From Jacob,who attended Saturday’s class…

( I just copied and pasted his e-mail,as I’m not going to give out Student’s contact info)

Class I – The Basics, review

We ended up having six people attend the class, as two had an emergency and had to cancel last minute.  I drove 3 hours to attend – others came from much further away.  One couple gave up a day of their vacation to attend the class. With such a small class, we had the opportunity to see more than just what was on the class schedule.  We had a wide range of cooking experience amongst the class – some had little experience cooking, while others were accomplished home cooks or had catering jobs in the past.  The purpose of the first class was to cover the basics – proper food safety and how to make soups/stews and simple recipes for large groups, using typical kitchen equipment.  Next class is more about food prep in an austere environment.

I have a background in the food industry, so I expected most of this class to be a dry review for me before class 2 and 3.  Larry provided us with study materials over email in the days leading up to the class, so we didn’t have to spend much time talking through the hand-washing/cleaning and sanitizing/cross-contamination topics of food safety and were able to spend more time cooking.  We ate A LOT!  Larry and his team already had the lunch meal started when we arrived, and he walked us through the prep work that had already been done and the finishing process for the meal.  The class was on the hook for making dinner.  Several points kept coming up throughout the class:  you need good food and enough of it during a crisis (2 thousand calories doesn’t cut it – try 4 to 5 thousand for stressful situations), fat is good – it makes you feel full longer and is high-calorie, luke-warm food is NOT safe (even less so after several hours), don’t waste food and time making fancy/extravagant dishes – reuse the scraps/peelings/bones to flavor soups, plan meals ahead so leftover parts from today will be part of tomorrow’s meal, and all the cookbooks and videos in the world won’t do any good if you don’t get in the kitchen/in the woods and PRACTICE!  If you don’t have simple dishes that all work together and make large portions, you’re wasting time and energy that you won’t have when things go bad.

I felt the class was worth the cost and the drive, and plan to attend the next two classes.  I heard likewise from others in the class.  While we all shared meals together and talked about different things, one phrase kept coming to mind:  “Meatspace, baby!”.

Thanks to Larry for a great class and to all that attended with me.  It was great to meet other like-minded folks who are making it a priority to get out and learn skills. See you at the next class!

The anti-gun press couldn’t contain their excitement. A new study published in the UK’s prestigious The Lancet medical journal purported to show that certain gun control measures could lead to incredible reductions in the firearm mortality rate. CNN blared, “Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%,” the L.A. Times touted, “Aiming to drive down gun deaths? Put these three laws on the books, researchers say,” and the Christian Science Monitor proclaimed, “Federal gun control laws could reduce deaths up to 90 percent, study says.” What these outlets weren’t anticipating is that the study has proven so flawed that the most influential members of the anti-gun research community have been forced to denounce it; lest the public realize the larger problems attendant to the entire field of study.

The controversial study is titled, “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study,” and was authored by a team led by epidemiologist Bindu Kalesan of Boston University’s Department of Medicine and School of Public Health. The researchers attempted to determine the effects that more than two dozen different types of gun control measures – ranging from fingerprinting requirements to child access laws – had on homicide mortality, suicide mortality, and overall firearm mortality rates. As has been the focus of the laudatory news items, the researchers concluded that implementation of a federal “universal” background check law, in concert with federal ammunition background checks and “firearm identification requirements,” could reduce overall firearm mortality by more than 90 percent.

Unsurprisingly, most media outlets have given less attention to the research team’s findings pertaining to a host of other gun controls. The team found many gun control measures have little, no, or even a detrimental effect on firearm mortality rates.

According to the study, gun dealer licensing, dealer state record reporting requirements, dealer police inspections, gun owner fingerprinting, closing of the “gun show loophole,” ammunition purchaser recordkeeping, child handgun restrictions, child access laws, juvenile handgun purchases, magazine bans, and may-issue carry permits, have little to no effect on firearm-related deaths. Further, their results show, semi-auto bans, firearms locks, “bulk purchase limitations,” and mandatory theft reporting, increase firearm-related deaths.

Likely fearing the flawed study will result in a massive backlash that could further expose the shortcomings of their own work, the anti-gun research community has turned on Kalesan, her team, and The Lancet.

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post, “Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating, “What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals around… Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”

David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said of the findings, “That’s too big — I don’t believe that.” Pouring cold water on the schemes of politicians peddling gun controls as societal cure-alls, Hemenway went on to tell the Post, “These laws are not that strong. I would just be flabbergasted; I’d bet the house if you did [implement] these laws, if you had these three laws and enforced them really well and reduced gun deaths by 10 percent, you’d be ecstatic.” Offering a glimpse into the broader deficiencies of the field, Hemenway told U.S. News & World Report, “I could find serious problems with virtually any U.S. study about gun laws.”

This bout of public infighting and candid admissions as to the credibility of the entire field of gun violence research should give the public and policymakers pause when presented with studies supporting further gun restrictions. As Webster so eloquently alluded to, the peer-review process and stature of a journal offer little indication of the veracity of its contents when it comes to the politically-charged topic of gun control. Further, this episode provides important evidence as to why NRA works with federal lawmakers to ensure that this type of shoddy and politically motivated research is not federally funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is bad enough that such defective anti-gun research finds its way into distinguished publications, without forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill.

From NRA/ILA here

Prairie Fire

Posted: March 11, 2016 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized

          Worth reading the whole thing-it’ll help you understand the marxists/leftists and their “plan”.

Unpossible

Posted: March 11, 2016 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized

 

The Environmental Protection Agency has overstepped its legal authority by imposing a regulatory agenda on the states, environmental officials at the state level testified Wednesday to a Senate committee.

Randy Huffman, cabinet secretary at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, testified that the EPA’s flood of environmental regulations since President Barack Obama took office in 2009 chipped away at the Founding Fathers’ intent of “cooperative federalism” between the national and state governments.

Instead of consulting state regulators when establishing new policies, Huffman said, EPA bureaucrats increasingly are imposing regulations through what is called federal guidance.

“There’s two problems with this: EPA guidance further eliminates state discretion, and it allows them to avoid the accountability and transparency of rulemaking,” Huffman testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act more than 40 years ago, Huffman said, lawmakers put states in charge of establishing procedures to meet federal standards. In fact, over 95 percent of the environmental regulatory duties in the U.S. are carried out by the states, he said, citing the Environmental Council of the States.

The West Virginia official said Congress placed the primary responsibility with the states because lawmakers knew that state authorities would be more knowledgeable of local environments than D.C. bureaucrats. Rather than following congressional intent, he said, EPA regulators seized authority from the states.

“In the past seven years, states have been forced to digest more of these federal takeovers … than were ever served in the prior three federal administrations combined 10 times over,” Becky Keogh, director at the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, testified.

Keogh said the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, regulations on the coal industry designed to cut carbon emissions, is illustrative of the diminishment of state sovereignty.

“The reality is that states are more pawn than partner,” she said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who chairs the Committee on Environment and Public Works, noted that the amicus brief he and 33 other senators along with 171 House members filed against the plan last month at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the court papers, the lawmakers argued that the plan violates the Clean Air Act by coercing states to implement the EPA’s policies.

In early February, the Supreme Court halted the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan until legal challenges from more than two dozen states, four state agencies, and dozens of industry groups made their way through federal appeals court.

Read more here

Angola Bans Islam All Mosques To Be Destroyed

Posted: March 11, 2016 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized

 

The definition of ignorant is one who does not know, but is capable of learning. The definition of stupid is one who cannot learn. The Republican Party is currently lead by very stupid people.

Mathematically, there are only three realistic avenues for the current Republican Primary:

1. Trump wins outright;
2. Cruz wins outright;
3. No one wins enough delegates and this is decided at the Convention.

 

As of last night, it is mathematically impossible for either Kasich or Rubio to win. Even if one drops out of the race, the remaining states simply do not offer the dedicated delegate counts to place either Kasich or Rubio over the top. Thus, a vote for either of them is effectively a vote for a Brokered Convention.

This is what the RNC Leadership wants. They sincerely believe that they can deny Trump and Cruz an outright win and by doing so, choose a more suitable candidate. They calculate that, despite the grumbling, Hillary Clinton will be so unacceptable to the Republican electorate that Republicans will vote for “Ham Sandwich” if they nominate Ham Sandwich for President. They are wrong.

They are obviously not listening to the nearly 65% of the electorate – many new Republican voters – who are rejecting their message outright. At first I thought they were just ignorant and deaf. Now I am convinced that they are incapable of learning. They are stupid.

THIS is why I left the Republican Party.

Trump’s fans will NOT support a candidate who effectively stole their nominee’s election. Cruz’s fans may be more amenable, but no doubt less enthused. A Brokered Convention will guarantee low or NO turn-out in November.

How do I know? In November 2012 the most unacceptable President in US history cruised to reelection while an uninspiring candidate led a campaign with the zeal of warm milk. Maybe the RNC missed that reality check four years ago. If you steal the nomination from either man, you have no one on the bench that can galvanize Republican support to overcome the anger both candidate’s supporters would feel.

It is now time for the leadership to give up the game and make a choice: Trump of Cruz. Mathematically, that is it. If you are betting on a Brokered Convention, you are betting on a blood bath.

Not that I expect the RNC to listen to me or you. After all, we are just the voters. They “know better” right?

Well, here is an alternative strategy to nip this in the bud immediately and save the Republican Party’s stupid leadership from itself: Trump and Cruz should get on the same stage and say the following, “The mathematical reality is that this race is now between only two candidates – me and him. The only other choice is a brokered convention, which is an attempt to steal your votes. Consequently, Ted and I have come to an agreement: if either of us is leading in the polls, but do not have enough votes to win the nomination outright, the candidate in second place will pledge his delegates to the one who is leading.”

Boom! That would shock the establishment and force them to take both men and their supporters seriously. Would these men or could these men do such a thing? Absolutely. Why? Because it would be the very middle finger to the establishment they both represent.

Will they? Hmmmm… have them give me a call and I will tell them how.

Meanwhile, it is time to make your choice, RNC Leadership. You only have two. You do not have three or four. Learn from 2012 – if you are intellectually capable of doing so or face your undoing.

Assuming you are not as stupid as we think you are.

source

Posted on March 3, 2016 by

It is curious how little military men know about war. You would think they would think about it more. Yet, oddly, they regularly misjudge practically everything concerning the dismal trade. Their errors are not the sort that inevitably must occur in a contest, as when a quarterback doesn’t pick up a blitz. They are fundamental misappreciations of war itself.

The foregoing sounds both arrogant and improbable, like saying that dentists do not understand teeth. Actually it is neither.

The reasons are several. First, the military attracts certain kinds of men—authoritarian, hierarchical, conformist—who are not imaginative and do not think independently. Second, the  appeal of the military is visceral, emotional, hormonal. Neither of these things is true of dentists.

This explains why wars monotonously turn out not to resemble expectations. In WWI, the German command expected a lightning victory via the Schlieffen Plan. It failed, but the foolishness does not lie in the failure. Rather it is in the complete incapacity to foresee that the failure would result in four years of inconclusive static war. Trenches, barbed wire, and machine guns took them by surprise. Yet the existence of all of these things was well known.

This sort of blindness is common, almost normal. At First Manassas in the American Civil War, the armies had no faint idea that they might be embarking on four years of horrendous war, or of the kind of war it would be. When America invaded Vietnam, the Pentagon did not foresee ten years of a losing war. Nor did it have any notion of what would happen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militaries  regularly underestimate the enemy and overestimate their own capacities. The reasons I think are several. One is that morale is important in war and a sober estimation of reality often does not conduce to high morale. For example, you do not tell your troops, “You are mediocre infantry and inferior man for man to the enemy but we have better technology and will rely on this.” Thus American troops are always the finest, best trained and best armed the world has ever seen.

Another and important reason is the Star Wars Effect. In movie theaters watch the audience, and particularly the male part, when the good space ships swoop in, dodging, maneuvering, firing, just on the edge of defeat, the music coming up, and blow the bad guy away. The watchers grip the armrests, sway with the turns of the hero’s spaceship. This visceral, adrenal response to war runs through humanity: The Ride of the Valkyries, The Sands of Iwo Jima, and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Military training aims at the inculcation of a sense of invincibility. Years back at Parris Island a sign read, “The Most Dangerous Thing in the World: A Marine and his Rifle.” It was nonsense, the marines then being decent light infantry but no more, yet we were told endlessly that were unique in the annals of war. This sort of overconfidence has consequences. Sometimes it provides the elan needed to win. Sometimes it leads to disaster.

The unrealistic sense of power is instilled in training by, for example,  running in close formation. The rhythmic thumpthumpthump of fifty pairs of boots unleashes something deep in males. It is the pack instinct, a call to savagery intensified by calling cadence, “Luke the gook comes marching by, stick your bayonet in his eye, lefryelefrylefryelef….” We are the toughest of the tough.

Often the belief in invincibility becomes almost mystical. y. In WWI the French believed in cran, in l’offensive a outrnce, the fighting spirit that was sure to lead to victory. More attention to heavy artillery would  have been prudent. In Japan it was bushido. Yamamoto, who had been in the United States and knew what it was, suggested that starting a war with a country having ten times your industrial potential was not unduly bright. The Army ignored him.

Underestimation of the enemy is a military disease bordering at time on a death wish. Before WWII, the US military tended to regard the Japanese as funny little buck-toothed monkeys with thick glasses. The same monkeys had destroyed the Russian fleet in 1905, fought for years in China with an excellent fighter plane—the Zero—and conducted sophisticated carrier operations. None of this occurred to the Americans…

read the rest @ Fred On Everything here

He Said That? 3/9/16

Posted: March 11, 2016 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized

Robert Gore's avatarSTRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

A powerful reminder to those contriving to somehow subvert the presidential vote this year. From John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), 35th US President, from Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress (March 13, 1962); in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

View original post