The Generals, Australians and Borneo (1)

Pacific Paratrooper

From: General Kenney Reports

I joined Gen. MacArthur on board the USS Boise at Palawan on 8 June as I had promised.  The ship steamed south and the next afternoon joined the main convoy carrying the 9th Australian Division, commanded by Gen. Wooten.  We made the rendezvous between Palawan Island North Borneo.

The weather was perfect, the mountains on either side of the straits were beautiful, I had about 9 hour’s sleep the night before and there was no sign of a Jap airplane in the skies.  It was so peaceful, it didn’t seem as though there was a war on at all.

On the morning of the 10th, 6 o’clock a lone Jap bomber came over, dropped one bomb, which missed a landing craft, and then flew away under under a hail of antiaircraft fire.

We watched the Naval gunfire on the landing beach on the island of Labuan…

View original post 498 more words

Advertisements

WATCH: The RNC’s ‘Crazytown’ Video Shows How Violently Nutty The Left Has Become

H/T Clash Daily.

For as long as I can remember the left has always been crazy town however since Donald Trump has been President the left has gotten nuttier.

There’s really no argument the Left can offer to refute this. These ARE the leaders in their party, aren’t they?

If the Leaders themselves are nuttier than a squirrel turd, what does that say about the ordinary schmuck that’s dumb enough to accept their leadership?

Sometimes, a critic doesn’t need to say anything at all. He can let his opponent do all the talking.

As you watch this video, ask yourself…

Are these the kind of people who inspire confidence? Would the House and Senate truly prosper under their wise leadership?

Or do they need to be writing letters home in crayon in a quiet room without any dangerous pointy corners?

Maybe they just need some rest. About four years would be a good start. (Or Six for someone like Booker, who just released Classified materials in the Kavanaugh hearing, out of spite.)

And these are the LEADERS.

No wonder their black-clad footsoldiers think throwing bricks and bottles of urine at strangers (or police officers!) is an acceptable form of ‘Resistance’.

Is it Crazytown over there on the left?

Or maybe they’re just not that bright.

Oh well, let the haters hate. It’s what they do when they can’t get their way.

Because they lost the White House, the Senate and the Congress.

(And they’re Twice as angry now that they can’t rely on activist courts, either.)

Let the boil in their impotent rage. We’ll savor our victory.

Team Mike Pence Denies Authorship of Anonymous Deep State Op-ed

H/T Breitbart’s Big Government.

Vice President Mike Pence is a way too much of an honorable man to have pen such a vile op-ed.

Vice President Mike Pence’s team denied on Thursday they were the author of the anonymous “deep state” op-ed to the New York Times.

“The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds,” Pence’s communications director and deputy chief of staff Jarrod Agen wrote on Twitter, adding that, “Our office is above such amateur acts.”

Some speculated that the use of the word “lodestar”  in the op-ed, a common word used by Pence, might mean that he was the author.

“Wouldn’t that be something if it was Mike Pence?” hooted comedian Jimmy Kimmel on his show, after playing a highlight clip of the vice president using the word.

Pence is traveling to Florida on Thursday to campaign for Gov. Rick Scott’s senate campaign. He is expected to deliver remarks at a lunch fundraiser in the afternoon.

Jarrod Agen

@VPComDir

The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds. The @nytimes should be ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed. Our office is above such amateur acts.

Taxpayers Funded ‘Unprecedented’ Armed Protection for Gun Control Sen. Kamala Harris

H/T Breitbart California.

Kamala Harris like all of the anti-gun crowd has the guns to protect me but none to protect thee.

Kamala and her ilk want to be protected by people with guns no matter who foots the bill.

An examination of expense reports reveal gun control Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) received taxpayer-funded armed protection from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in 2017 and 2018 at events throughout the state.

NBC 4 reports that the protection was “unprecedented” in that it went beyond the security which the LAPD usually provides “for dignitaries and officials visiting LA.” Taxes from residents of Los Angeles funded armed security personnel to protect Harris not only in LA but in other cities throughout the state as well.

Taxpayers even paid for armed security to go with Harris to a party.The protection lasted January 2017 through July 2018 and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) says he was not aware it was occurring.

Garcetti indicated former LAPD Chief Charles Beck put the special protection into place. LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said, “Chief of Police Charlie Beck assigned a security detail for US Senator Kamala Harris shortly before she was sworn into office in 2017, based on a threat assessment he believed to be credible. Funding for the detail was provided by the Department budget.”

On November 22, 2015, Breitbart News reported that California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom spent millions of taxpayer dollars to surround himself with armed security while Mayor of San Francisco.

NBC Bay Area reported Newsom’s security spending while Mayor of San Francisco as follows:

How much does it cost to protect the mayor of a major metropolitan city? In Los Angeles, about $450,000 a year. In Houston, about $339,00 a year. In San Francisco, anywhere between $1 and $72 million.

[On July 7, 2009] SF Appeal revealed…the budget for Newsom’s personal police bodyguards comes out of the San Francisco Police Department’s Investigations Detail, which boasts a $72.9 million budget.

Newsom, like Sen. Harris, pushes restriction after restriction on average citizens ability to exercise their personal right to keep and bear arms.

Report Finds Few Who Fail Background Checks Are Charged

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not understand why more people are not prosecuted for lying on theses ATF forms

Gun grabbers look at violent crime rates and swear up and down that we need more gun laws. After all, criminals still get their hands on firearms, which means the laws aren’t working.

The reality, however, is much different. The reality is that our current gun laws stop a large number of people from buying guns when they’re not legally permitted to do so. The problem is that despite knowingly breaking the law, few are prosecuted for it.

Few gun buyers are ever prosecuted for lying on forms they are required to complete as part of a background check when purchasing a weapon, a new federal study concludes.

In the 29 states where federal officials handle the background checks, there were only 12 prosecutions in fiscal 2017 of people who were found to have provided false information, such as failing to disclose a felony conviction, according to the Government Accountability Office.

It is a federal crime for people trying to obtain guns to make a false statement or furnish false or misrepresented identification that is intended to deceive people on the legality of the sale of the firearm. Violators face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Of a total of 8.6 million transactions processed by federal officials that year, 112,710 were rejected but only about 12,700 were referred for further investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Now, sometimes, it’s difficult even to know where to look for someone, so I get that.

But when you do find someone or know their identity, few are prosecuted. Then, they try another way to get a gun and get one, only to commit a violent crime that’s then blamed on law-abiding gun owners who already swallowed countless gun laws to curb violence before and watched as it did nothing.

If they’d been prosecuted and convicted, they’d have been in jail, not on the street trying to get a gun from some thug with stolen firearms in the trunk of his car. Sorry, but that’s the sad fact.

Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re not going to prosecute people for this stuff, why does the law even exist in the first place? There are a lot of things out there that should probably be law, but any law on the books should either be taken seriously or repealed. This is a prime example, in my opinion.

Instead, though, we have a law-breaker not being prosecuted at the same time we who follow the law are fighting to protect our Second Amendment rights because of the actions of those who aren’t being prosecuted until someone is either bleeding or dead. Maybe it’s just me, but nothing about this sounds just.

For those who base a policy decision on logic, it makes no sense, but for those who base it on ideas like “fairness,” then please explain to me how this is remotely fair.

I’m waiting.

DNC Chair on Getting out the Vote During Midterms: ‘You Can’t Door Knock in Rural America’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The DNC wants to reach out to the white middle class that they said they going to ignore during the Obama years I am shocked.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez on Friday said the Democratic Party “can’t door knock in rural America” during a discussion about the DNC’s get-out-the-vote strategy during the midterm elections.

Perez appeared on MSNBC’s “All In,” where he discussed the DNC’s strategy to trying to take back Congress in the midterm elections, saying that they were investing their money in infrastructure and digital organizing.

Host Chris Hayes said that many people thought that there were lost opportunities during the 2016 election, prompting him to ask Perez whether the party was doing things differently to prepare for the November midterm elections.

Perez said the DNC was spending $0 on television ads and were instead focusing on digital organizing and infrastructure.

“To get back to your question which is a really important one, we are investing and organizing. We are investing and making sure we build that organizing infrastructure, the technology infrastructure because you can’t door knock in rural America,” Perez said. “That is why we invested in digital organizing in Indiana, Georgia, Montana and elsewhere.”

Perez’s comment about door knocking followed his remarks about how the Democrats were “building meaningful relationships” with voters.

Following the Republican victories in 2016, Perez acknowledged that the DNC needed to redefine its role to help Democrats retake control of Congress and the White House.

“We didn’t invest enough in our state party infrastructure. We didn’t invest enough in grass roots organization. We ignored rural swaths of America. We can’t do that. We need an every-ZIP-code strategy,” he said.

Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign was heavily scrutinized following her loss to Donald Trump for not being able to appeal to middle-class voters in rural states.

Conn. Workers Sue SEIU for Back Dues

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

It is great to see these SEIU members working to recover the union dues they were forced to pay to the union thugs in charge.

Fallout continues for labor in wake of Supreme Court ruling striking down forced fees.

Government workers in Connecticut have filed a class-action suit to recover their wages in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against coercive unionism.

Employees with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection are suing the state chapter of Service Employees International Union, Local 2001, to win back dues and agency fees the state required them to pay as a condition of employment. The suit comes just months after the Supreme Court declared forced-dues schemes in the public sector an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. It alleges the department and union have made no effort to reimburse workers for mandatory payments.

“Local 2001 and the State Defendants acting under color of state law to force employees to join a union or pay a fee as a condition of continued employment have violated Plaintiffs’ rights,” the suit says. “Defendants, acting in concert with one another, have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs and class members’ of their constitutional rights.”

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees that government agencies could no longer require workers to pay union fees or dues as a condition of employment, overturning the long-standing precedent set forth in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The ruling has caused panic in the labor movement as the four largest public-sector unions, including SEIU, face the loss of 400,000 agency fee payers who provide partial dues meant to cover the cost of representational activities, such as collective bargaining and grievance proceedings, while withholding financial support for political activities and lobbying. The loss of those partial payments could cost labor organizations hundreds of millions of dollars.

SEIU Local 2001 represents about 21,000 workers and collects more than $6 million in revenue each year charging dues that range between $300 and $884 per year, according to its 2017 federal labor filings. The union had only 682 agency fee payers that year. The department ceased automatic deductions for dissenters in July following the Janus ruling, but the union continues to demand payments from them, according to the suit. The workers, who are represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation—the same lawyers who argued Janus before the Supreme Court—argue that deductions should have ceased years earlier since the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of compulsory union fees in the 2012 Knox case. The suit also seeks a pledge from the union that it will not seek to include mandatory payments in future contract negotiations with the state.

“Local 2001 has been on notice since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Knox in 2012 that agency fees violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment as the Court explained in Janus,” the suit says. It further asks the Court to expressly prohibit “the State Defendants from requiring, requesting, collecting, receiving, or in any other way possessing or obtaining union fees from Plaintiffs and the class at all.”

The union vowed to fight the suit, calling it “malevolently motivated” and “completely without merit.” Local 2001 said it abided by all relevant federal laws in collecting dues and that it was within its right to accept agency fees after the Supreme Court affirmed mandatory payments in the Abood case. Union executive director David Glidden said it has complied fully with the new Janus standard.

“The lawsuit, in addition to being malevolently motivated, is completely without merit, and we shall vigorously defend against it. CSEA has complied fully with the Janus decision since it was issued,” he said in a statement. “Prior to that, we collected fair share fees in accordance with 35 years of Supreme Court precedent for the purposes of negotiating and administering contracts, and therefore we are confident that we will prevail in this matter.”

A department spokesman referred the Washington Free Beacon to a spokesman for Democratic governor Dannel Malloy. The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment.