Merry Christmas to you all.
“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.”
Luke 2:11
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
OIG Report on "Crossfire Hurricane"
On December 11, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a long awaited report reviewing the four FISA court applications that launched the FBI investigation against members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The report is 480 pages long, more than most people are going to bother reading, so it would be great if there was someone willing to read it and summarize and explain some of the important parts of the report. Well, here I am. For reference, here is the report itself.
Before I get started on that, let me first say that the infamous "Steele Dossier" is mentioned regularly in the OIG report. This is the dossier that was used by the FBI to convince the FISA courts that they had a good reason to start investigating members of the Trump campaign (despite the fact that they themselves had already decided they had enough reason, and had begun doing so as they wished, including with the use of electronic surveillance techniques). In February of last year, I wrote a piece breaking down every part of the six page memo from Representative Devin Nunes that was written about the Steele Dossier. The OIG report states that the FBI lied when they told the courts that the Steele Dossier had been corroborated and and had already been used in some criminal cases. I suppose the courts neglected to verify this? As the Nunes memo stated, and as I explained in my prior piece on that memo, the Dossier was written by Steele, then info was leaked by Steele to Yahoo News, and then Steele used that news report to corroborate the Dossier, an incestuous ring of evidence corroborating itself. I encourage you to read that short piece here.
Now that you've gotten acquainted with the Steele Dossier's dubious origin story and it's crucial nature to the spying the FBI conducted on Trump's campaign, let's move on to this past Wednesday's OIG report reviewing the FBI's four FISA applications in the so called "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation (CHI) that was launched against members of the campaign. This report seems to have concluded that there was rampant fraudulent behavior by the FBI surrounding the CHI from the start. On top of using a dossier that FBI agents knew to be highly politically motivated, they were discovered to have been outright lying to the FISA courts, concealing evidence, cherry-picking documents.
Early in the report, it's stated that at one point, a friendly foreign government (FFG) had reported that a Trump official, George Papadopoulos, had told them that Russia had stated they may "anonymously" release information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The report states that no other information was gathered or used to open the investigation against this particular official, with the goal of finding out if the official was a "witting" source or participant. The report is quoted to say "We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." In my opinion, based on my past professional interactions with both witting and unwitting "participants", this is abnormal behavior of a witting participant and not indicative of any sort of wrongdoing by the official. Also in my past experiences, high ranking officials that frequently interact with FFGs are commonly cooperating directly with CIA officers for regular debriefing communications. You'll notice that this is specifically the case with another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. I would be surprised if it wasn't also the case with Papadopoulos. Any US government official that has dealings with any foreign official at any level is worth a look as a witting debriefing source, if nothing else.
Speaking of Page, it appears in chapter five of the report that the FBI intentionally omitted the fact that Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA and had been in frequent contact with them, exchanging information regarding his connections and dealings with Russian entities, including Russian intelligence collectors. They appear to have used his contact with those entities as a lever to open the investigation on him, despite the fact that he was known to the FBI as a witting source of the CIA for information on those dealings. Are you beginning to see how the world of strategic (as opposed to tactical) intelligence works?
Touching on the insanely fraudulent Steele Dossier, the OIG report's executive summary notes that the FBI was granted a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance against Carter Page based on the dossier and nothing else. However, the report says as well that the FBI was already conducting warrantless "electronic surveillance targeting Page, which is among the most sensitive and intrusive investigative techniques." That is on page V of the summary. Also of note, the foreign intelligence agency Chris Steele had worked for is redacted, but as far as we know, he was with British intelligence. He had a history of doing intelligence reporting on corruption at FIFA, as if we needed an intel agency to tell us that FIFA was corrupt.
On pages VIII and IX you'll see a reference to a "source characterization statement" (SCS). This is a portion of an intelligence information report (IIR) that allows the writer to tell you a short something about the source's validity and reliability while still maintaining your source's anonymity, which is highly important. Divulging a source identity can get people killed and/or landed in prison. The FBI failed firstly to write a true SCS. The one they wrote was a lie, because none of Steele's reporting had ever been used in any criminal cases. Secondly, the FBI agents involved never gained approval from Steele's handler to write this. A source's primary handler is the person to speak to when you need to write the SCS for an IIR based entirely on reporting from that source, because they'll know best you can and can not write in order to maintain anonymity. This is Fort Huachuca schoolhouse level bullshittery. The OIG report states that Steele's handler testified that (s)he would not have signed off on the SCS the way the FBI had written it.
The FBI failed (intentionally?) to do any sort of source deconfliction in this case with regards to Chris Steele. When I was in Korea, I worked at the G2X. "G" is division level, the "2" is the intelligence section, the "X" is the office that manages HUMINT operations at the "G" level. Part of what we did was deconflict sources, basically in order to make sure sources weren't being used by multiple handlers, or feeding everyone different info, or the same info repeated over and over for multiple gains, or other such things. As opposed to "G" level, the FBI should have gone to "J" level, which is the joint level, at the top. This is where you get the CIA, DIA, the Army and Navy, NSA, FBI, Geospatial intel, the NRO, so and so forth, all working under the same intelligence umbrella. The "joint" umbrella. The J2X or some entity handling J2X-type operations, if it was ever involved, should have been able to fix that deconfliction problem. Is this pertinent ground level info for the partisan? In detail, not likely. But it shows that your FBI isn't nearly operating the way it's supposed to be, even down to basic intelligence reporting and source handling.
Page IX also gives a clear picture that the FBI conducted interviews with Page (mutually agreed upon to be recorded), and then cherry-picked the statements that supported their preconceived views and omitted any mitigating statements and inaccuracies in their reporting. When the FBI requested warrant renewals (three times) these errors were repeated. Page XI tells us that Steele was not even correctly reporting information provided by his sub-sources, and that additional reporting by Steele was already being given to the Clinton campaign for their use. The Nunes memo detailed how money originated with the Clinton campaign, was routed through at least two intermediaries (because that's how our betters handle payments) and ended up with Steele to the tune of at least $160k.
Steele was being paid in other ways as well, as summarized at the end of page XI, where the FBI omitted the fact that Steele was being paid to discuss his knowledge with the media, and that Steele himself "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President." What ruling would the FISA courts have made if all of the above information was made available to them?
If you read my link above to the Nunes memo, you'll see a high level of connection between that memo and the OIG report. The Democrat Party is not coming out of this report looking particular healthy in regards to the impeachment/conviction process. Perhaps impeachment is a foregone conclusion since the Democrats absolutely have the votes to get it done today if they want it, but I feel acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate next month is going to keep Trump in the White House. This OIG report has surely weakened the Democrat Party position, or in a sane world, it would.
I highly recommend that you read the executive summary of this report at the very least. The FBI is the flagship of the "deep state" and is not going to be easily uprooted. What we see detailed in this report and the events of the past three years represent nothing less than a real-deal, banana republic coup attempt spearheaded by the likes of Andrew McCabe, James Comey Peter Strzok (CHI lead), Lisa Page (liaison between CHI and McCabe), Chris Steele (a foreign intelligence agent who was paid indirectly by the Clinton campaign), among many others. We see evidence of this by reading pages 66 through 69 in chapter three.
I'll be monitoring the comments section below if anyone has any questions, as I continue to read through this large report. The next couple of weeks are going to be interesting, as will the 2020 Presidential campaign.
Before I get started on that, let me first say that the infamous "Steele Dossier" is mentioned regularly in the OIG report. This is the dossier that was used by the FBI to convince the FISA courts that they had a good reason to start investigating members of the Trump campaign (despite the fact that they themselves had already decided they had enough reason, and had begun doing so as they wished, including with the use of electronic surveillance techniques). In February of last year, I wrote a piece breaking down every part of the six page memo from Representative Devin Nunes that was written about the Steele Dossier. The OIG report states that the FBI lied when they told the courts that the Steele Dossier had been corroborated and and had already been used in some criminal cases. I suppose the courts neglected to verify this? As the Nunes memo stated, and as I explained in my prior piece on that memo, the Dossier was written by Steele, then info was leaked by Steele to Yahoo News, and then Steele used that news report to corroborate the Dossier, an incestuous ring of evidence corroborating itself. I encourage you to read that short piece here.
Now that you've gotten acquainted with the Steele Dossier's dubious origin story and it's crucial nature to the spying the FBI conducted on Trump's campaign, let's move on to this past Wednesday's OIG report reviewing the FBI's four FISA applications in the so called "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation (CHI) that was launched against members of the campaign. This report seems to have concluded that there was rampant fraudulent behavior by the FBI surrounding the CHI from the start. On top of using a dossier that FBI agents knew to be highly politically motivated, they were discovered to have been outright lying to the FISA courts, concealing evidence, cherry-picking documents.
Early in the report, it's stated that at one point, a friendly foreign government (FFG) had reported that a Trump official, George Papadopoulos, had told them that Russia had stated they may "anonymously" release information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The report states that no other information was gathered or used to open the investigation against this particular official, with the goal of finding out if the official was a "witting" source or participant. The report is quoted to say "We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." In my opinion, based on my past professional interactions with both witting and unwitting "participants", this is abnormal behavior of a witting participant and not indicative of any sort of wrongdoing by the official. Also in my past experiences, high ranking officials that frequently interact with FFGs are commonly cooperating directly with CIA officers for regular debriefing communications. You'll notice that this is specifically the case with another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. I would be surprised if it wasn't also the case with Papadopoulos. Any US government official that has dealings with any foreign official at any level is worth a look as a witting debriefing source, if nothing else.
Speaking of Page, it appears in chapter five of the report that the FBI intentionally omitted the fact that Carter Page was an operational contact for the CIA and had been in frequent contact with them, exchanging information regarding his connections and dealings with Russian entities, including Russian intelligence collectors. They appear to have used his contact with those entities as a lever to open the investigation on him, despite the fact that he was known to the FBI as a witting source of the CIA for information on those dealings. Are you beginning to see how the world of strategic (as opposed to tactical) intelligence works?
Touching on the insanely fraudulent Steele Dossier, the OIG report's executive summary notes that the FBI was granted a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance against Carter Page based on the dossier and nothing else. However, the report says as well that the FBI was already conducting warrantless "electronic surveillance targeting Page, which is among the most sensitive and intrusive investigative techniques." That is on page V of the summary. Also of note, the foreign intelligence agency Chris Steele had worked for is redacted, but as far as we know, he was with British intelligence. He had a history of doing intelligence reporting on corruption at FIFA, as if we needed an intel agency to tell us that FIFA was corrupt.
On pages VIII and IX you'll see a reference to a "source characterization statement" (SCS). This is a portion of an intelligence information report (IIR) that allows the writer to tell you a short something about the source's validity and reliability while still maintaining your source's anonymity, which is highly important. Divulging a source identity can get people killed and/or landed in prison. The FBI failed firstly to write a true SCS. The one they wrote was a lie, because none of Steele's reporting had ever been used in any criminal cases. Secondly, the FBI agents involved never gained approval from Steele's handler to write this. A source's primary handler is the person to speak to when you need to write the SCS for an IIR based entirely on reporting from that source, because they'll know best you can and can not write in order to maintain anonymity. This is Fort Huachuca schoolhouse level bullshittery. The OIG report states that Steele's handler testified that (s)he would not have signed off on the SCS the way the FBI had written it.
The FBI failed (intentionally?) to do any sort of source deconfliction in this case with regards to Chris Steele. When I was in Korea, I worked at the G2X. "G" is division level, the "2" is the intelligence section, the "X" is the office that manages HUMINT operations at the "G" level. Part of what we did was deconflict sources, basically in order to make sure sources weren't being used by multiple handlers, or feeding everyone different info, or the same info repeated over and over for multiple gains, or other such things. As opposed to "G" level, the FBI should have gone to "J" level, which is the joint level, at the top. This is where you get the CIA, DIA, the Army and Navy, NSA, FBI, Geospatial intel, the NRO, so and so forth, all working under the same intelligence umbrella. The "joint" umbrella. The J2X or some entity handling J2X-type operations, if it was ever involved, should have been able to fix that deconfliction problem. Is this pertinent ground level info for the partisan? In detail, not likely. But it shows that your FBI isn't nearly operating the way it's supposed to be, even down to basic intelligence reporting and source handling.
Page IX also gives a clear picture that the FBI conducted interviews with Page (mutually agreed upon to be recorded), and then cherry-picked the statements that supported their preconceived views and omitted any mitigating statements and inaccuracies in their reporting. When the FBI requested warrant renewals (three times) these errors were repeated. Page XI tells us that Steele was not even correctly reporting information provided by his sub-sources, and that additional reporting by Steele was already being given to the Clinton campaign for their use. The Nunes memo detailed how money originated with the Clinton campaign, was routed through at least two intermediaries (because that's how our betters handle payments) and ended up with Steele to the tune of at least $160k.
Steele was being paid in other ways as well, as summarized at the end of page XI, where the FBI omitted the fact that Steele was being paid to discuss his knowledge with the media, and that Steele himself "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President." What ruling would the FISA courts have made if all of the above information was made available to them?
If you read my link above to the Nunes memo, you'll see a high level of connection between that memo and the OIG report. The Democrat Party is not coming out of this report looking particular healthy in regards to the impeachment/conviction process. Perhaps impeachment is a foregone conclusion since the Democrats absolutely have the votes to get it done today if they want it, but I feel acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate next month is going to keep Trump in the White House. This OIG report has surely weakened the Democrat Party position, or in a sane world, it would.
I highly recommend that you read the executive summary of this report at the very least. The FBI is the flagship of the "deep state" and is not going to be easily uprooted. What we see detailed in this report and the events of the past three years represent nothing less than a real-deal, banana republic coup attempt spearheaded by the likes of Andrew McCabe, James Comey Peter Strzok (CHI lead), Lisa Page (liaison between CHI and McCabe), Chris Steele (a foreign intelligence agent who was paid indirectly by the Clinton campaign), among many others. We see evidence of this by reading pages 66 through 69 in chapter three.
I'll be monitoring the comments section below if anyone has any questions, as I continue to read through this large report. The next couple of weeks are going to be interesting, as will the 2020 Presidential campaign.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
On giving thanks.
On this Thanksgiving Day, I'd like to mention a bit about the history of the Holiday and tell you all a few things I am thankful for, and give some encouragement to our readers.
Before I get started on that, I first would like to extend my gratitude to our military members who are going to spend their Thanksgiving away from home. I do recall spending Thanksgiving eating off of those paper trays that sag when you pour gravy on them. We called the meals "Hot A" meals. They were the improved fresher cooked alternative to MREs in the field.
The first Thanksgiving events took place between 1619 and 1621 in the area of Plymouth in present-day Massachusetts where the Puritans and Pilgrims had settled. It's documented that there was a feast that was preceded by a good harvest, but the holiday was marked not as one of, by feasting and for feasting, but as a Holy day of thanks given to Almighty God. In fact, it was George Washington who announced the first national Thanksgiving holiday in the United States on November 26 of 1789, stating it was to be "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God". The holiday was made "official" in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, but wasn't fully celebrated throughout the nation until the 1870's saw the end of the Reconstruction period.
As I look at what I have around me and what I've been given by God, I thank Him for my wife and children and the health of us all, for allowing me to find her and have our kids and raise them according to His will, and the health of my parents and siblings and their children, and the health of my wife's parents. I'm thankful to have a grandmother who is alive and doing well almost to the age of 90. I am thankful that my family is living under a solid roof, having clean water and healthy food, for the ability to protect my family and what's been given to us, and to live in a country where despite the faults it has, we are still currently in a position to fix them if we have the will to do it.
The Bible mentions giving thanks many times over, including in Colossians 3:17... "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father."
Many of you will be eating great food with family and watching football this Thanksgiving holiday, but please remember that the day is meant to be a Holy day of thanks to the Lord, and reflection on what you've been given. Take some time to pray and speak with the Lord to thank Him directly for the blessings you have. Focus on your family and the good things you have going on in your life, and try to worry a bit less about the trials you're going through.
Now, as we observe the events that are taking place in the US today, and the events that may be coming, give thanks for where we find ourselves and then steel yourself as the first Pilgrims did for the inevitable hardships that are coming. God helps those who help themselves and who use the time they're given to prepare for the storm, or for the fight. I'm asked many questions by people who know me about the events they see on TV. Is Trump going to be impeached and convicted? Are we heading into a civil war? Is the fiat-debt economy going to collapse? Those are valid questions, but none of those are the right questions to be asking.
The right question is: Are you doing enough with the time and opportunities that you have to be ready for when it happens? Being grateful for what you have also means putting it to good use.
Be thankful, keep your powder dry, and keep your hands busy.
Before I get started on that, I first would like to extend my gratitude to our military members who are going to spend their Thanksgiving away from home. I do recall spending Thanksgiving eating off of those paper trays that sag when you pour gravy on them. We called the meals "Hot A" meals. They were the improved fresher cooked alternative to MREs in the field.
The first Thanksgiving events took place between 1619 and 1621 in the area of Plymouth in present-day Massachusetts where the Puritans and Pilgrims had settled. It's documented that there was a feast that was preceded by a good harvest, but the holiday was marked not as one of, by feasting and for feasting, but as a Holy day of thanks given to Almighty God. In fact, it was George Washington who announced the first national Thanksgiving holiday in the United States on November 26 of 1789, stating it was to be "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God". The holiday was made "official" in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, but wasn't fully celebrated throughout the nation until the 1870's saw the end of the Reconstruction period.
As I look at what I have around me and what I've been given by God, I thank Him for my wife and children and the health of us all, for allowing me to find her and have our kids and raise them according to His will, and the health of my parents and siblings and their children, and the health of my wife's parents. I'm thankful to have a grandmother who is alive and doing well almost to the age of 90. I am thankful that my family is living under a solid roof, having clean water and healthy food, for the ability to protect my family and what's been given to us, and to live in a country where despite the faults it has, we are still currently in a position to fix them if we have the will to do it.
The Bible mentions giving thanks many times over, including in Colossians 3:17... "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father."
Many of you will be eating great food with family and watching football this Thanksgiving holiday, but please remember that the day is meant to be a Holy day of thanks to the Lord, and reflection on what you've been given. Take some time to pray and speak with the Lord to thank Him directly for the blessings you have. Focus on your family and the good things you have going on in your life, and try to worry a bit less about the trials you're going through.
Now, as we observe the events that are taking place in the US today, and the events that may be coming, give thanks for where we find ourselves and then steel yourself as the first Pilgrims did for the inevitable hardships that are coming. God helps those who help themselves and who use the time they're given to prepare for the storm, or for the fight. I'm asked many questions by people who know me about the events they see on TV. Is Trump going to be impeached and convicted? Are we heading into a civil war? Is the fiat-debt economy going to collapse? Those are valid questions, but none of those are the right questions to be asking.
The right question is: Are you doing enough with the time and opportunities that you have to be ready for when it happens? Being grateful for what you have also means putting it to good use.
Be thankful, keep your powder dry, and keep your hands busy.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Basic pointers on getting healthy (that you should probably already know).
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
I think everyone is always looking for the easiest way to do things, and being healthier is no different. It's not necessarily a bad thing to look for an easy way to do something, as it's often effective and efficient. Here are a few pointers that you can probably figure out on your own, but if you had, you'd already be doing them, and if you are, keep it up.
-Stop smoking. That includes vaping and smoking weed. Your lungs are meant to inhale oxygen, and no matter how many ailments and diseases you think that weed is an absolute cure for, you're not ever going to convince this RN that inhaling smoke of any type is healthy.
-Stop drinking soda. Soda is loaded with sugar and is the highest sugar intake item in the regular diet of many Americans. The first thing that many physicians will tell you when you ask "how do I lose a few pounds?" is going to be "cut the soda out." That includes diet soda. If you're looking to get healthy and you mean it, diet soda isn't part of that either.
-No more fast food. This one should be as obvious as the last point. Fast food is way too high in sugar and sodium and is almost always fried. Avoid it, you don't need it.
-Take a multivitamin. A lot of people don't consider this but it really can be beneficial. Vitamins are cheap and easy to make and so you're not going to be paying much for them, and they're not being infused with unhealthy substances to get you addicted to them like fast food and soda are with sugars and caffeine.
-Avoid food and drink vices. You know those people who make jokes (but you know they're being serious) about not being able to function without their morning coffee, or those people who "never" smoke UNLESS they're having a couple of drinks? Don't become one of them. Coffee is not a terrible thing to have but don't become dependent on it. Don't become one of those people who just HAVE to have a night out of heavy drinking every Friday to blow off steam. If you have to do something unhealthy just to unwind on a regular basis, then you need to make some life changes.
-Don't drink regularly, or heavily. Studies are showing that occasional light alcohol use isn't unhealthy, and of course some even say that a little red wine now and then is beneficial. But if you're going through a case of beer per week, it's too much to be healthy. If you're polishing off a fifth of whiskey every four or five days, it's too much to be healthy. If you're getting off work and having a half a bottle of wine before bed, yeah, it's too much to be healthy.
-Drink water. I know they say eight glasses a day is what you need, but who knows how much a "glass" is supposed to be? Try drinking between 1.5 and 2 liters of water per day. Better yet, REPLACE something unhealthy that you're drinking with water instead. Your kidneys will be healthier for it.
-Eat at home. If you can replace restaurant meals outside of the home with meals planned out and shopped for at the grocery store and prepared and cooked at home, you'll likely see some weight loss and increased energy. I'm not talking about package and processed meals. I mean meals that require cooking. You know, like actual RECIPES. You don't have to be a chef and eat farm fresh every meal. Just don't eat out all the time and don't always settle for those overly-processed foods.
-Spend a little more time outside. However much time you spend outside, try to take a little more of your inside downtime and make it OUTSIDE downtime. Even if all you're doing is sitting in your backyard or on your porch or balcony. Open the windows in your house, if it's feasible.
-Start going on walks. A mile or two is really nothing as long as you're not already injured or disabled. If you already go for walks, grab a light pack and make it a ruck. If you're already rucking, then good for you. Grab a long gun to carry along if the laws and the local environment permits it, and if not, carry a 2x4 or something to simulate it.
-Start your day and/or end your evening with a set of crunches and a set of push-ups. It doesn't necessarily have to be a hundred of each, but a small set, increasing a little over time will benefit you. Squats are easy to add to that routine. Stretching in the morning wakes you up and helps to prevent injury through the day's activities.
See that? Simple stuff. Now get it done. If you do all or most of this, you're likely to see positive results in just a couple of weeks.
Side note: Please do not let your kids drink soda, sweet tea or juices that are high in sugar. The pancreas of a young child is not mature enough to be repeatedly dumping insulin for large doses of sugar. Let them drink water so that when they become adults, their pancreas gets a head start and hasn't been forced to compensate for a steady stream of added sugar when it's not yet
I think everyone is always looking for the easiest way to do things, and being healthier is no different. It's not necessarily a bad thing to look for an easy way to do something, as it's often effective and efficient. Here are a few pointers that you can probably figure out on your own, but if you had, you'd already be doing them, and if you are, keep it up.
-Stop smoking. That includes vaping and smoking weed. Your lungs are meant to inhale oxygen, and no matter how many ailments and diseases you think that weed is an absolute cure for, you're not ever going to convince this RN that inhaling smoke of any type is healthy.
-Stop drinking soda. Soda is loaded with sugar and is the highest sugar intake item in the regular diet of many Americans. The first thing that many physicians will tell you when you ask "how do I lose a few pounds?" is going to be "cut the soda out." That includes diet soda. If you're looking to get healthy and you mean it, diet soda isn't part of that either.
-No more fast food. This one should be as obvious as the last point. Fast food is way too high in sugar and sodium and is almost always fried. Avoid it, you don't need it.
-Take a multivitamin. A lot of people don't consider this but it really can be beneficial. Vitamins are cheap and easy to make and so you're not going to be paying much for them, and they're not being infused with unhealthy substances to get you addicted to them like fast food and soda are with sugars and caffeine.
-Avoid food and drink vices. You know those people who make jokes (but you know they're being serious) about not being able to function without their morning coffee, or those people who "never" smoke UNLESS they're having a couple of drinks? Don't become one of them. Coffee is not a terrible thing to have but don't become dependent on it. Don't become one of those people who just HAVE to have a night out of heavy drinking every Friday to blow off steam. If you have to do something unhealthy just to unwind on a regular basis, then you need to make some life changes.
-Don't drink regularly, or heavily. Studies are showing that occasional light alcohol use isn't unhealthy, and of course some even say that a little red wine now and then is beneficial. But if you're going through a case of beer per week, it's too much to be healthy. If you're polishing off a fifth of whiskey every four or five days, it's too much to be healthy. If you're getting off work and having a half a bottle of wine before bed, yeah, it's too much to be healthy.
-Drink water. I know they say eight glasses a day is what you need, but who knows how much a "glass" is supposed to be? Try drinking between 1.5 and 2 liters of water per day. Better yet, REPLACE something unhealthy that you're drinking with water instead. Your kidneys will be healthier for it.
-Eat at home. If you can replace restaurant meals outside of the home with meals planned out and shopped for at the grocery store and prepared and cooked at home, you'll likely see some weight loss and increased energy. I'm not talking about package and processed meals. I mean meals that require cooking. You know, like actual RECIPES. You don't have to be a chef and eat farm fresh every meal. Just don't eat out all the time and don't always settle for those overly-processed foods.
-Spend a little more time outside. However much time you spend outside, try to take a little more of your inside downtime and make it OUTSIDE downtime. Even if all you're doing is sitting in your backyard or on your porch or balcony. Open the windows in your house, if it's feasible.
-Start going on walks. A mile or two is really nothing as long as you're not already injured or disabled. If you already go for walks, grab a light pack and make it a ruck. If you're already rucking, then good for you. Grab a long gun to carry along if the laws and the local environment permits it, and if not, carry a 2x4 or something to simulate it.
-Start your day and/or end your evening with a set of crunches and a set of push-ups. It doesn't necessarily have to be a hundred of each, but a small set, increasing a little over time will benefit you. Squats are easy to add to that routine. Stretching in the morning wakes you up and helps to prevent injury through the day's activities.
See that? Simple stuff. Now get it done. If you do all or most of this, you're likely to see positive results in just a couple of weeks.
Side note: Please do not let your kids drink soda, sweet tea or juices that are high in sugar. The pancreas of a young child is not mature enough to be repeatedly dumping insulin for large doses of sugar. Let them drink water so that when they become adults, their pancreas gets a head start and hasn't been forced to compensate for a steady stream of added sugar when it's not yet
Sunday, November 17, 2019
The ultimate guide to ethical hacking.
Thanks to a reader for emailing this piece on "ethical hacking" to me, an interesting piece regarding how the good guys, or the "white hat hackers", go about helping society defend against the bad guys, or the "black hat hackers".
As you read the piece, try to imagine ways that you could adopt some of the ideas to test your own security, whether it be in cyberspace, or in meatspace (i.e., the real, physical world). Try some vulnerability testing around your own life and discover and remedy your own weaknesses.
Also, note the mention of open source intelligence (OSINT) collection. In the world of hacking and outside of it, a guerrilla must be adept at intelligence gathering, and this involves at least as much OSINT as any other type of intelligence.
As you read the piece, try to imagine ways that you could adopt some of the ideas to test your own security, whether it be in cyberspace, or in meatspace (i.e., the real, physical world). Try some vulnerability testing around your own life and discover and remedy your own weaknesses.
Also, note the mention of open source intelligence (OSINT) collection. In the world of hacking and outside of it, a guerrilla must be adept at intelligence gathering, and this involves at least as much OSINT as any other type of intelligence.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
The Army's two handguns: One shooter's thoughts on the Glock 19 and the Sig Sauer P320
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
I'll go out on a limb and assume that a great many of the readers at American Partisan are aware of the choice made by the US Army to go with the Sig Sauer P320 as the winner of the Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition. The Army started issuing the P320 full sized pistol and the P320 compact pistol, referred to by the Army as the M17 and M18 respectively, to the 101st Airborne Division in November of 2017. That said, the US special operations community has a bit more leeway in their choice of weapons and gear, and in 2015 it was reported that the US Army Rangers, Special Forces groups and 160th SOAR (followed shortly by MARSOC) had chosen to outfit their units with the Glock 19 (4th generation Glocks at that time), while the MHS competition was still ongoing. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley (who was base commander of Fort Hood while I was there in 2013) elected to allow the SOF community to go with the Glock 19 regardless of the outcome of the competition.
Putting recent history aside, as if we can just do that, I'd like to discuss these two handguns and put them beside each other for myself. I own a Sig P320 "compact" that I did send back to Sig when the trigger "recall" occurred. I had not had any problems with my pistol, but since Sig was offering to make it safer and improve the weapon for free and in a timely manner, I gladly took them up on it. I also own a 4th generation Glock 19. The only add-ons to my P320 are a set of night sights that my version came with. My Glock 19 is as stock as stock can be. My version of the P320 would be referred to as the "M18" in Army parlance.
During my time in the Army, I qualified many times with the Beretta M9. Being an intelligence collector, I had to stay qualified with the pistol because we (the intel guys, I mean) all carried them downrange in addition to our long guns. Of all the times I qualified with the M9, which was at least seven times that I recall, starting in 2012 and as recently as the Summer of 2018, I qualified as "expert" every time and I only ever missed a grand total of one target. Assuming that I ran through a pistol qualification course seven times, that's a total score of 209 out of a possible 210. Maybe I'm not the world's greatest gunslinger, but I can hit man-sized targets well enough. And yes, I do like the M9.
Now that you know what I've got, that I actually own these things and that I'm passable as a military pistol shooter, let's get to it.
The Glock 19 9mm was originally released in 1988, and currently there is a 5th generation model. The one I use is 4th generation. The Sig Sauer P320 is a new copy of the 9mm Sig Sauer P250, with the P250's hammer-fired design having been replaced with a striker mechanism. The P320 is modular, being able to convert from 9mm to .40 caliber with some simple parts changes. My model is kept in the 9mm configuartion. Both pistols feature a polymer frame with metal slide, and both have a standard ammo capacity of 15+1. The Glock is 5 inches tall, while the Sig P320 is 5.5 inches tall. The Glock is 1.2 inches wide, the Sig's width is 1.4 inches. The Sig weighs about two ounces more. Both pistols fall into a category of what I like to call "fighting pistols", i.e. larger sized handguns with adequate kinetic energy transfer and higher ammo capacity. I'm not knocking anyone who carries a .380 with seven rounds or wheelguns with five or six, but a fighting pistol is what I prefer to have with me.
Ergonomics lends itself to the personal preferences of the shooter in most situations, but I think we all know that Glock pistols are not well celebrated for their ergonomic advancement. While I prefer carrying the Glock 19 due to simply becoming accustomed to it over the years, I will say that the P320 fits the hand more comfortably. The bore axis of the Glock sits low, closer to the shooter's hands, which technically reduces felt recoil. The Sig does have a higher bore axis, as Sigs are known to have, but the weapon has a short beaver-tail that you can push your grip higher into, hopefully mitigating some of that. Both handguns lack external safety switches on the civilian version, and both have a rail to accommodate lights or lasers.
How the weapons shoot and handle ultimately comes down to the shooters themselves. I am able to shoot well enough with both models, as you'll see below. I have no doubt that I could shoot just as well with a Springfield or a Smith and Wesson, two other top quality weapons. One difference between the G19 and P320 that most Glock shooters will see coming is the trigger mechanism. I have felt and still feel that grindy, rough feeling stock Glock trigger pull. The Sig P320 however, can only be described in one word: Smooth. That's it. This Sig trigger is very smooth and easy feeling. The average Glock 19 trigger pull weight is about 5.5 pounds, while the P320 is about the same at 5.6, albeit with a noticeably shorter travel and a nicer break.
I took these pistols into my backyard range and fired several groups with each from 21 feet away. I went through a "warm-up" magazine with each weapon to make sure I had any rust knocked off (of myself), went through another magazine each to establish a trend and then fired the groups you see below, aiming at the dead center of the target every time (no Kentucky windage) to post here. I used 115-Grain Winchester FMJ. The groups in the photos are representative of the other groups I had fired earlier. In total this session, I fired about 90 rounds. I included the weapon in the images to give you a point of reference on target and group sizes.
For each pistol, I fired a three shot slow-fire group, each shot separated by about one second of time. I followed that up with a five shot quick-fire group, faster than one second each, but not what I would call "rapid-fire".
In the first two photos, you see the G19 performed well grouping the three slow-fired rounds, with a bit of muzzle rise appearing during the five round quick-fire. You can see that I had one round pulled down low, almost missing the page. That's a bad shot on me.
The next photos show the P320, which also had a nice group on the slow-fire. There was a bit more spread on the five round target, but I managed not to pull any shots.
Overall, I'm pleased with the performance of each weapon, and decently satisfied enough with my shooting. Both of these pistols are great fighting pistols and I would highly recommend either one. If I'm able to get my hands on a Springfield or S&W pistol, I'll try to give those a test as well.
I'll go out on a limb and assume that a great many of the readers at American Partisan are aware of the choice made by the US Army to go with the Sig Sauer P320 as the winner of the Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition. The Army started issuing the P320 full sized pistol and the P320 compact pistol, referred to by the Army as the M17 and M18 respectively, to the 101st Airborne Division in November of 2017. That said, the US special operations community has a bit more leeway in their choice of weapons and gear, and in 2015 it was reported that the US Army Rangers, Special Forces groups and 160th SOAR (followed shortly by MARSOC) had chosen to outfit their units with the Glock 19 (4th generation Glocks at that time), while the MHS competition was still ongoing. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley (who was base commander of Fort Hood while I was there in 2013) elected to allow the SOF community to go with the Glock 19 regardless of the outcome of the competition.
Putting recent history aside, as if we can just do that, I'd like to discuss these two handguns and put them beside each other for myself. I own a Sig P320 "compact" that I did send back to Sig when the trigger "recall" occurred. I had not had any problems with my pistol, but since Sig was offering to make it safer and improve the weapon for free and in a timely manner, I gladly took them up on it. I also own a 4th generation Glock 19. The only add-ons to my P320 are a set of night sights that my version came with. My Glock 19 is as stock as stock can be. My version of the P320 would be referred to as the "M18" in Army parlance.
During my time in the Army, I qualified many times with the Beretta M9. Being an intelligence collector, I had to stay qualified with the pistol because we (the intel guys, I mean) all carried them downrange in addition to our long guns. Of all the times I qualified with the M9, which was at least seven times that I recall, starting in 2012 and as recently as the Summer of 2018, I qualified as "expert" every time and I only ever missed a grand total of one target. Assuming that I ran through a pistol qualification course seven times, that's a total score of 209 out of a possible 210. Maybe I'm not the world's greatest gunslinger, but I can hit man-sized targets well enough. And yes, I do like the M9.
Now that you know what I've got, that I actually own these things and that I'm passable as a military pistol shooter, let's get to it.
The Glock 19 9mm was originally released in 1988, and currently there is a 5th generation model. The one I use is 4th generation. The Sig Sauer P320 is a new copy of the 9mm Sig Sauer P250, with the P250's hammer-fired design having been replaced with a striker mechanism. The P320 is modular, being able to convert from 9mm to .40 caliber with some simple parts changes. My model is kept in the 9mm configuartion. Both pistols feature a polymer frame with metal slide, and both have a standard ammo capacity of 15+1. The Glock is 5 inches tall, while the Sig P320 is 5.5 inches tall. The Glock is 1.2 inches wide, the Sig's width is 1.4 inches. The Sig weighs about two ounces more. Both pistols fall into a category of what I like to call "fighting pistols", i.e. larger sized handguns with adequate kinetic energy transfer and higher ammo capacity. I'm not knocking anyone who carries a .380 with seven rounds or wheelguns with five or six, but a fighting pistol is what I prefer to have with me.
Ergonomics lends itself to the personal preferences of the shooter in most situations, but I think we all know that Glock pistols are not well celebrated for their ergonomic advancement. While I prefer carrying the Glock 19 due to simply becoming accustomed to it over the years, I will say that the P320 fits the hand more comfortably. The bore axis of the Glock sits low, closer to the shooter's hands, which technically reduces felt recoil. The Sig does have a higher bore axis, as Sigs are known to have, but the weapon has a short beaver-tail that you can push your grip higher into, hopefully mitigating some of that. Both handguns lack external safety switches on the civilian version, and both have a rail to accommodate lights or lasers.
How the weapons shoot and handle ultimately comes down to the shooters themselves. I am able to shoot well enough with both models, as you'll see below. I have no doubt that I could shoot just as well with a Springfield or a Smith and Wesson, two other top quality weapons. One difference between the G19 and P320 that most Glock shooters will see coming is the trigger mechanism. I have felt and still feel that grindy, rough feeling stock Glock trigger pull. The Sig P320 however, can only be described in one word: Smooth. That's it. This Sig trigger is very smooth and easy feeling. The average Glock 19 trigger pull weight is about 5.5 pounds, while the P320 is about the same at 5.6, albeit with a noticeably shorter travel and a nicer break.
I took these pistols into my backyard range and fired several groups with each from 21 feet away. I went through a "warm-up" magazine with each weapon to make sure I had any rust knocked off (of myself), went through another magazine each to establish a trend and then fired the groups you see below, aiming at the dead center of the target every time (no Kentucky windage) to post here. I used 115-Grain Winchester FMJ. The groups in the photos are representative of the other groups I had fired earlier. In total this session, I fired about 90 rounds. I included the weapon in the images to give you a point of reference on target and group sizes.
For each pistol, I fired a three shot slow-fire group, each shot separated by about one second of time. I followed that up with a five shot quick-fire group, faster than one second each, but not what I would call "rapid-fire".
In the first two photos, you see the G19 performed well grouping the three slow-fired rounds, with a bit of muzzle rise appearing during the five round quick-fire. You can see that I had one round pulled down low, almost missing the page. That's a bad shot on me.
The next photos show the P320, which also had a nice group on the slow-fire. There was a bit more spread on the five round target, but I managed not to pull any shots.
Overall, I'm pleased with the performance of each weapon, and decently satisfied enough with my shooting. Both of these pistols are great fighting pistols and I would highly recommend either one. If I'm able to get my hands on a Springfield or S&W pistol, I'll try to give those a test as well.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Plans and Photos of my Simple Rainwater Catch System
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
When I think about preparedness and survival, I think about the primary priorities in order like this: Shelter, Water, Food and Security. The secondary priorities, once you've handled those first four, go like this: Medical, Intelligence, Communications and Transportation. I'm going to give you some plans for a simple way to start a rainwater collection system to allow you to check your water needs off the list. Try to remember as a starting rule that your survival group is going to need to plan for water usage to the tune of one gallon of water per person, per day. Sometimes this will obviously include some adjustments up and down for different cooking needs, sanitation, medical, etc., but generally speaking, that rule is a good starting point.
Before we start, also take into consideration your local water sources. I personally live in a very riverine area, though I'm not right on the water. So as long as I've done well for myself with transportation, that might be a good option for collecting water. However, I've also got a pretty reliable rainfall pattern (or so I say, as we are currently experiencing our first night of rain in eight weeks). Some of us can often count on decent rainfall, but it would behoove you to store water in the largest amount you can for those weeks (or months) when rain is scarce.
This type of simple system will allow you to funnel rainwater into your reservoir, and also collect from other sources and deposit it in the reservoir yourself. When it's time to use it, or if you want to drain it into smaller ready-to-use jugs or bottles, it'll need to be filtered/purified. My unpaid recommendation is to use a Berkey water filter for that, simply because the "black" filters that company uses are able to filter a very large amount of water before they need to be replaced. Simply take the water from your collection system, pour it through a Berkey or some similar filtration system, and it'll be ready to drink. Without filtering, the water can be used for garden irrigation, pets, possibly even hygiene.
Below you'll see the parts you'll for this simple build laid out on our table. There we have a 1/2" metal hose adaptor and a 1/2" spigot. You'll need two PVC bushings to go onto those and a pair of rubber washers, one for each bushing. Get some Teflon tape to wrap the metal threads of the hose adaptor and spigot. Get a length of garden hose to attach to the hose adaptor later as an overflow valve. I have some black plastic mesh screen and a couple of bungee cords to make a top screen. Use a power drill and a 13/16 spade bit for drilling holes in the barrel. My barrel I'm using is a food grade 55 gallon barrel that I'm told contained Mountain Dew before it came to me. Some sources will have the top cut off for you, but you can use a jig saw or a saws-all to remove if you need to. I advise using food grade plastic rather than something that could rust. Lastly, you need a short length of garden hose, at least three feet, and make sure it's still got the attachment on one end.
Use your drill bit to drill out two holes in the barrel. One hole needs to near the bottom, which is where the spigot will eventually go. Three inches from the bottom should be ok, but don't go too much higher. You don't want to lose access to several inches of water in the bottom. The next hole needs to be near the top, offset at least 90 degrees from the bottom hole. This will be your overflow outlet, hopefully overflowing into another container via the hose you'll attach later. It needs to be offset because we will assume that you will eventually pair this barrel with a second one catching your first barrel's overflow, and you don't want it blocking the spigot below.
With the only section of this project that I would call "work" behind you, you're ready to attach your pieces. Get your Teflon tape and wrap the threads on the narrower end of the hose adaptor, the threads that are going inside the barrel. Take your hose adaptor and push that side through your top drilled hole. If the hole is tight, you might have to screw it in. Reapply Teflon tape if you have to. On the inside, place a rubber washer and then screw the PVC bushing onto the metal adaptor.
You'll follow the same process for the spigot at the bottom. Wrap the metal threads with Teflon tape and push the spigot into the hole. You may need to screw the spigot in if the hole is a tight fit, and if so, make sure the Teflon tape is still in place afterward. Position a rubber washer on the inside and screw the bushing into place.
Take your overflow hose and attach it to the hose adaptor you installed at the top. This hose will drain water into a second container when this container is full.
Secure the mesh screen around the top of the barrel using your bungee cords. You'll need to purify this water coming out before drinking it anyway, but this mesh can prevent leaves, sticks and some bugs or animals from getting inside.
Here is your finished product!
Some notes:
Once you get the system built, fill the barrel all the way up to the overflow hose and let it run out for a few minutes. You're checking for leaks, especially at the bottom around the spigot. That kind of water pressure is likely to cause a leak in that bottom area, so then drain the barrel and take some silicon, caulk or other sealant and seal the leak on the inside and outside. Your overflow hose attachment isn't nearly as likely to leak, nor will it matter as much if it does. There is much less pressure at the top hole than at the bottom. Once your sealant has dried, fill the barrel again and look for leaks.
It's advisable to place your barrel in an elevated position, such as on top of a wooden platform. This allows gravity to work for you and gives space to place a large bucket or tub under the spigot. If you ask me, you need to be able to put a five gallon bucket under the spigot, at least.
Speaking of elevated platforms... If you build one, remember that a gallon of water weighs about 8.3 pounds. When your 55 gallon barrel is full, it'll weigh over 460 pounds, container, parts, water and all. Platforms need to be very strong and stable. My kids play outside, don't yours? Don't make a mistake.
Funnel water from a roof! 500 square feet of roof can funnel 115 gallons of water from just one-half inch of rainfall. That'll fill both your barrel and your overflow barrel if you started empty.
Don't funnel water into your barrel from a shingled roof. These roofs contain contaminants that are extremely difficult to filter out. Try a metal roof or some corrugated plastic sheeting instead, it'll be easier and cheaper than trying to arrange a way to filter out the stuff that shingles will dump into the water. Build yourself a greenhouse from hard plastic and funnel from that.
If your yard has a slope, position your barrels at the higher end if possible. Again, gravity can work in your favor.
Check your local laws. Some municipalities have people in positions of authority who may not respect your right to collect water. Arrange your barrels legally.
When I think about preparedness and survival, I think about the primary priorities in order like this: Shelter, Water, Food and Security. The secondary priorities, once you've handled those first four, go like this: Medical, Intelligence, Communications and Transportation. I'm going to give you some plans for a simple way to start a rainwater collection system to allow you to check your water needs off the list. Try to remember as a starting rule that your survival group is going to need to plan for water usage to the tune of one gallon of water per person, per day. Sometimes this will obviously include some adjustments up and down for different cooking needs, sanitation, medical, etc., but generally speaking, that rule is a good starting point.
Before we start, also take into consideration your local water sources. I personally live in a very riverine area, though I'm not right on the water. So as long as I've done well for myself with transportation, that might be a good option for collecting water. However, I've also got a pretty reliable rainfall pattern (or so I say, as we are currently experiencing our first night of rain in eight weeks). Some of us can often count on decent rainfall, but it would behoove you to store water in the largest amount you can for those weeks (or months) when rain is scarce.
This type of simple system will allow you to funnel rainwater into your reservoir, and also collect from other sources and deposit it in the reservoir yourself. When it's time to use it, or if you want to drain it into smaller ready-to-use jugs or bottles, it'll need to be filtered/purified. My unpaid recommendation is to use a Berkey water filter for that, simply because the "black" filters that company uses are able to filter a very large amount of water before they need to be replaced. Simply take the water from your collection system, pour it through a Berkey or some similar filtration system, and it'll be ready to drink. Without filtering, the water can be used for garden irrigation, pets, possibly even hygiene.
Below you'll see the parts you'll for this simple build laid out on our table. There we have a 1/2" metal hose adaptor and a 1/2" spigot. You'll need two PVC bushings to go onto those and a pair of rubber washers, one for each bushing. Get some Teflon tape to wrap the metal threads of the hose adaptor and spigot. Get a length of garden hose to attach to the hose adaptor later as an overflow valve. I have some black plastic mesh screen and a couple of bungee cords to make a top screen. Use a power drill and a 13/16 spade bit for drilling holes in the barrel. My barrel I'm using is a food grade 55 gallon barrel that I'm told contained Mountain Dew before it came to me. Some sources will have the top cut off for you, but you can use a jig saw or a saws-all to remove if you need to. I advise using food grade plastic rather than something that could rust. Lastly, you need a short length of garden hose, at least three feet, and make sure it's still got the attachment on one end.
Use your drill bit to drill out two holes in the barrel. One hole needs to near the bottom, which is where the spigot will eventually go. Three inches from the bottom should be ok, but don't go too much higher. You don't want to lose access to several inches of water in the bottom. The next hole needs to be near the top, offset at least 90 degrees from the bottom hole. This will be your overflow outlet, hopefully overflowing into another container via the hose you'll attach later. It needs to be offset because we will assume that you will eventually pair this barrel with a second one catching your first barrel's overflow, and you don't want it blocking the spigot below.
With the only section of this project that I would call "work" behind you, you're ready to attach your pieces. Get your Teflon tape and wrap the threads on the narrower end of the hose adaptor, the threads that are going inside the barrel. Take your hose adaptor and push that side through your top drilled hole. If the hole is tight, you might have to screw it in. Reapply Teflon tape if you have to. On the inside, place a rubber washer and then screw the PVC bushing onto the metal adaptor.
You'll follow the same process for the spigot at the bottom. Wrap the metal threads with Teflon tape and push the spigot into the hole. You may need to screw the spigot in if the hole is a tight fit, and if so, make sure the Teflon tape is still in place afterward. Position a rubber washer on the inside and screw the bushing into place.
Take your overflow hose and attach it to the hose adaptor you installed at the top. This hose will drain water into a second container when this container is full.
Secure the mesh screen around the top of the barrel using your bungee cords. You'll need to purify this water coming out before drinking it anyway, but this mesh can prevent leaves, sticks and some bugs or animals from getting inside.
Here is your finished product!
Some notes:
Once you get the system built, fill the barrel all the way up to the overflow hose and let it run out for a few minutes. You're checking for leaks, especially at the bottom around the spigot. That kind of water pressure is likely to cause a leak in that bottom area, so then drain the barrel and take some silicon, caulk or other sealant and seal the leak on the inside and outside. Your overflow hose attachment isn't nearly as likely to leak, nor will it matter as much if it does. There is much less pressure at the top hole than at the bottom. Once your sealant has dried, fill the barrel again and look for leaks.
It's advisable to place your barrel in an elevated position, such as on top of a wooden platform. This allows gravity to work for you and gives space to place a large bucket or tub under the spigot. If you ask me, you need to be able to put a five gallon bucket under the spigot, at least.
Speaking of elevated platforms... If you build one, remember that a gallon of water weighs about 8.3 pounds. When your 55 gallon barrel is full, it'll weigh over 460 pounds, container, parts, water and all. Platforms need to be very strong and stable. My kids play outside, don't yours? Don't make a mistake.
Funnel water from a roof! 500 square feet of roof can funnel 115 gallons of water from just one-half inch of rainfall. That'll fill both your barrel and your overflow barrel if you started empty.
Don't funnel water into your barrel from a shingled roof. These roofs contain contaminants that are extremely difficult to filter out. Try a metal roof or some corrugated plastic sheeting instead, it'll be easier and cheaper than trying to arrange a way to filter out the stuff that shingles will dump into the water. Build yourself a greenhouse from hard plastic and funnel from that.
If your yard has a slope, position your barrels at the higher end if possible. Again, gravity can work in your favor.
Check your local laws. Some municipalities have people in positions of authority who may not respect your right to collect water. Arrange your barrels legally.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Survival and Bushcraft Shelters by Aspiring Caveman
Survival and bushcraft shelters
Originally written by "Aspiring Caveman" at the Survivalist Boards Forum. The Gray Man's words below will be italicized.
1. Cold-Weather Debris Hut
This shelter may be the most familiar to those acquainted with primitive survival. The most basic setup for one of these only requires the two longer sides with the front left open. They are only meant to keep you out of the rain, shield you from the wind and provide shade. This particular one is dubbed “cold-weather” because it has a front, it’s well insulated from the bottom and has an entrance that can be plugged. I am particularly proud of door plug here. I’m sure it has been done before, but I had to discover this for myself. It is – by far – the simplest and easiest means to completely insulate yourself from the elements in debris hut. *This one is very doable in my area, and unless you're caught in a downpour, it should keep you fairly dry and importantly, keep the mosquitoes away. This one is very well camouflaged with the earth if you decide to do an above-ground structure. Even if you are in the Deep South, cold weather injuries can still happen.
2. Open Shed with Reed-Thatched Roof
This structure may be the most unique out of all five. Technically speaking, the structure is formed by stacking the logs in a particular way and it is held together by nothing but gravity. Full disclosure: I decided to tie the junctions with paracord simply because just sliding one of the beams out, any one of them, will cause the entire thing to come down. It is unlikely to happen, I just didn’t want to have to worry about it. For this very reason, I will say: DO NOT try this at home!
3. Long-Term Survival Hut, Rammed-Earth Walls, Debris Roof
This a tiny little thing, you can only sleep in it curled-up. Many people expect the outer walls to be “daubed” but it was designed as rammed-earth-wall shelter. The debris roof – because of the way the leaves are stacked – actually sheds the water to the edge of the walls. I only get a little bit of leakage in one section where the wall ended up being only about 4-inches wide. And no, it does NOT turn into a pool in heavy rain because it was built on a slight mound. *There is a lot of chopping and some batoning to be done on this structure, and it would behoove you to carry a knife capable of that job. One I recommend is the Becker BK-2 knife. I've used it to chop fallen trees in making a quick survival shelter when I was on the river and noticed a storm coming in.
4. Adobe Cabin with Cedar Bark Roof
This was my first major bushcraft build. The walls are a mixture of muck, clay and sand with a good chunk of pine needles in the mix. The roof consists of two distinct shingled cedar bark layers. This was the most amount of work out of the five shelters represented in this video, but it was well worth it because it got me through the winter!
5. Insulated Scout Pit
A scout pit can serve to different functions. It is actually a long-term shelter that keep you hidden from prying eyes. These can be built on route from A to B if the journey requires an overnight stay in hostile territory. It can also serve as cache site for various supplies in case of a catastrophe. Once the landscape has a chance to settle back to what it was before, you can stand right on this thing and not know it’s there. Is it waterproof? – you might ask. It depends on the amount of rain, I guess. So far, it has only seen seasonally-appropriate fall precipitation and the inside stayed dry. That much rain just gets absorbed by the soil on top without leaking through. *Building a scout pit should be valuable knowledge for AP readers based on the political environment we are looking at in the US. Do you think something like this would be useful if you are living in South Africa, Mexico or Venezuela? When building this type of structure, try to be mindful of the disturbed earth surrounding it. I can't predict who you're going to be hiding from if you find yourself inside one of these, but let me just say that the US is full of fighting men who got good at noticing disturbed earth in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to spot IEDs, especially the "command wire" variety. If you don't take care to really make this look right, it could be picked out in an instant.
Originally written by "Aspiring Caveman" at the Survivalist Boards Forum. The Gray Man's words below will be italicized.
1. Cold-Weather Debris Hut
This shelter may be the most familiar to those acquainted with primitive survival. The most basic setup for one of these only requires the two longer sides with the front left open. They are only meant to keep you out of the rain, shield you from the wind and provide shade. This particular one is dubbed “cold-weather” because it has a front, it’s well insulated from the bottom and has an entrance that can be plugged. I am particularly proud of door plug here. I’m sure it has been done before, but I had to discover this for myself. It is – by far – the simplest and easiest means to completely insulate yourself from the elements in debris hut. *This one is very doable in my area, and unless you're caught in a downpour, it should keep you fairly dry and importantly, keep the mosquitoes away. This one is very well camouflaged with the earth if you decide to do an above-ground structure. Even if you are in the Deep South, cold weather injuries can still happen.
2. Open Shed with Reed-Thatched Roof
This structure may be the most unique out of all five. Technically speaking, the structure is formed by stacking the logs in a particular way and it is held together by nothing but gravity. Full disclosure: I decided to tie the junctions with paracord simply because just sliding one of the beams out, any one of them, will cause the entire thing to come down. It is unlikely to happen, I just didn’t want to have to worry about it. For this very reason, I will say: DO NOT try this at home!
3. Long-Term Survival Hut, Rammed-Earth Walls, Debris Roof
This a tiny little thing, you can only sleep in it curled-up. Many people expect the outer walls to be “daubed” but it was designed as rammed-earth-wall shelter. The debris roof – because of the way the leaves are stacked – actually sheds the water to the edge of the walls. I only get a little bit of leakage in one section where the wall ended up being only about 4-inches wide. And no, it does NOT turn into a pool in heavy rain because it was built on a slight mound. *There is a lot of chopping and some batoning to be done on this structure, and it would behoove you to carry a knife capable of that job. One I recommend is the Becker BK-2 knife. I've used it to chop fallen trees in making a quick survival shelter when I was on the river and noticed a storm coming in.
4. Adobe Cabin with Cedar Bark Roof
This was my first major bushcraft build. The walls are a mixture of muck, clay and sand with a good chunk of pine needles in the mix. The roof consists of two distinct shingled cedar bark layers. This was the most amount of work out of the five shelters represented in this video, but it was well worth it because it got me through the winter!
5. Insulated Scout Pit
A scout pit can serve to different functions. It is actually a long-term shelter that keep you hidden from prying eyes. These can be built on route from A to B if the journey requires an overnight stay in hostile territory. It can also serve as cache site for various supplies in case of a catastrophe. Once the landscape has a chance to settle back to what it was before, you can stand right on this thing and not know it’s there. Is it waterproof? – you might ask. It depends on the amount of rain, I guess. So far, it has only seen seasonally-appropriate fall precipitation and the inside stayed dry. That much rain just gets absorbed by the soil on top without leaking through. *Building a scout pit should be valuable knowledge for AP readers based on the political environment we are looking at in the US. Do you think something like this would be useful if you are living in South Africa, Mexico or Venezuela? When building this type of structure, try to be mindful of the disturbed earth surrounding it. I can't predict who you're going to be hiding from if you find yourself inside one of these, but let me just say that the US is full of fighting men who got good at noticing disturbed earth in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to spot IEDs, especially the "command wire" variety. If you don't take care to really make this look right, it could be picked out in an instant.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
A Brief on Developing Commo Plans with HUMINT Sources
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
When you've got a witting person that you are getting a flow of intelligence from, it's becomes necessary to put a communication plan in place with them. Considering a commo plan, you have to know how and when you're going to be able to get into contact with a source in a non-permissive environment. These communications need to be reliable and secure, and the source needs to be aware of situations that dictate switching to a secondary plan.
Speaking of secondary plans, you'll have to break down your whole commo plan into three parts, those being your primary commo plan, your secondary commo plan and your contingency commo plan. You can think of that last one as an emergency plan.
I'm not going to dictate specifics on exactly how your plans need to be set up, because that will come down to your situation and environment, and because this subject can very quickly dive into classified techniques that I'm not inclined to even hint at. You'll need to be sure that your source has a reliable way to get in touch with you when they have time sensitive or urgent info. If the primary method fails, they'll need to know to contact you via a secondary method. In the event this fails, the contingency plan will go into effect. Each plan needs to be progressively more secure and reliable. Your plans can include simple phone contact, email, or even face to face meetings. Dead drops are an option, though are best used as a contingency plan, and still may require a way to signal that a drop has been made, or else a dead drop is going to need to be routinely checked.
I'll give you a rough idea of one of the plans I had with sources when I was in a non-combat environment, but one I'll say was still "made of ears", if you get the meaning.
I had a phone that was used only for communications with sources or potential sources. We had a plan where we would make a phone call every so often per week. Regardless of whether there was information sharing going on, there was always a phone call made at those times. At the very least we would schedule our next primary call or meeting plan, and briefly discuss our secondary plan if it failed. The secondary plan usually consisted of alternate phones or numbers, an alternate date and time, or rarely even a place and time for meeting face to face. Then we'd quickly rehash our contingency plan, which was more of an emergency method of contact. Depending on the source's accessibility and reliability, this could range anywhere from yet another phone call, to an email, a face to face meeting or even a dead drop or other tradecrafty means of communication.
I know I'm a little light on details and specifics, and that's for a good reason. But I think you get the idea. If you're receiving information from someone, then there needs to be a well made plan that allows both of you to get in touch with each other at set intervals, with multiple methods, that allows both delayed and instant communications, and that will be secure and keep both of you safe from message interception. The point of this plan to ensure that neither of you are left wondering where the other guy is, or if the other guy is alright, or why the other guy is late.
When you've got a witting person that you are getting a flow of intelligence from, it's becomes necessary to put a communication plan in place with them. Considering a commo plan, you have to know how and when you're going to be able to get into contact with a source in a non-permissive environment. These communications need to be reliable and secure, and the source needs to be aware of situations that dictate switching to a secondary plan.
Speaking of secondary plans, you'll have to break down your whole commo plan into three parts, those being your primary commo plan, your secondary commo plan and your contingency commo plan. You can think of that last one as an emergency plan.
I'm not going to dictate specifics on exactly how your plans need to be set up, because that will come down to your situation and environment, and because this subject can very quickly dive into classified techniques that I'm not inclined to even hint at. You'll need to be sure that your source has a reliable way to get in touch with you when they have time sensitive or urgent info. If the primary method fails, they'll need to know to contact you via a secondary method. In the event this fails, the contingency plan will go into effect. Each plan needs to be progressively more secure and reliable. Your plans can include simple phone contact, email, or even face to face meetings. Dead drops are an option, though are best used as a contingency plan, and still may require a way to signal that a drop has been made, or else a dead drop is going to need to be routinely checked.
I'll give you a rough idea of one of the plans I had with sources when I was in a non-combat environment, but one I'll say was still "made of ears", if you get the meaning.
I had a phone that was used only for communications with sources or potential sources. We had a plan where we would make a phone call every so often per week. Regardless of whether there was information sharing going on, there was always a phone call made at those times. At the very least we would schedule our next primary call or meeting plan, and briefly discuss our secondary plan if it failed. The secondary plan usually consisted of alternate phones or numbers, an alternate date and time, or rarely even a place and time for meeting face to face. Then we'd quickly rehash our contingency plan, which was more of an emergency method of contact. Depending on the source's accessibility and reliability, this could range anywhere from yet another phone call, to an email, a face to face meeting or even a dead drop or other tradecrafty means of communication.
I know I'm a little light on details and specifics, and that's for a good reason. But I think you get the idea. If you're receiving information from someone, then there needs to be a well made plan that allows both of you to get in touch with each other at set intervals, with multiple methods, that allows both delayed and instant communications, and that will be secure and keep both of you safe from message interception. The point of this plan to ensure that neither of you are left wondering where the other guy is, or if the other guy is alright, or why the other guy is late.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
There is a problem in Hungary, and a problem in greater Europe.
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
The Gates of Vienna blog has a piece detailing what went wrong in the local elections in Hungary. It appears that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz Party have lost a lot of ground in the recent round of local elections. This is significant because the opposition there is largely built from Communist and Socialist entities who've been pushing hard to fling the doors open on the Hungarian borders to allow massive hordes of North African and Middle Eastern refugees inside.
Hungary, along with Poland and a few Eastern European countries have been feeling the pressure from the globalists. Those few states have been holding back the tide of third world migrants, attempting to hold true to their more stable and generally homogenous societies, feeling no absolute moral obligation to cripple their own economies and destroy their own cultures just in the name of helping people who are not coming for the purpose of being helped.
The majority of refugees coming into European countries (or across the US Southern border) should not be allowed to have any sort of refugee status. According to international law (Yeah...) in order to claim asylum, a refugee must apply for the status in the first "safe country" they arrive in. They can not simply continue traveling (through the Middle East or South America) looking for their ideal
targetdestination. A very large percentage of the refugees coming into Europe, nearly half, are military aged males according to Pew Research. Also, the majority of "unaccompanied minors" are teenage boys, most of them from Afghanistan. There are a lot of reports of males over the age of 20 claiming to be teenage children, and most do not have identification. As a former intelligence collector I have some professional experience in dealing with Afghan "identification", and I recall that the Afghan government would hand out identification documents based on whoever you told them you were. That's it. So 23 year old "Saib" is suddenly 16 year old "Ali" now, and "Ali" is permitted refugee status and welcomed into a home in Sweden, Belgium or Germany as a 16 year old.
Much of Europe is already at the breaking point. Britain's prisons are already majority Muslim. Sweden is experiencing near daily grenade attacks. Molenbeek, Belgium is virtually one large no-go zone for white people and police. These are the kinds of situations Hungary, Poland and others are trying to avoid by closing their doors to the masses of foreign asylum-seekers, but the forces of Communism are slowly making progress in these places, the last bastions of Christian Western civilization standing in Europe.
With the African birth rate skyrocketing and the European birthrate flat lining, it doesn't take much thought to imagine what the future holds. While governments in Europe might not be able to "officially" scoop up new refugees by the thousands and bring them into their borders, there will always be some mysterious NGOs to pop up out of nowhere with just the right equipment and transportation means to bring them over themselves. One wonders how there is always a conveniently situated NGO right where they need to be with exactly the resources they need to get done what the governments want done, but can't do themselves. One example from a few years ago is when there were fleets of large black rubber boats appearing on the shores of North Africa without much attention on how they got there or who paid for them. I recall our own Matt Bracken doing some research on the event and finding Soros money behind it, predictably.
What's the difference between state governments and NGOs when the NGOs are just doing the dirty work of the state governments, and both are profiting?
I read a while back that Viktor Orbán might be the guy that American conservatives hoped Donald Trump would be. In my opinion, Trump is a pragmatist (or attempts to be) while Orbán appears to be the cultural idealist that Americans sought in voting for Trump.
Keep one eye on world events, the other on your family, one hand in the dirt and the other on your gun. And as always, stay out of Sarajevo.
The Gates of Vienna blog has a piece detailing what went wrong in the local elections in Hungary. It appears that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz Party have lost a lot of ground in the recent round of local elections. This is significant because the opposition there is largely built from Communist and Socialist entities who've been pushing hard to fling the doors open on the Hungarian borders to allow massive hordes of North African and Middle Eastern refugees inside.
Hungary, along with Poland and a few Eastern European countries have been feeling the pressure from the globalists. Those few states have been holding back the tide of third world migrants, attempting to hold true to their more stable and generally homogenous societies, feeling no absolute moral obligation to cripple their own economies and destroy their own cultures just in the name of helping people who are not coming for the purpose of being helped.
The majority of refugees coming into European countries (or across the US Southern border) should not be allowed to have any sort of refugee status. According to international law (Yeah...) in order to claim asylum, a refugee must apply for the status in the first "safe country" they arrive in. They can not simply continue traveling (through the Middle East or South America) looking for their ideal
Much of Europe is already at the breaking point. Britain's prisons are already majority Muslim. Sweden is experiencing near daily grenade attacks. Molenbeek, Belgium is virtually one large no-go zone for white people and police. These are the kinds of situations Hungary, Poland and others are trying to avoid by closing their doors to the masses of foreign asylum-seekers, but the forces of Communism are slowly making progress in these places, the last bastions of Christian Western civilization standing in Europe.
With the African birth rate skyrocketing and the European birthrate flat lining, it doesn't take much thought to imagine what the future holds. While governments in Europe might not be able to "officially" scoop up new refugees by the thousands and bring them into their borders, there will always be some mysterious NGOs to pop up out of nowhere with just the right equipment and transportation means to bring them over themselves. One wonders how there is always a conveniently situated NGO right where they need to be with exactly the resources they need to get done what the governments want done, but can't do themselves. One example from a few years ago is when there were fleets of large black rubber boats appearing on the shores of North Africa without much attention on how they got there or who paid for them. I recall our own Matt Bracken doing some research on the event and finding Soros money behind it, predictably.
What's the difference between state governments and NGOs when the NGOs are just doing the dirty work of the state governments, and both are profiting?
I read a while back that Viktor Orbán might be the guy that American conservatives hoped Donald Trump would be. In my opinion, Trump is a pragmatist (or attempts to be) while Orbán appears to be the cultural idealist that Americans sought in voting for Trump.
Keep one eye on world events, the other on your family, one hand in the dirt and the other on your gun. And as always, stay out of Sarajevo.
The Novelty of Placing our Active Duty Military on our Actual Border.
A novel idea of border security is to place our active duty military on our actual border. Last I checked, the purpose of a national military force is for defense of the homeland, which specifically includes the defense of those borders. I've been told by a great many people on both the "left" and "right" sides of the aisle that somehow this is just not doable. Either the border is too long or it's an unnecessary move or it's too costly, or some other such excuses. My rebuttals:
-There are a great many highly secure borders in the world. Israel's borders are highly secure even though they're attacked fairly regularly. They have placed their military on their border and erected barriers, and are actively guarding them with both manpower and the best tech they can get their hands on. South Korea has a border that millions would love to cross, but few have dared to try and fewer still have made it. They guard it with their military and with OUR military as well. Don't tell me we have no men who know how to guard a border. We have plenty. Hungary and Poland have borders that thousands of North African and Middle Eastern migrants are attempting (and failing) to cross daily, and if they ever make it at some point, it will have more to do with communist infiltration in their respective political systems than it will with military incapability. They are currently holding those lines well as long as they maintain the support of the people who make the rules. India and Pakistan have a fairly secure border, guarded with barriers and enthusiastic soldiers.
-The US military is currently deploying hundreds of thousands of our young men and women to secure hundreds (if not thousands) of embassies, compounds, bases, forts, FOBs, outposts and camps throughout the world. What would be the square mileage of those areas we currently secure around the globe? I believe that by bringing some of those troops back here and placing them along our 2,000 mile border with Mexico, and putting them there on a combat footing rather than a paper pushing "advise and assist" role, our border crossing could be cut drastically. We are currently rotating the US Army brigades and divisions through combat deployments to Afghanistan (18 years later still). What if we rotated them through combat deployments on our border instead? Same guys, same weapons, same equipment, slightly different mission. We have to keep the cartels off of our border.
-Deploying Army divisions to the border would be much cheaper than deploying them across the globe. Southern Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California aren't going to cost nearly as much as Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan or any of the other dozens of spots our troops are securing right now. And they'll never have to ask "what are we doing here again?"
-The cartels and smugglers on the southern border have become a major threat to US national security (or have been for years). They are at least as sophisticated as any terrorist group overseas, just as motivated and are probably more aggressive and creative with their methods. Additionally, they're already here. Already starting conflicts inside our borders. Already killing US citizens. Infiltrating our neighborhoods. They have supply and sale contacts in your town, right now, if not actual armed soldiers. Some of our law enforcement know exactly who they are and where they are. Some of them openly wear their colors and tattoos. They're unafraid for a reason. If we aren't defending our border, then we aren't defending the interior.
I suspect that the lack of border security has more to do with a lack of willpower on the part of our national leadership than it does lack of ability on the part of our military. Unfortunately I believe that even our high level military leadership may lack the will to make these proposals. Fighting Afghan insurgents must be preferable to fighting drug cartels south of the border.
I tell people to "stay out of Sarajevo" as a way of telling them to avoid the trouble spots. But what happens when the trouble spots come to you? Ammo, buy it cheap and stack it deep. You'll need it. Try Ammo.com. Look to Brownell's for replacement gun parts. If our leadership isn't going to use our military to defend our actual national border, then it will come down to you to protect your border, wherever that may be. Be prepared to do so.
-There are a great many highly secure borders in the world. Israel's borders are highly secure even though they're attacked fairly regularly. They have placed their military on their border and erected barriers, and are actively guarding them with both manpower and the best tech they can get their hands on. South Korea has a border that millions would love to cross, but few have dared to try and fewer still have made it. They guard it with their military and with OUR military as well. Don't tell me we have no men who know how to guard a border. We have plenty. Hungary and Poland have borders that thousands of North African and Middle Eastern migrants are attempting (and failing) to cross daily, and if they ever make it at some point, it will have more to do with communist infiltration in their respective political systems than it will with military incapability. They are currently holding those lines well as long as they maintain the support of the people who make the rules. India and Pakistan have a fairly secure border, guarded with barriers and enthusiastic soldiers.
-The US military is currently deploying hundreds of thousands of our young men and women to secure hundreds (if not thousands) of embassies, compounds, bases, forts, FOBs, outposts and camps throughout the world. What would be the square mileage of those areas we currently secure around the globe? I believe that by bringing some of those troops back here and placing them along our 2,000 mile border with Mexico, and putting them there on a combat footing rather than a paper pushing "advise and assist" role, our border crossing could be cut drastically. We are currently rotating the US Army brigades and divisions through combat deployments to Afghanistan (18 years later still). What if we rotated them through combat deployments on our border instead? Same guys, same weapons, same equipment, slightly different mission. We have to keep the cartels off of our border.
-Deploying Army divisions to the border would be much cheaper than deploying them across the globe. Southern Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California aren't going to cost nearly as much as Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan or any of the other dozens of spots our troops are securing right now. And they'll never have to ask "what are we doing here again?"
-The cartels and smugglers on the southern border have become a major threat to US national security (or have been for years). They are at least as sophisticated as any terrorist group overseas, just as motivated and are probably more aggressive and creative with their methods. Additionally, they're already here. Already starting conflicts inside our borders. Already killing US citizens. Infiltrating our neighborhoods. They have supply and sale contacts in your town, right now, if not actual armed soldiers. Some of our law enforcement know exactly who they are and where they are. Some of them openly wear their colors and tattoos. They're unafraid for a reason. If we aren't defending our border, then we aren't defending the interior.
I suspect that the lack of border security has more to do with a lack of willpower on the part of our national leadership than it does lack of ability on the part of our military. Unfortunately I believe that even our high level military leadership may lack the will to make these proposals. Fighting Afghan insurgents must be preferable to fighting drug cartels south of the border.
I tell people to "stay out of Sarajevo" as a way of telling them to avoid the trouble spots. But what happens when the trouble spots come to you? Ammo, buy it cheap and stack it deep. You'll need it. Try Ammo.com. Look to Brownell's for replacement gun parts. If our leadership isn't going to use our military to defend our actual national border, then it will come down to you to protect your border, wherever that may be. Be prepared to do so.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Happy Veteran’s Day
Happy Veteran’s Day to those who’ve served. Enjoy your discounted food and handshakes, and remember to keep preparing for the next war, the one where enlistment status doesn’t matter.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Heading back to South Africa this month
I am sorry I have not had the time to write or share with all of you over the past 6 months or so.
I am overwhelmed with my work in South Africa.
I am currently holding a fundraiser to help my next trip this month where I will be working to aid the individuals and organizations focusing on hindering the sponsored violence against unarmed civilians/ women and children.
link to my fundraiser for who ever is interested.
link to fundraiser - https://www.facebook.com/donate/438093430179695/10156595522236301/
link to trailer for my new documentary South Africa: Stop The Bleeding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r3tRofsOOI
I am overwhelmed with my work in South Africa.
I am currently holding a fundraiser to help my next trip this month where I will be working to aid the individuals and organizations focusing on hindering the sponsored violence against unarmed civilians/ women and children.
link to my fundraiser for who ever is interested.
link to fundraiser - https://www.facebook.com/donate/438093430179695/10156595522236301/
link to trailer for my new documentary South Africa: Stop The Bleeding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r3tRofsOOI
Friday, November 1, 2019
Sorry for the delay again.
Been working on some stuff for American Partisan and I’ll have some of that stuff posted here soon and over the next couple of weeks. I’ll put up some of the good things our other people are doing.
Also, I am (once again) officially a college student. My wife and I, both. Lord help us.
Also, I am (once again) officially a college student. My wife and I, both. Lord help us.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
To Hell with China. And no, I will not be re-educated.
Support the fight of Hong Kong against an oppressive Chinese Communist government. Support ALL peoples’ fights against them.
Will you be re-educated?
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
People will always find the time to do what they want to do.
If there is something someone really wants to do, they’ll find the time, they’ll make the time, to do it. If there is something they don’t want to do, something they don’t enjoy or want, they’ll find every reason not to. They’ll allow every small obstacle to impede them, to stop them, and they won’t even attempt to find a way around it, no matter how simple the solution is. On the other hand, any obstacle to doing what they really want to do will be overcome, and if they have to shelve other priorities to do it, then so be it.
This is the way of things for people in the world, in a society, in a home, and the likelihood of it changing is slim to none.
This is the way of things for people in the world, in a society, in a home, and the likelihood of it changing is slim to none.
Friday, October 4, 2019
T.E. Lawrence, a master of guerrilla warfare.
There have been many examinations of the life and exploits of Thomas Edward Lawrence, CB, DSO, better known as T.E. Lawrence, or even more so as "Lawrence of Arabia". In this writer's opinion, there can not be enough examinations of such an outstanding existence as the one lived by T.E. Lawrence. Perhaps the readers here will not learn anything new about the man from this short piece, but if all that you take from this piece is a reminder that such a human lived, and lived well, then that is enough. Obviously there are a great many things that we in our community of “Freedomistas” and liberty lovers, or dare I call us guerrilla partisans at the risk of triggering an "ERPO", can learn and apply to our cause going forward.
Born in Wales in 1888, T.E. Lawrence went on to become a British Army intelligence officer during World War I. He was sent to Saudi Arabia in 1916 where he eventually became involved in the Arab Revolt and the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. He used his strategic genius to guide guerrilla activities, counseled factions to work together, planned and executed guerrilla activities and worked up to the level of military advisor for high ranking personnel. Upon his arrival in the theatre, he quickly recognized that the forces he was fighting with were not at the level of the regular Turkish/Ottoman troops, and he therefore convinced and committed the local tribesmen to guerrilla warfare with great success.
In examining Lawrence's writings and writings about him, we see the foundation of what it is to operate as a guerrilla force. Attacking supply lines, communications, striking the enemy at their weak points while avoiding their strengths. Lawrence was able to embed himself with the local Arab populations, blend in well (despite being unmistakably a white Brit) by learning "their language their manners and their mentality", as said by General Allenby, and live amongst them for months at a time with little to no support from higher up any chain of command. If there is to be a "Guerrilla Warfare 101" textbook, let it be the life of T.E. Lawrence, or maybe more so, his autobiography "Revolt in the Desert".
Having read several substantial texts on Lawrence, one takes notice of a favorite tactic, that is the destruction of railroads used by the Ottomans to move troops from one stronghold to another. On at least several occasions, Lawrence himself used explosives to destroy rails and trains, allowing his small band of Bedouin Arabs to outmatch larger numbers of soldiers who were focused on trying to escape the wreckage. This caused the Ottomans to commit larger amounts of resources to defending areas that otherwise had little strategic value. When the Ottomans moved soldiers to a location, Lawrence and his wild band of fighters would simply relocate and attack the next vulnerable target.
Likewise was his strategy against communication wires. It was an easy target that required minimal resources, minimal manpower, short time and just a small risk, while the Ottomans had to once again commit resources to repairing and defending the lines. Resources that were moved by rail. The main objective is to magnify your advantages, mitigate your disadvantages, while neutralizing or avoiding your enemy's strengths and punishing their weaknesses. Only a few small victories by a guerrilla force can effectively demoralize a larger and well equipped enemy. Lawrence used this to great effect.
Another key point to be learned from Lawrence is a lesson in OPSEC. Operating in a guerrilla environment means one needs to be practicing OPSEC at all times, and Lawrence was a master at it, even keeping the details of some of his missions a secret from his own superiors.
Something else we can observe is how adept he was at climbing the hierarchy of whatever local leadership was in place, and getting himself into a position of great influence and trust. I've said before to people who know me that if you want to be famous or well known, get yourself elected to office. But if you want to have some real influence, find who is in charge and become their advisor. Lawrence was a natural at this, at one point gaining enough influence to convince military leadership of how to go about fighting in the theatre during the Arab Revolt.
I highly recommend reading T.E. Lawrence's writings. There has possibly not been a better representation of a true guerrilla warrior in modern times, and it behooves us all to absorb what we can from the greats that came before us if we stand any chance at regaining what our enemies seek to take away.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
The Pentagon fired the man in charge of saving money
Shay Assad was in charge of negotiating contracts with defense industry corporations, and a couple of years after Trump came into office saying he would save us billions in defense costs, Assad was fired.
With Boeing, Raytheon and Textron executives occupying some of the top civil service positions at the Pentagon, is it any wonder that we have such a massive defense budget? I don't have any ill will against those companies, as I've ridden in their planes and used some of their gear, but I'm not inclined to believe that those companies should have their people working inside the Pentagon. That is a big conflict of interest.
Seems Shay Assad was (and had been for over a decade) getting in the way of the cash flow to these companies and others. Ellen Lord was hired in the middle of 2017 as the Pentagon's head "weapons buyer", and had been the CEO of Textron Systems. She is the one who eventually pushed Assad out of the Pentagon and into retirement.
I myself have witnessed military wasteful spending on a scale smaller than this, but then again, I'm a nobody. I've seen shipping containers filled with military gear that had little to no chance of ever seeing the light of day outside of the "conex yard", unless you want to count the inventory done by the XO every six months. Those inventories will usually result in "discovering" some minor missing gear that absolutely MUST be replaced with taxpayer money. Those missing pieces would be stored in the conex to be inventoried again later, where inevitably some other piece of gear would be missing.
Rinse and repeat.
With Boeing, Raytheon and Textron executives occupying some of the top civil service positions at the Pentagon, is it any wonder that we have such a massive defense budget? I don't have any ill will against those companies, as I've ridden in their planes and used some of their gear, but I'm not inclined to believe that those companies should have their people working inside the Pentagon. That is a big conflict of interest.
Seems Shay Assad was (and had been for over a decade) getting in the way of the cash flow to these companies and others. Ellen Lord was hired in the middle of 2017 as the Pentagon's head "weapons buyer", and had been the CEO of Textron Systems. She is the one who eventually pushed Assad out of the Pentagon and into retirement.
I myself have witnessed military wasteful spending on a scale smaller than this, but then again, I'm a nobody. I've seen shipping containers filled with military gear that had little to no chance of ever seeing the light of day outside of the "conex yard", unless you want to count the inventory done by the XO every six months. Those inventories will usually result in "discovering" some minor missing gear that absolutely MUST be replaced with taxpayer money. Those missing pieces would be stored in the conex to be inventoried again later, where inevitably some other piece of gear would be missing.
Rinse and repeat.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
The state of Western Civ.
Apparently Western Civilization is at the point where just the discovery of a head of state having attended a costume party in college will shake the country to it’s core.
This is what shakes us up now.
It’s gonna be FUN times when amateurs start dropping thermite bombs on our critical infrastructure using drones only slightly less sophisticated than these.
Thanks to Matt Bracken for passing that video along to us.
This is what shakes us up now.
It’s gonna be FUN times when amateurs start dropping thermite bombs on our critical infrastructure using drones only slightly less sophisticated than these.
Thanks to Matt Bracken for passing that video along to us.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Remembering 9/11
I did not make a post this year for the 9/11 anniversary, as I usually do. Despite that, I did want to at least make a note and say that 9/11 is why I joined the Army, even if I waited until I was 24 to do it. I joined specifically to do two things, if nothing else. That was to join the intelligence community, and then go to Afghanistan.
I would have been happy to go to Iraq too, but I mainly joined to go to Afghanistan, and so I did. It may not have been the warzone it was in 2001, but when I went it still kind of the wild west, if you want to put it that way. I guess it always will be though. As of this writing, 17 US servicemen have died in Afghanistan this year, which is apparently the most in a year since 2014. I was in Afghanistan for OEF 13-14.
During the time I was there, during the missions I was on, we lost three men. I didn't know any of them particularly well myself. I was part of an intelligence HUMINT Collection Team (HCT) with 504th BfSB and assigned to 2nd Cavalry Regiment for a while during my deployment, and later was moved to a multi-function team (MFT) and reassigned to a group called "Task Force Black". We were frequently tasked to go out and perform whatever intelligence-related function a particular unit requested in RC South. Through this, we worked alongside Rangers from 3rd Battalion and men from 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), in addition to Navy Corpsmen and Air Force CI.
The three men who were killed on our missions were Specialist Cody Patterson and Sergeant Patrick Hawkins from 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, and Staff Sergeant Richard Vazquez of the 7th SF Group (Airborne).
Never forget.
I would have been happy to go to Iraq too, but I mainly joined to go to Afghanistan, and so I did. It may not have been the warzone it was in 2001, but when I went it still kind of the wild west, if you want to put it that way. I guess it always will be though. As of this writing, 17 US servicemen have died in Afghanistan this year, which is apparently the most in a year since 2014. I was in Afghanistan for OEF 13-14.
During the time I was there, during the missions I was on, we lost three men. I didn't know any of them particularly well myself. I was part of an intelligence HUMINT Collection Team (HCT) with 504th BfSB and assigned to 2nd Cavalry Regiment for a while during my deployment, and later was moved to a multi-function team (MFT) and reassigned to a group called "Task Force Black". We were frequently tasked to go out and perform whatever intelligence-related function a particular unit requested in RC South. Through this, we worked alongside Rangers from 3rd Battalion and men from 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), in addition to Navy Corpsmen and Air Force CI.
The three men who were killed on our missions were Specialist Cody Patterson and Sergeant Patrick Hawkins from 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, and Staff Sergeant Richard Vazquez of the 7th SF Group (Airborne).
Never forget.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
More soon.
I’m still here and writing will continue. Things have been extremely busy lately with a transition to a new Emergency Room job and wrapping up some household debts once and for all. My content will be back here soon, and will also be at American Partisan.
Thanks for being patient. In the meantime, here are a few of the pieces that are stirring my brain cells this morning:
CEOs write to Congress asking for gun control. No surprises here. But don’t worry, your boycotts aren’t going to work.
We live in an age of Insta-pseudo-profound bullshit. Image is more important than reality.
Viktor Orban is the kind of leader we need. He is who we wanted Trump to be.
Berkey Water Filters. Take your average pond scum and make it drinkable.
NCScout on building the scout team. This is how our fight will be fought.
“Swedish” rapper says blacks should shoot and enslave whites. He’s actually Nigerian though. If a rat is born in a horse stable, it doesn’t make it a horse. It’s still a rat.
Thanks for being patient. In the meantime, here are a few of the pieces that are stirring my brain cells this morning:
CEOs write to Congress asking for gun control. No surprises here. But don’t worry, your boycotts aren’t going to work.
We live in an age of Insta-pseudo-profound bullshit. Image is more important than reality.
Viktor Orban is the kind of leader we need. He is who we wanted Trump to be.
Berkey Water Filters. Take your average pond scum and make it drinkable.
NCScout on building the scout team. This is how our fight will be fought.
“Swedish” rapper says blacks should shoot and enslave whites. He’s actually Nigerian though. If a rat is born in a horse stable, it doesn’t make it a horse. It’s still a rat.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Spotting and Assessing Human Sources of Information
Originally posted by The Gray Man at American Partisan.
In a conflict environment, the guerrilla may still have to continue living and operating within society and conduct himself as a regular civilian at times. This is simply part of being a guerrilla, it's part of what differentiates a guerrilla from your basic battlefield combatant. It's the ability to not just "blend in", but to be a part of that society and environment.
With that said, the guerilla always needs to be thinking ahead, even when, especially when, he is functioning "normally" in his day-to-day civilian living routine. Part of that is always being keen to picking up intelligence and information useful to the guerrilla's cause. People you meet will sometimes have that information, and you'll need to know how to spot those people and further, how to assess whether or not they are useful as a source.
Prior to putting any time into source finding, you're going to need to figure out what you need to know. You need to find out what your "intelligence gaps" are. Go over the information you have about a particular area, decide what questions you'd like to answer and develop some "priority intelligence requirements" (PIRs). Once you have your PIRs, you can start finding ways to collect against those PIRs. The guerrilla is going to need to get good at collecting from human sources.
There is an assessment tool that goes by an acronym that will assist in figuring out the usefulness of potential human source. The word is "PAMSSA", or also "PA-MSSA". I'll go into some detail, as it can be useful to the guerrilla, since it can be a bit different for a soldier in a uniformed military.
The "P" stands for placement. If a potential source has placement, then it means they have a spacial or geographical position to the information you seek. A source can not help you gather information if they never have placement anywhere near the information. To use a simple example, suppose you would like to start gathering medical information about the patients in a local hospital. I don't really know why one would be interested in doing this, but it's a very simple fictional example for my purposes. Would your local garbage collector have placement in this case? The answer is not really. Even collecting the garbage from the hospital, from the loading docks, maybe he even occasionally has to enter the building, but he doesn't really have good placement. What about the housekeepers inside the hospital? Do they have placement? The answer is yes. They are in and out of the rooms and working among the patients on a regular basis. How about the nurses? Yes, of course. They have placement, possibly the best placement of the three.
The next step is "A" for access. Access means direct access to the information you seek. Go back to our hospital example. Now you'll see that the housekeepers who have decent placement do NOT have any sort of access, beyond perhaps remembering the faces of the patients they see. The nurses will have excellent access in this case. Are you starting to see what placement and access mean to finding a potential source of information? This is why the PA is often hyphenated and separated from the MSSA. You can't move forward on the PA-MSSA assessment tool if the person your assessing doesn't have adequate placement and access.
Moving on, we now must look at the potential source's motivation. This usually requires actually meeting and discussing with the source. You'll need to get an idea of what would motivate a source to willingly pass information to you. In Afghanistan, money was a big motivator for human sources, but that is often a major problem. Sources will always be willing to sell you information, and sometimes they're even willing to sell you false information. Other motivating factors that you'd rather see are a belief in whatever your cause is. If a source shares your beliefs and is interested in advancing your cause, that's a positive motivation. Maybe your source has been wronged by your enemy, or they're disgruntled about something and are driven to correct it. This isn't to say that money is always negative, since often a source considers a payment a sort of compensation for the risk they take when speaking with you. However, money as the sole motivating factor can often cause problems down the line. More on that below.
Next assessment step is suitability. When you're getting to know your potential source, you need to see if this person is even suitable to serve in this role. You need to look for some level of intelligence. If the person you're assessing isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, are they suitable? Do they even know anything about the information they're giving you? Are they impulsive? During their daily activities, are they going to do something stupid and get themselves in trouble, or even killed? Are they smart enough to do what I'm trying to get them to do, or to tell me? Or are they going to maintain good placement and access? Do they speak your language? Do they have any physical issues that hinder their ability to assist you? Are they emotionally stable? Mentally stable? You'll have to consider these things.
The next factor is susceptibility. This is consideration for how easily they will agree to work with you, or how easily they will agree to turn against you. A source with great placement and access is of no use if they're not willing to work with you and pass along the information you need, and even more dangerous is a source that will pass along information about you to your enemies. This topic can be greatly discussed once you get into the realm of witting and unwitting sources and the subject of elicitation. I mentioned above that I would say more on motivation. You'll have to keep in mind that having a good understanding of a source's motivation can help you overcome problems with susceptibility.
The final variable is accessibility. This questions the ease of access you have to the source. A source that you're unable to communicate with is useless. You'll need to assess how you will communicate with that source, how often, for how long, etc. This touches a bit on suitability as well. Does the source have the time and opportunity to contact you? Do they have multiple ways to communicate to you? Are they capable of using more complex means, like dead drops without screwing up? Are they too busy to meet with you regularly? One very important factor to look at is time sensitive information. Does your source have the ability to recognize important and/or time sensitive information (if not, they may not be suitable) and do they have the ability to get that information to you quickly and securely?
This source assessment tool is easily practiced in daily life. All you need to do is identify your intelligence requirement and start with placement and access, and work your way down the list. Be sure to reassess sources periodically. Develop communication plans with your contacts. Assess current sources for additional collection capabilities.
In a conflict environment, the guerrilla may still have to continue living and operating within society and conduct himself as a regular civilian at times. This is simply part of being a guerrilla, it's part of what differentiates a guerrilla from your basic battlefield combatant. It's the ability to not just "blend in", but to be a part of that society and environment.
With that said, the guerilla always needs to be thinking ahead, even when, especially when, he is functioning "normally" in his day-to-day civilian living routine. Part of that is always being keen to picking up intelligence and information useful to the guerrilla's cause. People you meet will sometimes have that information, and you'll need to know how to spot those people and further, how to assess whether or not they are useful as a source.
Prior to putting any time into source finding, you're going to need to figure out what you need to know. You need to find out what your "intelligence gaps" are. Go over the information you have about a particular area, decide what questions you'd like to answer and develop some "priority intelligence requirements" (PIRs). Once you have your PIRs, you can start finding ways to collect against those PIRs. The guerrilla is going to need to get good at collecting from human sources.
There is an assessment tool that goes by an acronym that will assist in figuring out the usefulness of potential human source. The word is "PAMSSA", or also "PA-MSSA". I'll go into some detail, as it can be useful to the guerrilla, since it can be a bit different for a soldier in a uniformed military.
The "P" stands for placement. If a potential source has placement, then it means they have a spacial or geographical position to the information you seek. A source can not help you gather information if they never have placement anywhere near the information. To use a simple example, suppose you would like to start gathering medical information about the patients in a local hospital. I don't really know why one would be interested in doing this, but it's a very simple fictional example for my purposes. Would your local garbage collector have placement in this case? The answer is not really. Even collecting the garbage from the hospital, from the loading docks, maybe he even occasionally has to enter the building, but he doesn't really have good placement. What about the housekeepers inside the hospital? Do they have placement? The answer is yes. They are in and out of the rooms and working among the patients on a regular basis. How about the nurses? Yes, of course. They have placement, possibly the best placement of the three.
The next step is "A" for access. Access means direct access to the information you seek. Go back to our hospital example. Now you'll see that the housekeepers who have decent placement do NOT have any sort of access, beyond perhaps remembering the faces of the patients they see. The nurses will have excellent access in this case. Are you starting to see what placement and access mean to finding a potential source of information? This is why the PA is often hyphenated and separated from the MSSA. You can't move forward on the PA-MSSA assessment tool if the person your assessing doesn't have adequate placement and access.
Moving on, we now must look at the potential source's motivation. This usually requires actually meeting and discussing with the source. You'll need to get an idea of what would motivate a source to willingly pass information to you. In Afghanistan, money was a big motivator for human sources, but that is often a major problem. Sources will always be willing to sell you information, and sometimes they're even willing to sell you false information. Other motivating factors that you'd rather see are a belief in whatever your cause is. If a source shares your beliefs and is interested in advancing your cause, that's a positive motivation. Maybe your source has been wronged by your enemy, or they're disgruntled about something and are driven to correct it. This isn't to say that money is always negative, since often a source considers a payment a sort of compensation for the risk they take when speaking with you. However, money as the sole motivating factor can often cause problems down the line. More on that below.
Next assessment step is suitability. When you're getting to know your potential source, you need to see if this person is even suitable to serve in this role. You need to look for some level of intelligence. If the person you're assessing isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, are they suitable? Do they even know anything about the information they're giving you? Are they impulsive? During their daily activities, are they going to do something stupid and get themselves in trouble, or even killed? Are they smart enough to do what I'm trying to get them to do, or to tell me? Or are they going to maintain good placement and access? Do they speak your language? Do they have any physical issues that hinder their ability to assist you? Are they emotionally stable? Mentally stable? You'll have to consider these things.
The next factor is susceptibility. This is consideration for how easily they will agree to work with you, or how easily they will agree to turn against you. A source with great placement and access is of no use if they're not willing to work with you and pass along the information you need, and even more dangerous is a source that will pass along information about you to your enemies. This topic can be greatly discussed once you get into the realm of witting and unwitting sources and the subject of elicitation. I mentioned above that I would say more on motivation. You'll have to keep in mind that having a good understanding of a source's motivation can help you overcome problems with susceptibility.
The final variable is accessibility. This questions the ease of access you have to the source. A source that you're unable to communicate with is useless. You'll need to assess how you will communicate with that source, how often, for how long, etc. This touches a bit on suitability as well. Does the source have the time and opportunity to contact you? Do they have multiple ways to communicate to you? Are they capable of using more complex means, like dead drops without screwing up? Are they too busy to meet with you regularly? One very important factor to look at is time sensitive information. Does your source have the ability to recognize important and/or time sensitive information (if not, they may not be suitable) and do they have the ability to get that information to you quickly and securely?
This source assessment tool is easily practiced in daily life. All you need to do is identify your intelligence requirement and start with placement and access, and work your way down the list. Be sure to reassess sources periodically. Develop communication plans with your contacts. Assess current sources for additional collection capabilities.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
What's in your IFAK?
Whether you envision yourself to be an armed partisan, a minuteman, future freedom fighter or simply a prepared citizen, if you've got a fighting loadout, or anything of the sort, it needs to include an individual first-aid kit, or "IFAK". Your IFAK needs to be small enough to fit easily with your kit, preferably somewhere on or inside your load bearing equipment. I'll show you my own IFAK, and I encourage you to do some research and build one that fits your needs and your skillset.
When putting your kit together, please keep in mind the ABCs of airway, breathing and circulation. In the case of the IFAK, the airway and breathing tools are going to limited in most cases to little more than a naso-pharyngeal airway (NPA) inserted into the nose (specifically, one of your battle buddies inserting it into YOUR nose) and into the back of the throat. The circulation aspect is going to be covered by things like tourniquets and gauze bandages, as in, keeping the blood from circulating it's way out of your body.
Every IFAK is not going to be the same, but every IFAK does need to have a few of the same things at a minimum. Every kit needs to have some form of gauze bandages, another separate bandage capable of serving as a pressure dressing, and a robust tourniquet, preferably one that is commonly issued to military or police units, since they're designed to be quick and easy for someone to use under stress.
Below you'll see a picture of one of my own very simple IFAK kits opened up, this one assembled mostly from items I was issued when I was active duty, and from near "expired" items that were being thrown away by my former Army Reserve unit and the emergency room I currently work in. The pouch itself is an IFAK pouch and insert with NSN 8465-01-531-3647 and NSN 8465-01-531-3147 respectively. This pouch is MOLLE compatible and cheap to find online.
Inside I have a pack of regular gauze, a roll of medical tape, a pair of large nitrile gloves, a 28Fr NPA, a roll of "Coban" compression cling, a compression bandage for trauma dressings, some quick clotting gauze, and a "CAT” style tourniquet.
The medical tape is 3M brand "Durapore". In the ER we call this one the "fabric" tape, because it's made of a strong adhesive on some sort of silky fabric. It sticks very well and holds together, and if you write on it, it doesn’t wipe off or smear. Coban compression cling is excellent for pressure dressings on limbs. The packs of gauze wadded up under a Coban compression wrap is a great way of applying direct pressure.
I hope this helps you in your task of making an IFAK. If you don't have one, you need it. This kit cost me nothing, but the parts of it are cheap and easily found. Coban, gauze, tape, etc. is easily found in your local pharmacy and the NPA can be found online for less than $6 by searching "naso-pharyngeal airway for sale" on any non-Google engine. The tourniquet can be searched as well, and there are many under-$20 options available. A couple of websites I saw popping up in my searches while writing this were IsraeliFirstAid.com and EmergencySafetySupply.com. I haven't purchased anything at either site, but it looks like they've got what you need to build a nice little IFAK for yourself.
When putting your kit together, please keep in mind the ABCs of airway, breathing and circulation. In the case of the IFAK, the airway and breathing tools are going to limited in most cases to little more than a naso-pharyngeal airway (NPA) inserted into the nose (specifically, one of your battle buddies inserting it into YOUR nose) and into the back of the throat. The circulation aspect is going to be covered by things like tourniquets and gauze bandages, as in, keeping the blood from circulating it's way out of your body.
Every IFAK is not going to be the same, but every IFAK does need to have a few of the same things at a minimum. Every kit needs to have some form of gauze bandages, another separate bandage capable of serving as a pressure dressing, and a robust tourniquet, preferably one that is commonly issued to military or police units, since they're designed to be quick and easy for someone to use under stress.
Below you'll see a picture of one of my own very simple IFAK kits opened up, this one assembled mostly from items I was issued when I was active duty, and from near "expired" items that were being thrown away by my former Army Reserve unit and the emergency room I currently work in. The pouch itself is an IFAK pouch and insert with NSN 8465-01-531-3647 and NSN 8465-01-531-3147 respectively. This pouch is MOLLE compatible and cheap to find online.
Inside I have a pack of regular gauze, a roll of medical tape, a pair of large nitrile gloves, a 28Fr NPA, a roll of "Coban" compression cling, a compression bandage for trauma dressings, some quick clotting gauze, and a "CAT” style tourniquet.
The medical tape is 3M brand "Durapore". In the ER we call this one the "fabric" tape, because it's made of a strong adhesive on some sort of silky fabric. It sticks very well and holds together, and if you write on it, it doesn’t wipe off or smear. Coban compression cling is excellent for pressure dressings on limbs. The packs of gauze wadded up under a Coban compression wrap is a great way of applying direct pressure.
I hope this helps you in your task of making an IFAK. If you don't have one, you need it. This kit cost me nothing, but the parts of it are cheap and easily found. Coban, gauze, tape, etc. is easily found in your local pharmacy and the NPA can be found online for less than $6 by searching "naso-pharyngeal airway for sale" on any non-Google engine. The tourniquet can be searched as well, and there are many under-$20 options available. A couple of websites I saw popping up in my searches while writing this were IsraeliFirstAid.com and EmergencySafetySupply.com. I haven't purchased anything at either site, but it looks like they've got what you need to build a nice little IFAK for yourself.
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Do we have a nation anymore? What is a nation?
A quick Google search defines a nation as “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” Oxford defines a nation as “a country considered as a group of people with the same language, culture and history, who live in a particular area under one government.” I tend to ignore many of Webster’s inputs due to the fact that they’ve been infiltrated by the politically correct Commissariat. Unsurprisingly, Webster’s definition focuses almost wholly on the role of government. You’re a “nation” because your government tells you so, according to the new age version of Webster.
Looking at these definitions, the relevant ones at least, you see a common theme related to culture, language and history. These aspects also lend themselves heavily to common descent (race and ethnicity), religious philosophy, a general socially accepted moral code, values, ethics and traditions. After all of that, we can focus lastly on matters of actual borders and whether our government systems serve us all equally, or rather, whether our government rules over us all in roughly the same manner and to roughly the same benefit or detriment.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a culture anymore? A culture is defined as "the customs, arts, social institutions and achievements of a particular nation, people or other social group." I tend to focus on customs and achievements specifically, since the arts have always been a point of variance in America and social institutions have been co-opted and used to attack and punish certain groups, while lifting other groups with advantages doled out based on how "oppressed" and "marginalized" these groups "feel". As Americans, or as people living inside the geographic region that's called "America", is there any easily identifiable set of customs? I believe that we may be simply too watered down as the "melting pot" of the world to have any such set of norms. The problem here is that as the years have moved by, there is less and less encouragement for assimilation. In past eras, people have tended to abandon their old cultural norms that were anathema to being an "American", while keeping the ones that fall in line with that national psyche. That is no longer the case, and so we observe ever increasing levels of social strife and friction between groups of people who follow cultural norms that simply can not coexist. These groups, thanks to some of those before-mentioned social institutions, have no way to peaceably and voluntarily separate, rather they are forced together, and this is when the anger begins to rise. As far as the arts are concerned, try to count how many classically white, western characters in books and movies are now being replaced with foreigners or non-whites. The new 007 is a black woman. Yeah, that's the arts.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a common language anymore? Although the US government conducts all business in English, and thirty-one of the fifty states have made English the official language of their respective states, the US government, strangely, has never deemed English the official language. There are some areas of the US where conducting routine business can be extremely difficult, or maybe even impossible, if you speak English only. Travel to Miami, Florida and see how well you get by without resorting to using Spanish. In Florida, you can't even go to college unless you have already taken foreign language classes in high school, or have enrolled in foreign language classes for college. Parts of Southern Texas have become like Miami. Parts of Minneapolis are swelling with Somali immigrants who speak mainly Somali and/or Arabic. Patterson, New Jersey has become (in)famous for it's large Palestinian Arab population. There are many more examples. Currently, English is certainly the most widely spoken language in the US, but the Migration Policy Institute stated in 2018 that 22% of the US population does not speak English at home.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a shared history? Certainly the US itself has a history, but as academia becomes less focused on truths and more focused on revising it in a more politically correct light, the history books are becoming a manifesto of Communist propaganda, socialist ideas and anti-Western falsehoods. Christopher Columbus has been labeled a pedophile and a murderer, Lewis and Clark are a footnote to Sacajawea, Thomas Jefferson is more talked about for owning slaves than penning the Declaration of Independence and all anyone learns about Robert E. Lee anymore in that he was the "bad guy" in the Civil War. Our children are taught that Franklin Roosevelt was a hero, while the greatness of Calvin Coolidge is nearly erased from memory. Monuments are being torn down, murals are being painted over, books are being censored or entirely rewritten.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a common descent? This is simply answered. Once upon a time most Americans could point to a certain generation in their family that had come here from somewhere else. My own family on my mother's side can be traced back to England and Germany, my father's side can be traced back to Ireland and France. But both sides of my family have branches that have been in the United States since the early 1700's. My story is not unique or even rare. But today, hordes of migrants illegally (does it even matter?) flood across what we refer to as our Southern Border. They come from Mexico, Central America and South America mostly, but there are also thousands arriving from Africa and the Middle East. These people largely are not here to become Americans and they largely care nothing for our history or culture. Many of them are unaccompanied military aged males and I believe they are here for nefarious reasons. There is no common descent among us and these millions of new arrivals.
In the United States do we, as a nation, share a generally compatible religious affiliation? Regardless of whatever social strife this tends to cause, simply viewing the doctrinal texts of the various religions that are in the US, especially those of Protestant Christianity and Islam, will show that these religious ideologies are incompatible at their most basic levels. Islam is likewise totally incompatible with Catholicism. Is Judaism even compatible with Christianity or Islam? For now, generally speaking, the main religious friction seems to occur between Muslims and non-Muslims, but even that is still rare. As the numbers of Islamic adherents in the US grows, expect this to change.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a shared moral code? The Founders stated that in order to maintain a Constitutional Republic form of government, a People of high moral standing was required. As our media, academia, entertainment and retail industries have become more "progressive", I believe we have observed a steep decline in the moral fiber of this nation. At least 40% of our population condones (and fights hard for) the murder of unborn babies. There are school systems in California that have begun teaching that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation. Every state in the US has an overburdened Department of Children and Families trying to find homes for unwanted children. Opiate addiction is a crisis. Wars are fought in perpetuity. 45% of the country adores and reveres a man who is well known for his sleazy behavior and lying, while another 45% adores and reveres his (defeated) opponent, a woman well known for her own illegal behavior and being an even more egregious liar herself. The other 10%? Well, who knows?
Does the United States of America even have a border to speak of? If a border is nothing more than an imaginary line drawn on a map with little effective real world physical barriers, is it a border at all? If there is no ability or willingness to defend the border from foreign invasion, even if the invasion is not from a uniformed military, then what good is a border at all? If there areas near the border become lawless due to constant back and forth crossing, then what good is it to exist at all?
Does the United States have a government that functions to our benefit? Or does it function to our detriment? Or to the benefit of some and the detriment of others? One only needs to read the paragraphs above to arrive at an accurate assumption, with little to no additional input. I mentioned earlier that our Founders, now labeled as nothing more than slave owning bigots by our revisionist history books, had said an effective, benevolent and just government required a people of high moral standing, intelligence and commonality. Do you believe that if what I've described above is true, that the people living in this land are capable of producing and maintaining a government that functions to the benefit of all, or even to a majority of it's citizenry?
In this writer's opinion, by the most commonly held definitions I can find, this land of ours, this place, can not be accurately referred to as a nation at all. What it can be called, I simply am not sure anymore. But I believe we will find out sooner rather than later.
Looking at these definitions, the relevant ones at least, you see a common theme related to culture, language and history. These aspects also lend themselves heavily to common descent (race and ethnicity), religious philosophy, a general socially accepted moral code, values, ethics and traditions. After all of that, we can focus lastly on matters of actual borders and whether our government systems serve us all equally, or rather, whether our government rules over us all in roughly the same manner and to roughly the same benefit or detriment.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a culture anymore? A culture is defined as "the customs, arts, social institutions and achievements of a particular nation, people or other social group." I tend to focus on customs and achievements specifically, since the arts have always been a point of variance in America and social institutions have been co-opted and used to attack and punish certain groups, while lifting other groups with advantages doled out based on how "oppressed" and "marginalized" these groups "feel". As Americans, or as people living inside the geographic region that's called "America", is there any easily identifiable set of customs? I believe that we may be simply too watered down as the "melting pot" of the world to have any such set of norms. The problem here is that as the years have moved by, there is less and less encouragement for assimilation. In past eras, people have tended to abandon their old cultural norms that were anathema to being an "American", while keeping the ones that fall in line with that national psyche. That is no longer the case, and so we observe ever increasing levels of social strife and friction between groups of people who follow cultural norms that simply can not coexist. These groups, thanks to some of those before-mentioned social institutions, have no way to peaceably and voluntarily separate, rather they are forced together, and this is when the anger begins to rise. As far as the arts are concerned, try to count how many classically white, western characters in books and movies are now being replaced with foreigners or non-whites. The new 007 is a black woman. Yeah, that's the arts.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a common language anymore? Although the US government conducts all business in English, and thirty-one of the fifty states have made English the official language of their respective states, the US government, strangely, has never deemed English the official language. There are some areas of the US where conducting routine business can be extremely difficult, or maybe even impossible, if you speak English only. Travel to Miami, Florida and see how well you get by without resorting to using Spanish. In Florida, you can't even go to college unless you have already taken foreign language classes in high school, or have enrolled in foreign language classes for college. Parts of Southern Texas have become like Miami. Parts of Minneapolis are swelling with Somali immigrants who speak mainly Somali and/or Arabic. Patterson, New Jersey has become (in)famous for it's large Palestinian Arab population. There are many more examples. Currently, English is certainly the most widely spoken language in the US, but the Migration Policy Institute stated in 2018 that 22% of the US population does not speak English at home.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a shared history? Certainly the US itself has a history, but as academia becomes less focused on truths and more focused on revising it in a more politically correct light, the history books are becoming a manifesto of Communist propaganda, socialist ideas and anti-Western falsehoods. Christopher Columbus has been labeled a pedophile and a murderer, Lewis and Clark are a footnote to Sacajawea, Thomas Jefferson is more talked about for owning slaves than penning the Declaration of Independence and all anyone learns about Robert E. Lee anymore in that he was the "bad guy" in the Civil War. Our children are taught that Franklin Roosevelt was a hero, while the greatness of Calvin Coolidge is nearly erased from memory. Monuments are being torn down, murals are being painted over, books are being censored or entirely rewritten.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a common descent? This is simply answered. Once upon a time most Americans could point to a certain generation in their family that had come here from somewhere else. My own family on my mother's side can be traced back to England and Germany, my father's side can be traced back to Ireland and France. But both sides of my family have branches that have been in the United States since the early 1700's. My story is not unique or even rare. But today, hordes of migrants illegally (does it even matter?) flood across what we refer to as our Southern Border. They come from Mexico, Central America and South America mostly, but there are also thousands arriving from Africa and the Middle East. These people largely are not here to become Americans and they largely care nothing for our history or culture. Many of them are unaccompanied military aged males and I believe they are here for nefarious reasons. There is no common descent among us and these millions of new arrivals.
In the United States do we, as a nation, share a generally compatible religious affiliation? Regardless of whatever social strife this tends to cause, simply viewing the doctrinal texts of the various religions that are in the US, especially those of Protestant Christianity and Islam, will show that these religious ideologies are incompatible at their most basic levels. Islam is likewise totally incompatible with Catholicism. Is Judaism even compatible with Christianity or Islam? For now, generally speaking, the main religious friction seems to occur between Muslims and non-Muslims, but even that is still rare. As the numbers of Islamic adherents in the US grows, expect this to change.
In the United States do we, as a nation, have a shared moral code? The Founders stated that in order to maintain a Constitutional Republic form of government, a People of high moral standing was required. As our media, academia, entertainment and retail industries have become more "progressive", I believe we have observed a steep decline in the moral fiber of this nation. At least 40% of our population condones (and fights hard for) the murder of unborn babies. There are school systems in California that have begun teaching that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation. Every state in the US has an overburdened Department of Children and Families trying to find homes for unwanted children. Opiate addiction is a crisis. Wars are fought in perpetuity. 45% of the country adores and reveres a man who is well known for his sleazy behavior and lying, while another 45% adores and reveres his (defeated) opponent, a woman well known for her own illegal behavior and being an even more egregious liar herself. The other 10%? Well, who knows?
Does the United States of America even have a border to speak of? If a border is nothing more than an imaginary line drawn on a map with little effective real world physical barriers, is it a border at all? If there is no ability or willingness to defend the border from foreign invasion, even if the invasion is not from a uniformed military, then what good is a border at all? If there areas near the border become lawless due to constant back and forth crossing, then what good is it to exist at all?
Does the United States have a government that functions to our benefit? Or does it function to our detriment? Or to the benefit of some and the detriment of others? One only needs to read the paragraphs above to arrive at an accurate assumption, with little to no additional input. I mentioned earlier that our Founders, now labeled as nothing more than slave owning bigots by our revisionist history books, had said an effective, benevolent and just government required a people of high moral standing, intelligence and commonality. Do you believe that if what I've described above is true, that the people living in this land are capable of producing and maintaining a government that functions to the benefit of all, or even to a majority of it's citizenry?
In this writer's opinion, by the most commonly held definitions I can find, this land of ours, this place, can not be accurately referred to as a nation at all. What it can be called, I simply am not sure anymore. But I believe we will find out sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Imagine that.
“Imagine being a Republican voter who still believes the lie from the 1980’s that blacks and Hispanics are migrating to your party. Even if they were (they’re not), for every individual one that does, the GoP and Democrats are importing twenty more who will simply vote for whichever Democratic candidate promises to steal the most from whitey.”
-Me
-Me
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Thursday, June 27, 2019
My current work in South Africa
Here is a test trailer for my current work in South Africa.
I am focusing on the deliberate genocide and murder of Afrikaners and white minorities in South Africa at the behest of the government.
However I am going to also include that the violence and disorder that the government is allowing to function also causes murder and pain for non whites and the native black population as well.
It has been a slow process being I have had zero backing and I am waiting on some musicians to finish the music for it.
I will be returning to South Africa in November to continue filming and aiding the communities facing violence.
link to the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQjg6StPrU&feature=youtu.be
link to my crowd funding account. - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=19881022
I am focusing on the deliberate genocide and murder of Afrikaners and white minorities in South Africa at the behest of the government.
However I am going to also include that the violence and disorder that the government is allowing to function also causes murder and pain for non whites and the native black population as well.
It has been a slow process being I have had zero backing and I am waiting on some musicians to finish the music for it.
I will be returning to South Africa in November to continue filming and aiding the communities facing violence.
link to the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMQjg6StPrU&feature=youtu.be
link to my crowd funding account. - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=19881022
Monday, June 24, 2019
Jerry Miculek on recoil control.
The best speed shooter in the world, Jerry Miculek, teaching recoil control.
Pay special attention to angling your elbows outward and locking your wrists so that when the unavoidable recoil happens, it just sort of vibrates the whole arm rather than forcing the elbows or wrists to “break” and bend upward. As you work to compensate when your elbows or wrists bend, you’ll not only have a lot of up and down movement, but you’ll end up with a lot of side to side movement.
So lock those wrists and point those elbows out like he says.
Pay special attention to angling your elbows outward and locking your wrists so that when the unavoidable recoil happens, it just sort of vibrates the whole arm rather than forcing the elbows or wrists to “break” and bend upward. As you work to compensate when your elbows or wrists bend, you’ll not only have a lot of up and down movement, but you’ll end up with a lot of side to side movement.
So lock those wrists and point those elbows out like he says.
Monday, June 17, 2019
Iran is targeting US drones in the Middle East.
It appears that Iran, or Iranian trained and equipped fighters, have been targeting US drones in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, and have been successful in shooting down at least one. As the link states, Houthi Rebels in Yemen have apparently used a SA-6 surface to air missile system to shoot down a US MQ-9 Reaper, and an Iranian SA-7 was able to come within one kilometer of shooting down another Reaper on the morning of June 13.
Recent reports are also saying that the US is sending a thousand troops with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as force protection troops to the region.
US officials have stated that they have images of Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives removing an unexploded mine from the hull of one of the tankers that was attacked in the Gulf of Oman.
These attacks, coupled with the increase (albeit small) in US troops in the region signals a clear escalation of hostilities in an already hostile environment. This could be a series of desperate acts on the part of the Iranian regime if they are being threatened with harsh sanctions due to their continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities. The Trump Administration has already removed some waivers that allowed countries to purchase oil from Iran without violating sanctions already in place. Iran has removed themselves from the "landmark" nuclear treaty signed during the 0bama Administration.
Oil prices had climbed about 4% shortly after the tanker attacks, but it seems most of those gains have been corrected.
My concern about the US heading into another war in the Middle East, especially one that could be as large as one might be with Iran, a country with a fairly sizeable military, is what this conflict could do to the US economy. Despite the positive economic numbers on jobs and growth we've been having over the past couple of years, those numbers are always heavily manipulated by the federal government, and it doesn't take a genius to observe that the national debt continues to skyrocket and the spending is still out of control. This is an unsustainable economic model, and there are few things that can damage or destroy an economy like a major war can.
Iran has an immense international network of operatives, jihadis and other such bad guys. There are few, if any, countries that Iran has not infiltrated in order to provide training or equipment, money, or other support to people who would consider you a target. I worked in the intelligence field in Korea, Germany and Afghanistan, and Iran had active networks working in all of those countries and the countries surrounding. Yes, they have networks in the US as well.
Iran also has recently displayed a new surface to air defense system capable of targeting aircraft at an altitude of 17 miles. The MQ-9 Reaper has an operational altitude of 9-10 miles.
You're going to need to check your preps, and get them in order. You need a replenishable water supply and a way to make it potable. You need at least a year of stored food for you and your family, and a way to provide more during hard times to supplement it. Get on it, today. Whether you are interested in these events or not, they are interested in you. A major conflict like this could touch all parts of the globe, and it won't be pleasant.
Recent reports are also saying that the US is sending a thousand troops with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as force protection troops to the region.
US officials have stated that they have images of Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives removing an unexploded mine from the hull of one of the tankers that was attacked in the Gulf of Oman.
These attacks, coupled with the increase (albeit small) in US troops in the region signals a clear escalation of hostilities in an already hostile environment. This could be a series of desperate acts on the part of the Iranian regime if they are being threatened with harsh sanctions due to their continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities. The Trump Administration has already removed some waivers that allowed countries to purchase oil from Iran without violating sanctions already in place. Iran has removed themselves from the "landmark" nuclear treaty signed during the 0bama Administration.
Oil prices had climbed about 4% shortly after the tanker attacks, but it seems most of those gains have been corrected.
My concern about the US heading into another war in the Middle East, especially one that could be as large as one might be with Iran, a country with a fairly sizeable military, is what this conflict could do to the US economy. Despite the positive economic numbers on jobs and growth we've been having over the past couple of years, those numbers are always heavily manipulated by the federal government, and it doesn't take a genius to observe that the national debt continues to skyrocket and the spending is still out of control. This is an unsustainable economic model, and there are few things that can damage or destroy an economy like a major war can.
Iran has an immense international network of operatives, jihadis and other such bad guys. There are few, if any, countries that Iran has not infiltrated in order to provide training or equipment, money, or other support to people who would consider you a target. I worked in the intelligence field in Korea, Germany and Afghanistan, and Iran had active networks working in all of those countries and the countries surrounding. Yes, they have networks in the US as well.
Iran also has recently displayed a new surface to air defense system capable of targeting aircraft at an altitude of 17 miles. The MQ-9 Reaper has an operational altitude of 9-10 miles.
You're going to need to check your preps, and get them in order. You need a replenishable water supply and a way to make it potable. You need at least a year of stored food for you and your family, and a way to provide more during hard times to supplement it. Get on it, today. Whether you are interested in these events or not, they are interested in you. A major conflict like this could touch all parts of the globe, and it won't be pleasant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)