came from our guide “Charlie” who told us about when the Russians had last been there and the possibility of the ever coming back.  He said, “25% would welcome them, 25% would run for the hills, and 50% would not give a damn.”  Notice that no percentage would stand and fight.  No, that is the job for Americans.

Everyone smokes in France.  It is allowed in many eating establishments as well.  It turns the stomach to watch your server stand outside and smoke, then without washing his hands, grab your dinner plates and serve you.

France enjoys a 35 hour work week.  You automatically earn 2 weeks vacation as soon as you start working full time.  Do some math.  5 hours less per week times 50 weeks is 250 hours.  At 35 hours a week, that is just over 7 weeks.  Lunch is two hours long and the meal is paid for by your employer.  50 more hours not worked is another week and a half.  So compared to Americans, the French work just over 41 weeks a year to our 50.  The employer splits the transportation costs of the employee also.  College?  Paid for…for as long as you want to attend.

With so many perks, it is no wonder their taxes are so high and why they experienced zero GDP growth for two straight quarters.

The best part of the trip, aside from coming home, was the adventure to Normandy.  If you are military you already know what I am talking about.  No one can pass up walking on Omaha Beach if you’ve ever served.  I won’t stop going to Europe.  I’ll just be more selective as to where.