The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Busier than a.....You guessed it..

I am out of battery and  will be a couple more days before I can post.  Go read the people on the sidebar, they are way better than I am.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Monday Music "Signs" by Five man Electrical Band

I decided to roll with the 70's channel on the way home since the 80's channel was playing "prince", nothing wrong with Prince, but they play his music a LOT so I surfed and this song came on and I remembered this song, it is a staple of the rock music channels.  I figured that I would throw in an early 70's song into the Monday Music mix.

"Signs" is a song by the Canadian rock group Five Man Electrical Band. It was written by the band's frontman, Les Emmerson and popularized the relatively unknown band, who recorded it for their second album, Good-byes and Butterflies, in 1970. "Signs" was originally released that year as the B-side to the relatively unsuccessful single "Hello Melinda Goodbye" (#55 Canada).
Re-released in 1971 as the A-side, "Signs" reached No. 4 in Canada and No. 3 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Billboard ranked it as the No. 24 song for 1971. It became a gold record.

The song's narrator describes four instances of encountering signs that anger or concern him, as follows:
  • A notice that "long-haired freaky people need not apply" for a job opening. He stuffs his hair into his hat in order to get an interview, then contemptuously reveals it once he has been offered the job.
  • A "no trespassing" warning outside a house. He climbs onto the perimeter fence and berates the owners for keeping people out and fencing in the land's natural beauty.
  • Being told to leave a restaurant because he does not meet its dress code or have a membership card, both of which are displayed on a sign.
  • A sign inviting people to worship at a church. When an offering is taken up at the end of the service, he makes a sign telling God that he is doing well, as he has no money to contribute.

   This video is 8 minutes long, and it is a live performance.  The problem with selecting the early groups is that finding a video is hit or miss.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

The Fairey Swordfish.

The first time I heard of this airplane,was when I read a book called "Sink the Bismark" by CS Forester,

    My copy was printed in 1976, I bought it from the Stars and Stripes bookstore in Frankfurt Germany where my Dad was stationed at.

The Second World War was a period of greatly accelerated development in the field of aviation: this was the first war in which jet fighters were used, and bigger bombers than the world had ever seen rained down death from the skies.
It is tempting to think that these types of airplane – the biggest, fastest, most powerful, most technologically advanced models – were solely responsible for winning the air war.
However, in focusing entirely on the flashiest, most impressive planes, it’s easy to lose sight of the plainer, simpler and smaller aircraft that played an equally important role in the Allied victory. One of these models was the Fairey Swordfish, nicknamed the “Stringbag,” a basic torpedo bomber biplane used extensively by the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy during WWII.
A Swordfish I during a training flight from RNAS Crail, circa 1939–1945
It was one of these humble planes that, reminiscent of Luke Skywalker taking out the Death Star in Star Wars, managed to disable one of the German Kriegsmarine’s most gigantic ships. Another Stringbag was also the first Allied plane to sink a German U-boat, and then later yet another of these unassuming airplanes was the first to sink a U-boat at night.
Stringbags also relentlessly harried the Axis shipping fleet in the Mediterranean, accounting for over a million tons sunk by the end of the war – not a bad tally for an outdated biplane!
Workers carrying out salvage and repair work on a wing of a Swordfish
Looks and performance-wise, the Fairey Swordfish bore a much closer resemblance to the airplanes of the First World War rather than those of the Second. With its open cockpit, fixed landing gear and its pair of stacked wings, by no stretch of one’s imagination could this humble plane have been described as “cutting edge” even in 1933, when the first prototype was built.
However, despite its outdated design, it was no less important to the Allied war effort than its more technologically-advanced compatriots. Indeed, the Swordfish’s antiquated appearance was deceptive – not so much in terms of its flat-out performance, but rather in terms of the roles it was able to perform.
A Fairey Swordfish floatplane being hoisted aboard the battleship HMS Malaya in October 1941
In addition to being armed with two basic but reliable 7.7mm machine guns, one fixed in position for the pilot in the front and one trainable at the rear for the gunner, the Swordfish was able to carry a wide variety of ordnance: anti-ship mines, depth charges, bombs, flares, or a ship-sinking 1,610-pound torpedo.
The plane was also used for a variety of roles, including reconnaissance, bombing, escort duty, or naval artillery spotting.
Swordfish on the after deck of HMS Victorious, 24 May 1941. The next day, nine Swordfish from Victorious attacked Bismarck.

Because of the variety of ordnance the Swordfish could carry and the diversity of its roles, it was given the nickname “Stringbag,” likening the plane to a popular style in women’s handbags at the time. Humorous as it was, the nickname was apt and it stuck.
As a basic three-seater biplane with a simple Bristol Pegasus motor that cranked out 690-odd horsepower, the Stringbag wasn’t going to be breaking any speed records in the air. However, the simple design meant that maintenance of the aircraft was easy, and that the planes were reliable.
A Swordfish, circa 1943–1944
The twin wings meant that the Stringbag had an excellent lift and could take off or land on a relatively short strip of land. This made Stringbags perfect for use on naval aircraft carriers, with their very limited landing and takeoff space.
Stringbags were also extraordinarily maneuverable, making up for their slow speed with excellent agility. Their fabric-covered, all-metal under-structures were sturdy enough to deal with harsh landings, and this meant that they were ideal for night use – an excellent advantage, when they could fly all but invisible to Axis ships or other targets below.
A Swordfish taking off from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, with another passing by astern, circa 1939

These planes weren’t without their disadvantages, of course. They were at a severe disadvantage when it came to air-to-air combat against Axis fighter planes, and the open cockpit meant that the men in the plane would suffer immensely in the cold. Early in the war, Stringbags didn’t have communication radios, so they had to rely on hand-held signalling devices.
Nonetheless their advantages generally outweighed their disadvantages, and Stringbags saw extensive use throughout the war. In one of the most famous incidents in which they were involved, a Stringbag was instrumental in the sinking of one of the Kriegsmarine’s mightiest ships, the battleship Bismarck.
The Royal Navy’s HMS Ark Royal in 1939, with Swordfish biplane fighters passing overhead. The British aircraft carrier was involved in the crippling of the German battleship Bismarck in May 1941
The Bismarck was, at the time of its production, the most powerful warship ever made. In a sortie into the Atlantic aimed at crippling Britain’s crucial supply lines, the Bismarck battled and sank the British battle cruiser HMS Hood.
Realizing the Bismarck had to be stopped, Britain launched a pursuit, but the Bismarck managed to evade her pursuers. The only ship close enough to have a chance of disabling the giant was HMS Ark Royal, which had a few Stringbags equipped with torpedoes aboard. The Stringbags took off an hour before sunset on May 26, 1941 to take on the German behemoth.
 H.M.S. Hood

As the Stringbags, each carrying a single torpedo, approached the Bismarck they dived low, hoping to evade the flak that filled the air from the ship’s anti-aircraft guns. One Stringbag, piloted by Lieutenant Commander John Moffat, got the Bismarck in its sights.
Moffat and his observer, Flight Lieutenant JD Miller, had to time the release of their torpedo with extreme precision. They only had one chance to do this, and if they missed or the torpedo hit the crest of a wave in the extremely choppy sea, it was mission over. With flak flying all around them, and Miller waiting for the exact moment, Moffat’s hands were surely sweating on those controls.
A Swordfish III of RAF 119 Squadron being refueled at Maldegem, Belgium, (1944–1945). The fairing of the aircraft’s centimetric radar can be seen below the engine
Finally, the moment came, and the torpedo was dropped. Against all odds it hit home, striking the mighty battleship in a small area of vulnerability: the rudder, which the torpedo succeeded in jamming mid-turn.
With her rudder jammed to port, and thus unable to move in anything but endless circles, the Bismarck became a sitting duck. British naval ships later surrounded the Bismarck and eventually sank her after extensive bombardment.

Stringbags also played a key role in the night attack on Italy’s Taranto naval base. Two waves of Stringbags launched a surprise attack on the naval base on the night of November 11, 1940, and succeeded in destroying or disabling the bulk of Italy’s naval fleet – an attack that would be carefully studied by the Japanese, who would use similar tactics to attack Pearl Harbor.
Stringbags also saw extensive use in taking out Axis shipping lines, especially in the Mediterranean, where they sunk over a million tons throughout the war. All in all, this humble airplane proved its worth to the British Royal Navy many times over during the course of WWII.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

The Myths and reality of the Montana Class Battleships..

I have been binge watching "Space Battleship Yamato 2199", it is basically an updated "Space Cruiser Yamato" of the 1970's fame, the graphics are much better and the storyline is different.  So it is interesting. 

I still think it is strange that an Army guy likes Navy ships...especially old Navy ships...

I shamelessly clipped this from the "Navy General Board"

A stretched Iowa with an extra turret. A ship designed to kill the Yamato class. Many myths surround the Montana class, the immensely powerful super battleships of the United States Navy. Designed to be larger and more powerful than any previous dreadnought, these ships would have been the most powerful dreadnoughts of their time. However, the ships were never built. This has led to many speculations about the ships. In this Navy General Board article, we breakdown some of the more common myths and set the record straight!

Myth #1: The Montana class Ignored the Panama Canal Restrictions

The Montana class was the first battleship designed to ignore the restrictions imposed by the Panama Canal locks. Prior to them, all United States battleships had to be able to fit through the 110′ locks of the Panama Canal. The immense size of the Montana class was in response to the dropped requirement to fit through the locks.

The Truth

One of the common misconceptions about the Montana class battleships is that they were to ignore the Panama canal restrictions. This is only partially true. In realty the US was planning on expanding the Panama Canal locks to 140ft. Construction was meant to be completed around the same time that the Montana ships would come into service. The ability to quickly send ships through the Panama Canal was an advantage that the US was unwilling to part with. The fact that the canal locks were going to be enlarged was likely a big reason why the US Navy finally designed the Montana class.
While the Montana might have ignored the Panama Canal restrictions, they were bound by another equally important size requirement.
A little known fact is that the US Navy placed almost as much importance on being able to travel underneath the Brooklyn bridge as they did the Panama Canal. The height of the bridge at low tide was an important design consideration for ship design. This was because the New York Naval yard was one of the largest naval bases at the time. It was also one of the largest naval repair facilities available. The Navy needed all ships to be able to travel to that yard and the Brooklyn bridge was the largest obstacle blocking the way to the yard.
super battleships
The Battleship Richelieu arrives in New York for Repairs. Note that the top of the fire control tower has been removed so that it can pass under the Brooklyn bridge. All US Battleships were designed in such a way that they could easily pass under this bridge. The Montana class would not have been any different.

Myth #2: The Montana was Designed to Counter the Yamato

Another big misconception about the Montana class was they were “Yamato killers”. Yes, They were the only other battleship capable of engaging the Yamato on equal terms. Also, the Yamato was known (Somewhat) to the US Navy at the time of the Montana’s design. However, what the US Navy thought they knew about the Yamato was a far cry from what it actually was at the time.
montana class
A model of the Montana class super battleships. Though similar in appearance to the Iowa class, several important differences separated the two classes.

The Truth

It would be a long time before the US had a grasp of the Yamato’s capabilities. When design started in 1938, the Yamato was believed to be a battleship of typical size and armament. In 1936, a US received reports that Japan was building ships up to 55,000 tons.
A few years later in 1938, reports stated that Japan was building two 16″ heavy battleships with two more on the way. Over the course of the war, new evidence slowly allowed the navy to better understand what it was that it was up against. By 1944, interviews with captured Japanese personnel revealed that the Yamato class carried 18″ guns. Finally, It wasn’t until late 1944/1945 that the US navy finally had a grasp of the accurate specifications of the Yamato class.
Since the design of the Montana class began in 1939, this proves without a doubt that the Montana class wasn’t designed to counter the Yamato.
So if the Montana wasn’t designed to counter the Yamato, why was it so large? It is largely because the ship was designed to withstand the firepower of its own guns. The 16″/50 cannon when coupled with the “super heavy” 2700lb shell could have been the finest battleship gun ever to see service. At long ranges, its penetration power was almost that of the larger Japanese18.1″ shell. Due to this similarity, the fact that the Montana was so well protected against the Yamato’s mighty 18.1″ guns was really a happy/lucky accident.
The other contributing factor was that the US wanted a battleship more powerful than anything its adversaries was likely to use. A ship more powerful than the vessels preceding it, the Bismarck class of Germany, the Nagato class of Japan, and so on. An almost impractically large ship to dominate all others. In some ways the US didn’t believe anyone else would construct such a large ship. Unknown to the US, Japan had the exact same thoughts when designing the Yamato. The Montana class and the Yamato class were the premier super battleships of their respective navies.

Myth #3: The Montana was basically a larger Iowa Class Battleship

Probably one of the most common myths found across various forms of media today. Perhaps its because of the visual similarity of the two classes. Perhaps it is due to the similar choice in armament at first glance. Many claim that the Montana class was simply a larger Iowa class battleship with an extra turret added.

The Truth

The belief in the connection between the Iowa and Montana classes likely stems from their similar appearance and use of the same main armament. However, examination of their design features shows two very different ships for two different roles.


It is true that the Iowa and Montana class battleships shared the same 16″/50 main armament. A remarkably powerful weapon for its size, the United States Navy did not need to introduce a heavier weapon. While the United States had already developed naval gun of 18″, the lower weight of the 16″/50 allowed more of them to be carried. The twelve guns of the Montana class would have given them the heaviest broadside of any battleship then in service.
Outside of the main guns, the Montana class also differed from the Iowa class in the choice of secondary armament. While still utilizing twenty 5″ guns in ten twin mounts, the Montana class would have carried a more powerful 5″/54 model rather than the older 5″/38. Firing a heavier shell at a higher velocity, the Montana class would have enjoyed much greater anti-surface firepower than the Iowa class.


Armoring is the largest difference between the two classes. The Iowa class ships used an internal armored belt inherited from the proceeding South Dakota class. This brought the armored belt inside the hull and was done as a weight saving measure, helping the ships achieve their famous speed. However, shells striking this belt first penetrated the outer hull. This had the unwelcome effect of potentially flooding the void space between hull and belt for shots that hit at or below the waterline. The Montana design didn’t have to follow weight restrictions and so reverted back to a traditional external belt where the armor was on the outside of the hull. This ensured that potential damage was outside of the hull and that watertight integrity would remain intact. Perhaps the most important difference is, unlike the Iowa class, the Montana was protected from its own guns. This armoring style reflects the design philosophies behind the two ships. The Iowa was meant to be a fast interceptor to guard against cruisers and fast battleships. The Montana class was designed to participate with the main battle line and engage in furious gunnery duels with multiple battleships.


After armor, speed shows another sizable difference between the classes. The Iowas were designed to be high speed 32 knot battleships to act as protection to the carrier fleet. While designers considered making the Montana class faster, they decided that firepower and armor were more important for the design. Thus, the Montana was limited to a speed of 28 knots like the 27 knot North Carolina and South Dakota classes. The Montana class were not fast enough to keep pace with carriers at their highest speeds, but more than fast enough to operate with other battleships making up the United States battle line.
Overall, the Montana was a vastly different warship compared to the Iowa class. The design reflects the role that they were intended for, a heavily armed and armored warship capable of taking on anything else that it might encounter.
super battleships

Final Thoughts

The Montana class battleships would have been one of the most powerful dreadnaughts ever to be launched, rivaled only by the Yamato class battleships. However, like the Yamato, the tiger tank, or many other of the “wonder weapons” created during the Second World War, a certain aura of myth has been built around them. They weren’t ultimate weapons conjured up to single handedly win the war, just simple units designed to fill a role particular role in warfare. Unfortunately for the Montana class, the role of the battleship in warfare was in its twilight phase. They were to be built right when the battleship was no longer the glorious warship it once was. The result was that the greatest battleship ever was never laid down.

Friday, March 22, 2019

What to do when your Dr. asks "Do you have any guns in the house..?"

I have so far not been asked this question....Yet, I live in GA and this kind of question is frowned upon, but one day it may show up.  I heard of people in other states, their family Dr. asked these questions....I remembered asking this question back in 2013 when Obamacare ramped up and there was a question asked by JPFO.org about the information that you give to your Dr's office especially if it relates to Obamacare and all information that you give them is available to the government and that this would be a backdoor registration scheme.

    I have instructed my son if anybody asked him at school if there are any guns at home, I have instructed to to say "Nope".  I hate telling him to lie, but the present climate forces me to tell him.  He also tell his friends that there are only rifles at his house are his .22 bolt action rifle.   When I am asked if I have any firearms at home, especially by some survey or something...I will lie like a cheap rug and say "NO".  For OPSEC reasons I will not disclose information like that.  It falls under "NONYA",  Same for financial information.

   I got the following article from the "Federalist papers.org

I went to the doctor this morning – nothing urgent, just a checkup for a mid-40s guy who hasn’t been to the doctor in years, but when they gave me that ubiquitous survey about my lifestyle (Do you smoke? How often do you drink?), I was looking for one particular question:
Do you own a gun in your home?

Doctors are increasingly asking this question, and conservative lawmakers are trying to stop them.
In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott signed a law in 2011 banning doctors from asking about firearms in their patients’ lives, The Washington Post is reporting.
But doctors still think this is a great idea … you know, to protect you from yourself. In a new study, they said that no law should stop them from asking about guns:

".Firearm violence is an important health problem, and most physicians agree that they should help prevent that violence,” wrote Garen J. Wintemute, a public health expert at the University of California Davis and co-author of the paper, in an email to The Washington Post. In the literature review, which doubles as a call-to-arms, the authors conclude it is neither illegal nor unreasonable to ask patients about gun safety.
“No federal or state law prohibits doctors from asking about firearms, counseling about their use, and — when there is imminent risk of harm — disclosing information to others who can help,” Wintemute said. Several states have mulled statutes similar to Florida’s, but none of the proposed bills have passed.
“Physicians seek to prevent important health problems at the individual and population levels,” Wintemute and his colleagues write. “They inquire and counsel—routinely in some cases, selectively in others—about a wide range of health-related behaviors and conditions. In certain circumstances, they disclose otherwise confidential information to third parties to limit the risk an affected person poses to others. Physicians generally do not do well at firearm related injury prevention, however. They ask infrequently about firearms and counsel poorly, if at all, though they are aware that the high lethality of firearms makes prevention efforts particularly important.”
These doctors claim genuine concern about their patients – and that’s probably true. White men who show signs of depression are are at a high risk to commit suicide with a gun, statistically speaking. And simply being forced to confess you keep loaded guns lying around your house within reach of your young children might be enough to convince someone to lock up the guns.
But that’s not the point. The point is that in a political and cultural environment that is increasingly hostile to the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners, telling anyone outside your immediate family that you are armed is a risk. It’s a risk because that information will go on your medical record and if they don’t already, the feds will soon have access to all your medical records.

And it’s only a small step until one day when liberals control all the levers of government and can impose mandatory gun registration or confiscation.
And you’d better believe they’ll use all resources available to them to find out who owns the guns so you may be disarmed. Quickly and without incident.
So what do you do when your doctor asks if you have a gun in the home? Jazz Shaw, writing for HotAir, has a good idea: Lie.
Don’t tell them you do have a gun, because that instantly becomes part of your medical record.
Don’t waffle, or tell the doctor you’re “uncomfortable” answering the question, because they very well may notate that too.
Lie. Right through your teeth. “Why no, doc, I don’t have any guns in the home at all!”
It’s none of anybody’s business anyway.
By the way, that question never was on the questionnaire I filled out. But I’ll be ready next time.

I clipped this back in 2013 and it took a bit of digging to find it, I remembered posting something about this.  I was even annoying poor Old NFO even back then, lol

     I saw this on Old NFO's Blog   And this ties in with what I had posted yesterday, I am reproducing it completely from the links provided by him.(Thank you).  I figured if this get disseminated it will cool off many of the Dr's playing Perry Mason at the behest of the AMA or any other groups that try to play "lets pile on the lawful gun owners" due to the present political climate.  Dr's listen to their malpractice insurance carriers above all and risk management is a big part of their practice especially in the litigious society that we live in.

Physicians, Don't borrow trouble
Joe Horn

One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular (and more successful) than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let's talk about one of those new areas of liability exposure.

Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even suggesting removal of those firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a "boundary violation," and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why these professionals should NOT engage in this practice -- MASSIVE LIABILITY.

Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the practice of medicine. Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient's home. Why open the door to civil liability?

To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON'T cover with their patients? If you are going to counsel in any aspect of home safety, you had better be certified in that subject and cover *all* aspects of home safety, not just the politically popular ones.

Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.

Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:

One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving preventative advice about all the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home safety risk management? You know their answer.

How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don't have certification to do the National Safety Council's job for them.

Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example, E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.

Now, let's discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible for self and home defense. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm available at close hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don't arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.

It's just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will - if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y's advice.

Now, imagine what follows this horrendous but common event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff's litigator will state that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician's *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home defenseless against violent crime

The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person would have surmised.

If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.

It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is considerable......

Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I've said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don't borrow trouble.
Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human resource consulting to IBM, Gates Lear jet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Security and Protection Services, among others.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Political muses.....

Yep, I got a few political muses....Yeah, Hold on to your hat....

Yesterday I did a post on George Washington and the standard for personal integrity and behavior for all subsequent Presidents and I see this piece where Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, you know the "Indian".....
Yeah Her....She was stumping in Mississippi

Elizabeth Warren did a primary campaign town hall in Mississippi.  While she was there, she advocated for a national vote and ending the electoral college.
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren calls for abolishing the Electoral College and moving to a national popular vote: “Every vote matters” #WarrenTownHall https://t.co/pPFMVywETf pic.twitter.com/yy0J0HgAjc
— CNN (@CNN) March 19, 2019
She came to Alabama today to do the exact same thing.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren campaigns in Selma, AL: "Nobody comes to Alabama in the general presidential election or to Massachusetts because they figure we're not in the game because of the electoral college. So my view on this is that we ought to get rid of the electoral college." pic.twitter.com/4YQysRsJu6
— The Hill (@thehill) March 20, 2019
Last time I checked, Mississippi had six electoral college votes.  Take those away and absolutely nobody will care about Mississippi.
Alabama has nine electoral college votes, Trump came to Alabama in the general election, Hillary did not. President Trump ran his campaign by the Electoral College, Hillary ran her campaign by the popular vote and stayed in areas with high concentrations of democratic voters.
The only reason Warren and the rest of the Democrats are trying to end the electoral college is so that they never have to set foot in a Flyover state ever again.
What Warren is really saying is "Let me abolish the electoral college so I never have to pander to you podunk fuckers ever again."
Warren is not alone in wanting to end the electoral college, that talking point is now universal among Democrat candidates.
CNN doubled down on it with this mendacious bit of fake news.
The Electoral College has been debated since the days of James Madison, who called it "evil."
So could it actually be abolished? @JohnAvlon explores that in today’s #RealityCheck. https://t.co/lCGCfDTMSL pic.twitter.com/Z1Tct6bMQL
— CNN (@CNN) March 20, 2019
 The Democratic candidates have been pushing the "Green New Deal"

*The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation's people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
  • A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
  • High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
  • High-quality health care
  • Clean air and water
  • Healthy food
  • Safe, affordable, adequate housing
  • An economic environment free of monopolies
  •  Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
The frontline communities that are already facing the ravages of climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these communities that are most at risk.
In short, the Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of shared prosperity.

*Lifted off her website before they scrubbed it especially after being mocked for "Economic Security for all those unable to work"

    To Read the whole thing, go Here

   Obama....Now in Vanilla

 Also We Have Beto running for President, after getting creamed by Ted Cruz for the senate, he is having a gaff filled field day smoozing the democratic faithful and collecting....well...

 We also had a douchebag kill a bunch of muslim worshipers in New Zealand and the blood wasn't cold before the politicians and activist were blaming  everything but the evil in a mans heart;

The left is blaming President Trump, American Gun Owners and the NRA.  I am dismayed but I have noticed some inconsistencies...When the Muslims kill Christians in Philippines, Nigeria or Egypt, or launch a terror attack in Europe...the News fades quickly but this is being played over and over because the shooter is a white guy and to the left, this is a wet dream come true for them.  And to the left, the muslims are a "victim" group in the belief system of the intersectional left.  The Left has rolled out new gun control laws to take advantage of the opportunity presented so they can strike while the iron is hot and run through more gun control while peoples emotions are running hot.
     The end goal is to disarm the people because once they are disarmed then the government controlled by the democrats will finally have their utopia where they rule all they survey and the people can't do anything about it because are totally dependent on the government for protection since they have no means to protect themselves...Look at London...You have some PM suggesting that they put GPS trackers on all knives being sold in England.  This is after they banned all guns in England, now the only people that have guns are the government...and the crooks that get them from the other crooks across the channel who get them from the crooks in the Urals.
    The politics of today have divided us as a people, we forget that we are Americans first and the people that are separated
as a people cannot survive long as a nation and I wonder if that is the endgame of the statist.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

George Washington "Setting the Standard for all subsequent Presidents".

 George Washington is respected and revered by his Countrymen as an example of what a President should do.  To me President Washington followed the example of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who retired to private life after his public service and eschewed the fame and power that many of his contemporary's seeked and he turned down due to his belief that Leaders should serve their country or nation, not have their nation serve them.   Cincinnatus was recalled back into public service after a crisis and invasion.  They had to pull him off his plow and make him a General again.

 George Washington being Sworn in as First President of the United States

Henry “Light Horse” Harry Lee famously eulogized George Washington as, “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, president of the Constitutional Convention, and the First President of the United States, Washington dedicated the prime of his life to serving America and he rightfully holds the informal title, “Father of His Country.”

Guided by his devotion to duty, unbreakable conviction, faith, sense of responsibility, and his commitment to leading by example, Washington lived a life of honor that every American should strive to learn from.

1. Duty to Country Always Comes First

Mount Vernon was not just the place George Washington called home. For the Virginia farmer, landowner, and businessman, it was also his paradise. Washington was happiest when managing the responsibilities of his vast plantation, but when duty called, he always answered.
In June 1775, the Second Continental Congress formally established a standing army and appointed George Washington as the Commander-in-Chief. After taking command, Washington did not return to Mount Vernon until the war brought him back to Virginia in autumn 1781, giving him the chance to visit his beloved home for the first time in six years and four months.
Washington was rarely away from his men during the conflict and faithfully led the Continental Army for eight years until victory was finally achieved in 1783.
George Washington by Peale 1776.

Having done everything in his power to secure American independence, Washington decided to retire “from all public employments” after the war. He found true peace back at Mount Vernon and was happy to “move gently down the stream of life until I sleep with my fathers.” Washington’s joyful retirement was interrupted in 1787 when his country called on him again.
The dutiful patriot traveled to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to attend the Constitutional Convention and was unanimously elected its president. Washington’s steady leadership was instrumental and the Convention ultimately crafted the United States Constitution. The new Constitution called for a single executive, and no one doubted who that executive would be.
After the Electoral College unanimously elected him, Washington was inaugurated as the First President of the United States on April 30, 1789. He was eager to retire after his first term, but Washington’s closest friends and advisors implored him not to, warning that the troubles facing the young nation might lead to division and chaos.
Inauguration of George Washington as first president 1789

As Washington’s Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson told him, “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on.” Washington accepted that his country still needed him and was unanimously elected to a second term in 1793. After serving eight years in office, Washington finally returned to Mount Vernon in 1797.
In 1798, war between the United States and France seemed very likely. President John Adams appointed the nation’s most famous soldier to lead the American military effort in the event of a French invasion. Washington agreed to serve and even traveled to Philadelphia to undertake preparations for the new army. Although war was ultimately avoided, Washington once again proved that whenever his country needed him, he would abandon the comfort of his home and be there for her.
Washington spent his final days at Mount Vernon before passing away of a throat infection on December 14, 1799 at the age of 67.
Portrait of George Washington

Although Washington loved his home and working on his plantation more than anything, he understood that a man must never shy away from his primary duty and dedicated 17 years of his life to serving his country during the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, and the Presidency, establishing precedents and laying the groundwork for the United States to become a beacon of freedom.
George Washington’s life is a reminder that duty to country always comes first.
2. Never Give Up
George Washington considered the American triumph in the Revolutionary war “little short of a standing miracle.” From 1775 to 1783, Washington led an army that was ill-clad, poorly supplied, rarely if ever paid, and constantly plagued by scores of other issues against the world’s premier war machine of its day.
There were times during the war when all seemed lost, but no matter how many setbacks his army encountered, Washington refused to give up. His courage was never in doubt; he constantly stood by his men, and he fearlessly stared down every danger.
This iconic painting by William Trego was inspired by a passage from Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington: “Sad and dreary was the march to Valley Forge, uncheered by the recollection of any recent triumph. . . Hungry and cold were the poor fellows who had so long been keeping the field . . . provisions were scant, clothing was worn out, and so badly were they off for shoes, that the footsteps of many might be tracked in blood.”
As the Commander-in-Chief once reminded his soldiers, “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.” Washington never forgot what was at stake in the Revolutionary War and his devotion to the cause and to his soldiers ultimately paid off. As Washington believed, “Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” General Washington witnessed those wonders firsthand by exhibiting an unbreakable spirit and persevering to secure America’s ultimate victory over Great Britain.
George Washington never gave up, and regardless of the obstacles that stand in our way, neither should we.

George Washington understood the miraculous of America’s victory in the Revolutionary War better than anyone, and while the Commander-in-Chief did everything in his power to secure his nation’s independence, he always believed that the triumph would not have been possible without God watching over him and his army. Often using the word “Providence” to refer to God, Washington expressed this belief on many occasions:
“If such talents as I possess have been called into action by great events, and those events have terminated happily for our country, the glory should be ascribed to the manifest interposition of an overruling Providence.”
“I was but the humble Agent of favoring Heaven, whose benign interference was so often manifested in our behalf, and to whom the praise of victory alone is due.”
“The kind interposition of Providence which has been so often manifested in the affairs of this country, must naturally lead us to look up to that divine source for light and direction in this new and untried Scene.”
As we go through life, we too must always remember that no matter what we are going through, God will always be with us.

 4. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

In a world run by kings, George Washington would not wear a crown. He wielded tremendous power as a general and president, but Washington was intensely aware of the great trust his fellow Americans placed in him and he never abused the power he was entrusted with.
Washington received a letter during the Revolution that slightly suggested he should assume the title of American Monarch. The seriousness of Washington’s response said everything about his character and integrity: “No occurrence in the course of the war has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the army…. I must view with abhorrence and reprehend with severity” any idea that was “big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country.” Washington was truly incorruptible.
Perhaps the greatest act that demonstrated Washington’s understanding of power and responsibility came when he surrendered his military commission to congress on December 23, 1783.
As he stood before the gathered congressmen in the statehouse at Annapolis, Maryland, the Commander-in-Chief declared, “Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action-and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.”
By surrendering his military commission to a grateful Congress, Washington affirmed a principle he firmly believed in: civilian control of the military.
General George Washington Resigning His Commission by John Trumbull.

As history around the world has shown, some revolutionary leaders in Washington’s position might have attempted to seize political power. In fact, Washington had been forced to put down a potential coup d’état in March 1783 when disgruntled army officers threated to overthrow the civilian government over its failure to pay their salaries or pensions.
Upon hearing that Washington intended to peacefully surrender his commission and return home, Great Britain’s King George III reportedly said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” Washington did, and during his time on this earth, he demonstrated how a true leader uses power responsibly.
Like Washington, we must also understand that with great power comes great responsibility.

5. Set an Example
In everything that he did, George Washington always set an example for others to follow. Regarding his position as the First President of the United States, Washington wrote, “I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.”
Washington understood that in a world where royalty reigned supreme, it was up to him to prove that the republican model of government could succeed. One of the most important ways of doing that was to ensure the peaceful transition of power from one president to the next. During Washington’s time there were no term limits, and while many would have supported him in office until the day he died, Washington knew that he had to establish a precedent for others to follow.

Hence, at the end of his second term, Washington stepped down as president, setting an example that lasted until President Franklin D. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, and ensuring that succession would be determined by the ballot box. Today, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that no person can be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
There will be people in our own lives who look up to us for guidance, and like Washington, we must also understand the importance of setting an example for those individuals to follow.

Monday, March 18, 2019

Monday Music "Fortress around your heart" by Sting

This song came out while I was in college and then during the summer and early fall before I joined the U.S. Army, to me the song was very haunting and almost surreal, and the military terms he mentioned in the song reminded me that I was fixing to join the Army, the time from college until basic was my Party time, my "Senior year" one year later than everyone else.  I had no care in the world because I knew that it was going to end and I wanted to party and forget that I was going into the service.  I have no regrets and would do so again, but the unknown was daunting and a bit frightening. I suppose.

"Fortress Around Your Heart" is one of four hit singles released from Sting's 1985 solo debut album The Dream of the Blue Turtles.

The song was later included on the U.S. release of the Fields of Gold: The Best of Sting 1984–1994 compilation album.

This was inspired by Sting's divorce. The pain he felt when he couldn't make his first marriage work led him to write some of his biggest hits, including "Every Breath You Take" and "King of Pain". Sting wrote the song in the studio in Barbados in 1985. The song features a Branford Marsalis sax solo,. In a Musician magazine interview later that year, Sting said:
"'Fortress' is about appeasement, about trying to bridge the gaps between individuals. The central image is a minefield that you've laid around this other person to try and protect them. Then you realise that you have to walk back through it. I think it's one of the best choruses I've ever written."
During one of Sting's first performances of the song in concert in Paris, his crew lowered a tiny fortress onto the stage in a parody of the similar Stonehenge scene from the film This Is Spinal Tap.

 I could find no information on this video, occasionally that happens.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

New Army Helmet and Body Armor

Man things are moving faster and faster, especially when it comes to helmets and body armor.    Back when the American Doughboys went to the "War to end all wars", they copied a British Helmet design because before this, the American Army didn't "do" body armor or helmets, but the casualties that the allies were racking up in France forced a change and the American Army got this...
The M1917 Helmet or the "Kelly" nicknamed the "Tin Hat".  This is one of the helmets that I have in my collection.
This was the same kind of helmet that the Americans fought the early days of WWII with.  They didn't get all issued with the M1 Helmet.until the mid to late 1942.  The United States wanted to give their soldiers more protection than the older "Tin Hat.
My "Vietnam Era" M1 Helmet
My 1980's Pattern M1 Helmet "Steel Pot"  The basic helmet has not changed since 1942 with the exception of the webbing and the cover. 
The M1 stayed on from WWII through Vietnam and through  the mid 1980's before being changed to the PAGST.  We called the PAGST Helmet the "Fritz" helmet because the similarity between the German "Stahlhelm" of WWII fame and the American PAGST.  They later called it the "K-Pot"

My PAGST helmet with the "ChocoChip" Cover.  I have blogged before about the helmets and you can read about them HERE


U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. William F. Thetford, U.S. Central Command senior enlisted leader, presents coins to U.S. Army Soldiers during a training exercise in Iraq, Jan. 18, 2019. ( U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Franklin Moore)

With the latest revelation from officials of the US Army in March 2019, US soldiers could well be on their way towards invincibility. A new set of body armor and new helmets have been finally completed after years of development
The new body armor is not only lighter than its predecessor but also provides better protection and allows better mobility for ground troops. The new helmet, besides being lighter, is also designed to provide double the protection of its predecessor against blunt force trauma.

This new Soldier Protection System (SPS), in short, will give soldiers the ability to take a serious beating, and walk out alive.
According to the manufacturers and Army officials, the newly completed SPS—which comprises the Integrated Head Protection System, Modular Scalable Vest, and Blast Pelvic Protector—is a critical upgrade from previous systems.
Upon release in March 2019, the first SPS units will be delivered to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, to be first used by the Army’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division.

U.S. Soldiers assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, participate in exercise Bronco Rumble at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
The revelation was made by Army officials on March 11 during an event at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The event was a ceremony reuniting Staff Sergeant Steven McQueen with his battered helmet.
McQueen was in Afghanistan in September 2018 when two gunmen fired at him and his comrades from around 20 feet away. McQueen took a head shot from a machine gun, but quickly sprang to his feet and ran for cover.
The 3.3-lb helmet he had worn that day was presented in the ceremony with a large hole on it. The life-saving helmet was one of the Enhanced Combat Helmets (ECH) which is currently in use by soldiers of the US Army. McQueen revealed that prior to that event, he had felt that the helmet was too heavy and that its design was overkill.

U.S. Marine wearing an ECH in 2018
Even so, the ECH has proven itself quite effective—but with the release of the Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS), developed by Ceradyne Inc., the Army is set to go a step higher. The newly finished, slightly larger IHPS has the same level of ballistic protection against rifles as the ECH, but offers 100% improvement in protection against trauma to a soldier’s head.
According to Alex DeGroot, Ceradyne’s lead engineer for head protection, with its improved protection and lesser weight the IHPS represents less force on the brain, and this is “one of the things that make the helmet considerably better than the current helmet.”
The IHPS also features a boltless retention system which allows the four bolt holes that used to hold the chin straps to be eliminated. According to Lieutenant Colonel Ginger Whitehead, the product manager for Soldier Protection Equipment, drilling holes on helmets has a downside: it weakens the material. The chin straps are attached to the sides of the helmets now, without bolts.

U.S. Army and Polish special operations forces conduct close-quarters combat training.

On each side of the IHPS, there are removable rails which would allow soldiers to mount lights and other necessary accessories on the helmet, especially when working under low-light conditions.
In a statement by DeGroot, the new helmet, with its slightly larger area, provides more space on both sides for soldiers to put on headsets more comfortably. The IHPS also comes with optional protective add-ons like a visor, a mandible guard for the lower jaw, and a “ballistic appliqué.”
The new body armor, the Modular Scalable Vest (MSV), weighs around 11 pounds without ballistic plates, and 25 pounds when fitted with front and side armor plates. Overall, it is lighter by five pounds than the Improved Outer Tactical Vest which is currently in use in the Army.

1st Lt. Dawn Ward, a platoon leader with 663rd Ordnance Company and evaluation officer in charge, participates in the final round of field-testing for the Modular Scalable Vest (MSV) during a weeklong series of evaluated tasks at Fort Carson, Colo., Oct. 18, 2017.Photo: Staff Sgt. Lance Pounds
Another item in the SPS, the Blast Pelvic Protector, reportedly provides extra protection for the groin and upper thighs.
In a report released on Military.com, the SPS was said to also feature a Ballistic Combat Shirt (BCS) which has soft armor on the high back, high chest, shoulders, and neck to help protect against 9mm rounds and shrapnel.
The BCS is to replace the Deltoid Axillary Protector, which was originally developed in the early days of the Iraq War to shield US soldiers’ shoulders and upper arms from shrapnel wounds caused by Improvised Explosive Devices.

U.S. Marines from 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines clear a house in Al Anbar Governorate, during the Iraq War

Because the Army has not yet been provided with all the sizes required for full fielding, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division will receive the IHPS and MSV but will not sport the BCS this month. However, according to Whitehead, there are plans in place to field the BCS this summer.
Perhaps it is impossible to achieve the perfect protection system. But with the constant improvements on existing models, and the desire to go even further, the United States military looks poised to take a shot at achieving invincibility, even if that is only slightly possible.