A guy named Michael Smith Posted this Rebuttal on farcebook. I shamelessly clipped it.
I didn't post yesterday, had a lot of work stuff going on Yesterday and got squirreled.
There is truly a psychosis running rampant in American left today.
This excerpt from a letter to the editor of the awful left-wing rag that masquerades as a newspaper, the Salt Lake Tribune, is representative of this condition:
“Amazingly, our congressmen profess to care about the Constitution and our democracy while they continue to support a president who openly aspires to be the first truly autocratic American president.
Republicans want us to believe that President Trump’s immorality, dishonesty, lack of decency and integrity is all OK. In the meantime, he continues to ignore the Constitution, undermine the judiciary and thumb his nose at the rule of law, discard the separation of powers, and openly disregard any respect for the emoluments clause as he and his family continues to openly enrich themselves from the presidency.
After the Musk-based search for “waste and fraud” fiasco, Trump now has the gall to saddle taxpayers with the cost of almost a $1 billion to prepare his gold-appointed retirement jet airplane and another $200 million for a lavish ballroom addition to the White House. Meanwhile, millions could die as the result of the termination of USAID assistance, according to a study by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. And we cannot forget what William Falk, editor-at-large of The Week magazine, has called the “Trump gang’s pervasive ineptitude.” RFK Jr.’s war on vaccines is just one example!”
Literally none of this hyperbole is happening.
Woodrow Wilson was America’s first autocratic president. Trump doesn’t come close. Biden was closer to Wilson than Trump. The author levels personal attacks assuming the reader will fill in the blanks because he doesn’t mention any specifics (immorality, dishonesty, lack of decency and integrity) from Trump’s time in office, nor does he give evidence of how the Constitution is being ignored or how the President is undermining the judiciary or ignoring the law – quite the contrary – Trump has criticized stupid rulings but is following legal processes and obeying the various rulings, no matter how crazy they are. He is exercising presidential power that is well within the constitutional limits. Trump negotiated a lower price for the replacement of the aircraft that become Airforce One during his first term – and they are not ready yet, so the existing 747 the Qataris had in storage is a lower cost interim alternative.
The White House ballroom is being funded by private donations. RFKJ is simply asking that there be full disclosure with vaccines so people can make their own decisions as to what they put in their bodies and the bodies of their children – and as to how Trump is violating the emoluments clause, I have no idea. Trump’s family runs the business he founded and to date, not a single charge levied against any of them has been proven. Trump’s personal net worth declined during his presidency while the net worth of the Clinton’s, the Obama’s and the Biden’s all dramatically increased.
It is all just hair-on-fire panic and moronic ranting with no basis in fact. It is as if these people have fallen down the rabbit hole with Alice.
The opposition to President Trump’s eight month old presidency, especially when viewed in comparison and contrast to the just ended Joe Biden administration and what they did, displays the same mode of panic as was described during the Covid “pandemic” as “mass formation psychosis”, a term coined by Dr. Robert Malone to describe a collective psychological state where large groups of people exhibit intense, unified behavior driven by fear, propaganda, or shared ideology, often losing critical thinking or individual judgment.
Biden’s administration did defy the Supreme Court, issued unconstitutional mandates, “forgave” student loans, shoveled taxpayer money to NGOs for God know what with no results, weaponized the government against their political enemies, conspired to deprive political enemies of life and liberty, maintained a presidency with no functioning president run by who, nobody really knows and signed pardons and executive orders with the Autopen. Their domestic and foreign policies were disasters, opening our borders, setting inflation aflame to record levels and allowing wars around the world to escalate – while pouring trillions of dollars into military aid for Ukraine while letting our own military rot.
Democrats used “public health concerns” to corrupt election processes to elect a candidate in 2020, one who campaigned from his basement and allegedly garnered 11 million more votes than the most popular Democrat president ever – Barack Obama. Those votes disappeared in 2024, suggesting that they may never have existed in the first place.
I’m not blind to President Trump’s negative attributes, but as president he has not displayed them. He has been aggressive, that is for sure – but I guess enforcing laws that Democrats want to ignore seems aggressive to them – but he has been very careful to stay within constitutional boundaries.
I guess we need to start handing out free antipsychotics with every Salt Lake Tribune subscription.
We in the Airlines fall under the "National Railways Act", the airlines got added in 1936. The airlines are considered part of the transportation link of the United States so the ability to strike is limited. Before a strike, both parties have to go before a arbitration board to iron out the differences. Most people fall under the "Fair Labor Standards Act", this is the one that gives you the 40 hours a week, the time and half after 40 and so forth, and the minimum wage comes from this one. The Big Beautiful Bill No Tax on Overtime only affects the people under the "FLSA", so we airline people are exempt from that bennie. Also a bit of info on that, the no tax only goes for anything after 40 hours until the cap of $25,000 if you are married(Yearly) after that, the tax goes back in. and if you are single, it is $12,500. I did a bit of research into it 'splaining it to my "workwiths", lol
I know a few people from NWA that lost their jobs and now work for my employer, they are really good mechanics and are exceedingly bitter. This is part of the reason that my employer is non-union with the exception of the Skykings, er Pilots. They feel like they were betrayed by their union and sold down the river. The union in their mind pushed for the strike, and when the company brought in "Scabs", the company basically fired the striking workers and the union organized the scabs. so there is a lot of anger there. The stories they talk about has warned a lot of impressionable younger mechanics that might be persuaded by the siren song of the unions that have tried twice to organize my employer and failed. IAM and AMFA have tried, and so far have been unsuccessful.
Just a bit of background. And for those that don't know, I was a shop steward or union Rep for the UAW at Ford Motor Company, so I know a bit how unions work, They have good and bad points. I have "Talked" about that in the past.
I got the article from "Aviation Week"
Credit: Jim West/Alamy Stock Photo
This year marks the 20th anniversary of an event that permanently affected aviation maintenance for airlines and yet was barely noticed by the flying public—the Northwest Airlines/Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association mechanics’ strike.
Like many legacy airlines in the early 2000s, the glory days of profitability from the previous decade(s) were a distant memory. The harsh economic environment forced the major airlines to cut costs to survive, while many smaller airlines folded.
At Northwest Airlines (NWA), all salaried and union employees had accepted concessionary compensation, with the exception of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA). Prevailing speculation was that AMFA leadership eyed the larger membership representation votes at other majors and would not accept concessions, despite understanding NWA’s financial fragility. With negotiations continuing to deteriorate in 2004, the NWA leadership began planning to operate the airline in the event of an AMFA workforce strike.
AMFA represented more than 5,000 NWA employees, and replacing them in a single night was extremely challenging. Above all, an effective contingency plan had to have some critical deliverables:
• The airline’s operations would run at 100% and had to remain safe and compliant.
• The airline had to maintain the confidence of the aircraft crews, the FAA and the flying public.
• The whole team had to be committed to achieving the plan, and the CEO and the board had to believe the plan could be executed (since failure would have shut down the airline).
While the final plan was enormously detailed, the most critical task was sourcing and certifying replacement personnel and providers for:
• 1,500 line maintenance mechanics in 31 maintenance stations.
• All aircraft heavy maintenance.
• All engines and auxiliary power units.
• Aircraft cleaners in 12 station locations.
• Mechanics conducting aircraft pushbacks at 28 station locations.
• Ground radio technicians in one location.
• Plant and facilities technicians in 13 locations.
• Home for every part—source and certify component maintenance providers to support the repair of about 10,000 individual components.
• Almost 3,000 flight attendants in the event they conducted sympathy labor actions.
Preparing to replace this amount of work was difficult in itself, but the real challenge was time.
The airline estimated that the negotiations process would likely end in the late summer/early fall if AMFA were to strike. When a fully dedicated project team started detailed preparation, it was seven months before the airline had to be ready.
The airline’s managers collectively dedicated tens of thousands of extra hours to the preparation. Days flowed into nights, and many weekends were spent working on endless details. Training centers were set up in remote cities in just weeks. Approval processes were reduced from months to days and hours. Support groups like security, information technology and human resources were enormously responsive.
When AMFA called the strike on Aug. 20, 2005, the previous weeks’ operations had been burdened by a significant spike of deferred maintenance (minimum equipment lists items and nonessential equipment and furnishings), delays and out-of-service aircraft resulting from disruptive behavior. Despite this, the tech ops team was ready. The AMFA mechanics were escorted off the property, and execution of hundreds of detailed checklists began in every station and work area.
Everything was inspected for serviceability, including aircraft, vehicles, ground support equipment and computer and phone lines. Replacement personnel were bused in, issued toolboxes and began work. Maintenance and cleaning providers entered facilities all over the country and began working. Enhanced quality oversight began immediately.
By 7 a.m. the next day, the checklists were complete, and the airline was up and running. As the days went on, the operational burdens were significantly reduced, and the operation began to run at historically normal reliability but at much lower cost.
After 444 days, AMFA settled with the company, but, sadly, many good AMFA-represented employees had permanently lost their jobs due to the union’s decision to strike.
For the maintenance team that had shown that a workforce could be completely replaced at an airline, those tough days had bonded them together. They had been through the most intense period in their careers. They had built relationships with many new team members in different roles, and they had sacrificed a lot of time with their families. Today, many still proudly say they feel like they fought a war together.
I have seen on Insty and other social media about the drama about certain women and I have joked with my wife should she cross over the rim before me, I ain't remarrying again, the current dating pool is toxic. The 4th wave of feminism and the "Girlboss" has poisoned the dating pool as far as I am concerned. I could myself fortunate that I am still on my "Starter Marriage" and we have been together for almost 32 years. I am sure that there are a lot of good girls out there but do I want to try to find them? Is the juice worth the squeeze? I hope I never find out.
I saw this on "Art of Manliness"
You’ve probably had a friend who started dating a woman that really made you scratch your head. She was flaky, possessive, and high-drama. Everyone could see that the gal was toxic and really bringing your buddy down…everyone, that is, except your buddy.
You tell yourself, “That would never happen to me.”
But then it does.
What gives? How do people end up in unhealthy relationships despite warning signs that their partner was bad news to begin with?
Answer: we’re blinded by love.
Seriously.
Using MRI machines, researchers at the University College London found that “feelings of love lead to a suppression of activity in the areas of the brain controlling critical thought. It seems that once we get close to a person, the brain decides the need to assess their character and personality is reduced.”
Not only does romantic love suppress our critical thinking, but feel-good chemicals and hormones like oxytocin and dopamine cloud our judgment even more. Love truly gives us a drug-like “high,” and it feels so good that we simply ignore the red flags waving right before us. If by chance you do take notice of a gal’s negative behavior or attitude, you’re likely to minimize it, writing it off as a cute quirk, or telling yourself, “Oh, it’s not that bad. Besides, maybe I can be the guy to help her improve.”
Don’t fool yourself. You can’t force your partner to change; the change has to come from within. Also, problems that you notice at the beginning of a relationship tend to amplify themselves as the relationship deepens. Or as marriage expert Dr. John Van Epp says in his book, How to Avoid Falling in Love With a Jerk, “The good doesn’t always last, and the bad usually gets worse.”
“Well,” you say, “I’m a manly man, dammit. I don’t let my emotions get the best of me in a relationship. I always think rationally.”
Hold on there, chief. Some research actually indicates that men, particularly men in their mid-twenties, “typically fall in love faster than women and are the first to take the lead in saying words of love in the initial stages of the relationship.” Women, on the other hand, are generally more apprehensive in the beginning stages of a relationship. In other words, just because you’re a dude, doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to love blindness.
Knowing that your judgment is clouded, it’s important to enter any serious relationship with both your head and your heart. You need be able to distance yourself from the powerful emotions you’re likely feeling in a new relationship so that you can notice any red flags that might indicate that you’re destined for a relationship from hell. This is doubly important if you’re considering marriage.
But what sort of red flags should you be on the lookout for? While every man has his own personal relationship red flags or deal breakers, psychologists and marriage experts have found there are a few general red flags you should be aware of. Most of these are patterns of behavior in your partner that will likely (not definitely) result in a troubled relationship down the road.
Because people are usually on their best behavior at the beginning of a relationship, some of these red flags won’t appear for awhile. According to Dr. Van Epp, it’s usually around the three-month mark that deep-seated patterns start to manifest themselves. This delay is why he and other relationship experts recommend that you take romantic relationships nice and slow.
Below are some of the common red flags that researchers and therapists recommend you look for in a relationship.
Watch the Video
1. She’s a self-proclaimed “Drama Queen.” Beware of women who not only proclaim themselves to be Drama Queens, but also revel in the role. Drama Queens often swing from one emotional extreme to another; when life seems a little boring or flat, they’ll go out of their way to stir up a controversy. They’re often impulsive and demand to be the center of attention all the time. What’s interesting is that Drama Queendom isn’t just a character defect, it could actually be a psychological disorder called “histrionic personality disorder.” Who knew?
Drama Queens can be very alluring and attractive in the beginning of the relationship because of their seemingly outgoing and often seductive personalities. But the shtick gets old after a while and constant drama in a long-term relationship just makes people miserable.
2. You can’t stand any of her friends. You don’t need to be “besties” with her friends, but if the thought of spending an hour with one of them makes you want to jump in front of speeding traffic, then you might have reason to be concerned about your relationship with your gal. There’s wisdom in the old adage, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Your significant other likely has a lot in common with her friends — similar interests, temperaments, and beliefs. Because you’re not in love with her friends, you’re more likely to notice their annoyingly grating behaviors and attitudes. But because you’re infatuated with your gal, you’re likely ignoring or overlooking these same behaviors and attitudes coming from her.
Thus, if you can’t stand being around her friends now, there’s a chance you’ll feel the same way about your partner later. Don’t be surprised if your girlfriend is just like her annoying friend after the “Fog of Love” dissipates.
3. She says ALL her exes are jerks. There’s a possibility that every man she’s ever dated was indeed a jerk. If that’s the case, what does that say about her judgment, and what is it about her personality that draws her to losers? And that also means you’re probably a jerk too, as people tend to follow the same scripts and patterns across relationships.
The more likely scenario is that some — but not all — of her exes were jerks and she’s downplaying her role in the relationships going sour. This scenario is just as troublesome – as it shows a lack of self-awareness and an unwillingness to take responsibility. We all know folks who got fired from a job, received a bad grade, or got dumped because their boss was jealous, their professor was out to get them, and their girlfriend was nuts. It’s never their fault. Avoid relationships with this type of person like the plague.
4. She’s a flake. We all know that trust is an important aspect of a strong, healthy relationship, and it’s hard to trust someone who flakes out on you all the time. Watch to see if your gal follows through on her commitments in all aspects of her life. If she’s a flake with her employer, friends, and family, chances are she’s going to be a flake with you.
5. She treats waiters like crap. You can glean important information about a person from the way they treat strangers, especially those in a “server” role like a waiter, barista, or bank clerk. Psychologists have found that the way an individual treats strangers is often an indication of that person’s empathy, social conscience, and maturity of moral thinking — the same attributes that marriage and relationship researchers have found to be essential for healthy relationships.
6. She expects to be treated like a princess. When one person comes into a relationship with a sense of entitlement and expectation that his or her needs should always come before the other person’s, resentment, contempt, and anger are usually the results. Be on the lookout for subtle and overt clues that your partner has the “princess” mentality. (Hint: She has the word “Princess” stitched on the butt of her sweatpants.)
7. You argue all. the. time. There’s nothing wrong with conflict in a relationship. It’s completely normal, and in fact healthy at times. But if all you do is argue, then there’s a problem. Researchers have found that for a relationship to be happy, the ratio of positive to negative interactions needs to be 5:1. If your ratio is inverted, you’re going to be miserable. And don’t try to convince yourself that once you get more serious, things will get better. The first couple years are the honeymoon period! If things are already bad in the early stages of a relationship, you’re in big trouble.
8. She gets angry or guilts you when you want to spend time with your friends. We’ve talked a lot on the site about how important it is for men to spend time with their man friends — iron sharpens iron and all that. Unfortunately, some women don’t understand this and bust their boyfriend’s balls any time they want to go spend time with their buds – or they insist on always coming along to your formerly all-guy outings. A good woman will actually encourage you to spend time with the guys, understanding that it’s good for your overall well-being, which is ultimately good for your relationship too.
“What you want to see is a partner who quickly admits to wrong because the feelings of guilt register without much defensiveness or denial. Long arguments where you have to convince your partner that he or she was wrong or should feel guilty are a definite reason to worry,” says Van Epp.
10. She has a bad relationship with her family. As the relationship gets more serious, you’ll likely meet her parents and family. Watch how she interacts with them. Her comfort level with her family will often lead to her putting down her guard and showing her true colors. Patterns or scripts that your partner uses in one set of relationships will most likely be introduced into your relationship (Van Epp).If she gets along great with her family, great! You’ll likely experience the same in your relationship. However, if she’s cold and distant with her family, tread carefully. You might experience the same kind of hostility later.
Of course, there are cases where the apple truly does fall far from the tree. If her family is nuts or abusive, her distance is understandable and likely a good thing.
11. She’s not flexible. Marriage and relationship experts have found that flexibility — the ability to go with the flow and adapt to changing circumstances — is an important attribute for relationship success. If your girlfriend is never willing to compromise or gets frazzled when plans change or things aren’t exactly the way she wants them, there could be problems with your relationship down the line.
How do you know if your gal is the roll-with-the-punches type? Go on vacation together – ideally to a third-world country where things will invariably not go as planned. Or, just as good, take her camping. She refuses to go camping – even once? That’s a big red flag in itself – at least in my book.
12. You don’t share any core values or life goals. It doesn’t matter how much you love each other, if you and your gal aren’t on the same page when it comes to things like values or life goals, things are going to be rocky. Research backs this up — couples who share many of the same values and life goals are happier and have stronger relationships than couples who don’t.
13. She’s violent. Did you know that women are at least as likely, sometimes even more likely, than men to initiate domestic violence? Sure, her punches may not hurt you, but if your girlfriend gets violent when you argue, that should be a bright red flag that you need to end the relationship. There’s some underlying emotional issues there, and if she did it before, she’ll likely do it again. Don’t shrug it off – slapping can escalate into the use of weapons.
14. She’s stingy with the appreciation. Feelings of appreciation keep a relationship strong and running smoothly. One of the things I love about Kate is no matter how many times I’ve done a run-of-the-mill chore or how small a favor, she always remembers to take notice and share her appreciation. If your girlfriend rarely notices and thanks you for the nice things you do, such stinginess will eventually run your ship of love onto the rocks.
I was unable to work the rant this weekend because of "Life", but I did get my Monday Music up, so I got that going for me. Here is one of my favorite songs, from one of my favorite soundtracks, the music made the movie and the movie made the soundtrack, LOL
I decided to go with Blue Oyster Cult "Veteran of a psychic wars". I first heard of this song on the movie "Heavy Metal". I liked the sound track and of course to an adolescent boy, there was a lot of boobage action and a pretty good storyline and and what I consider great animation before computers were used. There was later a "Heavy Metal 2000". It sucked..
The phrase "...veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars" is from the Hawkwind song "Standing at the Edge," from the album Warrior on the Edge of Time (1975), which also dealt with the myth of the Eternal Champion and contained lyrics written by Moorcock. Prior to that, it appears as a line in the poem "Far Arden" by Jim Morrison of The Doors.
This is what I use in my Keurig in the mornings. I have a grinder and a filter cup and some specialty grounds I use for "sipping Coffee" usually for the weekend.
As those that frequent my little corner of the internet, probably have gathered from the name of my blog...that I love coffee, I don't drink, smoke, dabble in recreational pharmaceutical or drink soda. The only vice I have is coffee and I don't consider it a 'vice". Well the inspiration for the name of my blog came from my brother. He didn't even realized it. I was over visiting him and he gave me a cup of "Kona" coffee.....Man that stuff was awesome and every time I went over there, I would pick up a few bags from the PX and bring it back with me in my suitcase since I couldn't get "Hawaiian Isles" Kona coffee except at some snooty coffee house in midtown. I am a bit of a coffee snob.
Coffee is a breweddrink with a distinct aroma and flavor, prepared from roasted coffee beans, the seeds found inside "berries" of the Coffea plant. Coffee plants are cultivated in over 70 countries, primarily in equatorial Latin America, Southeast Asia, India and Africa. The two most commonly grown are the highly regarded arabica, and the less sophisticated but stronger and more hardy robusta. The latter is resistant to the coffee leaf rust, Hemileia vastatrix, but has a more bitter taste. Once ripe, coffee beans are picked, processed, and dried. Green (unroasted) coffee beans are one of the most traded agricultural commodities in the world. Once traded, the beans are roasted to varying degrees, depending on the desired flavor, before being ground and brewed to create coffee.
My Coffee mug in the morning
I work at a place where the coffeemakers are running 24 hours a day 7 days a week, coffee serves as both a morning drink to wake people up...remember the caffeine? and a social lubricant. People would get their morning coffee(or afternoon or night) depending on the shift and sip their coffee and B.S with their colleagues, it reaffirms the social bonds of the crew. This happens all over the world and that is a good thing.
This would be my workplace if decaffeinated coffee(dirt) was introduced.
I shamelessly clipped this from a guy I follow on farcebook by the name of Michael Smith., he is spot on on his assertion about President Obama influence on this. I hope some heads roll for this. but truth be told, I don't think the Republicans have the spine for this. whereas if the situation was the reverse, the donks would do it in a new york minute and because they have the entire academia, media, and outrage complex behind them, would make it stick.
I’ve long believed Obama’s hands were dirty in every aspect of the “Get Trump” affair.
This is just not something a little insurrection-ey the members of a coffee klatch cooked up in an Alexandra Starbucks and then decided it was worth doing. This is something that gets done because you are completely dedicated and devoted to a charismatic leader you believe somehow supersedes all others in wisdom, purity and leadership and want to see his legacy become real and permanent, and you are willing to break every oath, every law, and ignore the Constitution to see it through.
For people to risk their reputations – in truth, risk life and limb - to run a decades long operation to try to stop a candidate from being elected and when he beat the odds, to try to manufacture a process to end his presidency before it started, to impeach him twice, then try literally every trick in the book to destroy his business, his family , his inner circle, and to imprison him for civil, criminal, and national security crimes seems way too Jim Jones/Peoples Temple-ish.
This is about hatred of Trump, but I think it is more about total devotion to Obama – mostly because what people did represented great personal risk – bordering on sedition and possibly extending to treason.
The notion that a DOJ operation targeting a rival party’s candidate could proceed without the sitting president’s knowledge or approval is unthinkable. Obama, known for his calculated oversight, likely relied on Susan Rice as an intermediary to maintain plausible deniability until Trump’s unexpected 2016 victory over “Madam NeverPresident” Hillary Clinton forced his direct involvement.
The question in my mind isn’t whether Obama was complicit - it’s just how deep his involvement ran. With DNI Tulsi Gabbard now accessing classified records and referring them to the authorities and Congress, the extent of Obama’s role may soon come to light.
The Jack Smith J6 indictment of former President Donald Trump fierce debate, drawing parallels to the actions of Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. If the legal threshold applied to Trump were universally enforced, both Gore and Clinton could face severe consequences for their roles in challenging election results. Gore’s prolonged legal battle over Florida’s vote count in 2000, which delayed the certification of George W. Bush’s victory, and Clinton’s persistent 2016 claims that Trump’s presidency was “illegitimate” due to alleged Russian interference, could be interpreted as undermining electoral trust - much like the accusations against Trump.
The left claimed – and still claims – that “election denialism” is some kind of disqualifying belief, even as they indulge in it.
For example, Hillary Clinton’s public statements, including her 2019 assertion that the election was “stolen,” mirror the rhetoric she criticized in Trump. Similarly, figures like James Clapper, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, and the 50 intelligence officials who falsely labeled Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” in 2020 could and should face legal scrutiny for peddling misleading narratives to sway voters. Their actions, often justified as protecting national security, suggest a pattern of manipulating public perception to influence elections.
A key example of this interference is the January 5, 2017, White House meeting involving Strzok, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Sally Yates. Declassified notes reveal they discussed surveilling Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming national security advisor, and withholding critical information from the Trump team. This meeting, far from a one-off, was part of a broader effort tied to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, launched in July 2016 to probe Trump’s campaign based on flimsy evidence like the Steele dossier - a document later discredited for its unverified claims. By the time the 2020 election loomed, Crossfire Hurricane had evolved into a sprawling operation, raising questions about its true purpose: was it to investigate or to sabotage?
And remember Rice’s memo to herself, written on January 20, 2017, claiming Obama insisted everything be “by the book”? Why even have any written evidence of that meeting, especially a memo that reeks of a cover-your-ass move.
This may well turn into one of those “we know” situations where we lack enough hard proof to overcome the horrific thought of dealing with, and punishing, the aftermath of the greatest conspiracy to attack the Constitution and American sovereignty in the history of this nation. I think the only hope there are more than a few breadcrumbs is that this group of saboteurs were far more arrogant than they were smart or careful. Whether enough clear evidence can be found and substantiated is still open – and assuming there is something concrete, perhaps the biggest question is whether our judicial system has the courage to pursue them against a former two term president and his Mission Insurrection team.
My honest opinion, especially back then, the British commanders were either brilliant or incompetent, there were no in-betweens with them, partially because of their "class system", they pulled their officers from what is called their Gentry or upper-class, and no matter how incompetent, they made sure that unless there was actual cowardice they would cover it up. Cowardice they would not tolerate. I to this day still am flummoxed by the surrender, and to this day the Australians and New Zealanders still are a bit pissy because it was a huge chunk of their menfolks that got marched into captivity by the Japanese and many didn't return.
Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival’s surrender of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942 was the largest surrender of British forces in history and he was therefore bound to come in for a great deal of criticism, not helped by the fact that he was personally not very prepossessing and certainly not the ideal of a General Officer in public opinion.
General Percival
Percival joined the British Army as a private in 1914 and rose to the rank of (temporary) Lieutenant Colonel by the end of the war. In the process he garnered a DSO (with a later second award), a Military Cross and a Croix de Guerre. These are significant medals and so he was obviously no slouch in military matters, especially as he was not a regular soldier. After the war, having taken a regular commission, he attended Staff College and was earmarked for accelerated promotion.
Percival knew Malaya previously, having been posted there as the Chief of Staff to the General Officer Commanding Malaya in the late 1930s. Whilst in this role, Percival correctly assessed the possibility that the Japanese might make an attack on Malaya (and thus Singapore) via Thailand or, contrary to the orthodox view, by landings on the eastern seaboard of the peninsula during the northeast monsoon from October to March.
Funds to rectify the situation were not forthcoming and inter-service rivalry led to the poor placement of RAF airfields in Northern Malaya. This in turn meant that troops had to be dispersed in penny-packets in order to defend them.
In April 1941, Percival was appointed GOC Malaya which meant that he had some seven months to prepare his command before the Japanese attack. He later wrote:
In going to Malaya I realised that there was the double danger either of being left in an inactive command for some years if war did not break out in the East or, if it did, of finding myself involved in a pretty sticky business with the inadequate forces which are usually to be found in the distant parts of our Empire in the early stages of a war.
In this assessment, he was correct. Percival had on hand some 70,000 men (plus 15,000 support troops) with his main force consisting of forty-nine infantry battalions of decidedly mixed quality. The Australian Official Historian later wrote:
Only one of the Indian battalions was up to numerical strength, three had recently arrived in a semi-trained condition, nine had been hastily reorganised with a large intake of raw recruits, and four were being re-formed but were far from being fit for action. Six of the United Kingdom battalions (in the 54th and 55th Brigades of the British 18th Infantry Division) had only just landed in Malaya, and the other seven battalions were under-manned. Of the Australian battalions, three had drawn heavily upon undertrained recruits, new to the theatre. The Malay battalions had not been in action, and the Straits Settlements Volunteers were only sketchily trained.
Partly trained or newly arrived troops contributed to Percival’s problems
He possessed no armour (the Japanese had around 200 tanks) and what tanks and other material were dispatched to Malaya were diverted to Russia or Egypt. Essentially, Malaya was given a low priority and the campaign was over so quickly, a little over two months, that little could be done to redress the situation.
The RAF presence was small and under-equipped with obsolete fighters and the Royal Navy’s Force Z also suffered a catastrophic defeat with the loss of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.
Obsolete Brewster Buffalo fighters
The premise of the Singapore Strategy was that a strong fleet would be despatched to the Far East, based on Singapore, to deter the Japanese. In the event, Force Z consisted of only two capital ships and lacked any air cover - it’s assigned aircraft carrier having run aground in the Caribbean.
This distinctly second rate response was due to the unexpected fall of France in 1940. The Chiefs of Staff reported:
The security of our imperial interests in the Far East lies ultimately in our ability to control sea communications in the south-western Pacific, for which purpose adequate fleet must be based at Singapore. Since our previous assurances in this respect, however, the whole strategic situation has been radically altered by the French defeat. The result of this has been to alter the whole of the balance of naval strength in home waters. Formerly we were prepared to abandon the Eastern Mediterranean and dispatch a fleet to the Far East, relying on the French fleet in the Western Mediterranean to contain the Italian fleet. Now if we move the Mediterranean fleet to the Far East there is nothing to contain the Italian fleet, which will be free to operate in the Atlantic or reinforce the German fleet in home waters, using bases in north-west France. We must therefore retain in European waters sufficient naval forces to watch both the German and Italian fleets, and we cannot do this and send a fleet to the Far East.
HMS Repulse hit by a Japanese bomb - the failure of the Singapore Strategy
Thus the odds were stacked against Percival even though, on paper, he had a superior force and held the defensive advantage.
However, as was common to all the Allied powers at the start of the war, the British severely misjudged the fighting capabilities of the Japanese. In addition, Percival did not grip his subordinates. His relations with Heath (III Indian Corps) and Bennett (Westforce) were not good, nor was the relationship between these two subordinates. Percival also clashed with his immediate superior, Wavell.
Percival appears to have lacked the required ruthlessness to prevail during a crisis. Although he was neither incompetent nor a coward, he was not suited to this role and the hand he was dealt was poor. Even so, his forces performed very poorly against the Japanese and he must take some responsibility for that. It is interesting to speculate of what Montgomery or Auchinleck or Slim would have made of the task.
