Free Republic

https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=refurbished%20dell%20laptop%20windows%207&cat_id=3944

As I have stated earlier multiple times: “Every US Naval officer who serves on the bridge of any of our vessels should be required to take and pass all of the US Coast Guard requirements to be qualified as a Third Mate!”

Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger says he “was unable to sleep last night” due to team’s anthem decision.

Yeah! Well there are thousands of American men and women who are sleeping the "Big Sleep" because they gave their lives so he could experience that night of insomnia.

Moron! Un-American moron.

---

Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger says he “was unable to sleep last night” due to team’s anthem decision.

Yeah! Well there are thousands of American men and women who are sleeping the "Big Sleep" because they gave their lives so he could experience that night of insomnia.

Moron! Un-American moron.

---

Thank you so much for your fine comment. As a Korean War era Veteran I so appreciate what you have said.

Simple solution: require every U.S. Naval officer to simply take and pass the U.S. Coast Guard’s 3rd mates exam!

Plain and simple seamanship.

Simple solution - just require all US Navy officers to pass the Coast Guard 3rd mates exam.

I couldn’the agree more with your comment. Absolute tragedy that is in the hands of the senior leaders.

An earlier comment stated that all U.S. Naval officers should be required to pass the Coast Guard 3rd mates exam. That should be a minimum requirement for any officer that serves as OOD on one of our vessels.

It takes chutzpah to blame a failure of basic seamanship on the need for more taxpayer dollars. Sounds right out of the military-industrial complex lobbying playbook. Maybe we should spend more on the Navy. But before we blame these collisions on that, why not first look at the leadership aboard these two ships. Was Sanchez the right man for captain or could the Navy have chosen someone better? How was he selected and did diversity play a role?

---

Chances are that the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan (the skipper's school) doesn't have courses in seamanship. And I'll bet the Exec's school at the University of Bayamon doesn't either. Also makes me wonder if the two Sanchezs (Skipper and Exec) are related?

Seamanship 101!

At this point, they can’t even sail from point A to point B, in completely peaceful waters, without running into stuff and killing their own sailors. There is something waaaay more wrong with the Navy than “stretched too thin.”

---

Seamanship!

All of America has become just like that missile boat... Lots of radars, GPS'S and eyes everywhere to see with... And we act like we're as blind as a bat..!!

Our Navy needs to return to training on basic seamanship - like the "Rules of the Road"

Also get rid of the current senior leadership.

It is called seamanship 101!

This should be read by every civilized, educated person outside the Muslim world.

Interestingly, we have known this about animals for a very long time!

A Danish professor reported some time ago. He is referred to in this article. If you want to see the face of insanity, take a look at the faces of the 5 GITMO prisoners that Obama released. We asked several Muslims in Saudi Arabia why they marry their first cousins. All of them told us it’s to keep the wealth within the family and that the Prophet allows them to do this. There is one town in Saudi Arabia where there are only 2 last names listed for all its citizens.

1400 Years of Inbreeding

This came from a Lockheed employee who has had 3 assignments to Saudi

Arabia. Worth the read!

During the pilot transition program with the KV-107 and C-130 with Lockheed, we found that most Saudi pilot trainees had very limited night vision, even on the brightest of moonlit nights. Their training retention rate was minimal including maintenance personnel. Some had dim memories and had to be constantly reminded of things that were told to them the day before. An American, British or any other western instructor is burned out pretty quick. It actually took Muslim C-130 pilots years before they could fly in the dark safely and then would be reluctant to leave the lights of a city. Ask any Marine, Air Force or Army guy who’s been trying to train Iraqis, and especially Afghans.

Islam is not only a religion; it’s a way of life all the way around. Yet another set of revealing facts about Muslim beliefs and traditions and ways of life. 1400 years of inbreeding. I found this to be interesting. Didn’t know whether to believe it or not. To research I went to Wikipedia, “Cousin Marriage”, and far down in the article “Genetics” it seems there is a lot of truth here. A huge Muslim problem: Inbreeding.

Nikolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first cousins.

This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world. This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world, since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage. The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health. According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. In Pakistan, the numbers approach 70%. Even in England, more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, and in Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%. The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia, 64% in Jordan, and Kuwait, 63% in Sudan, 60% in Iraq, and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

According to the BBC, this Pakistani, Muslim-inspired inbreeding is thought to explain the probability that a British Pakistani family is more than 13 times as likely to have children with recessive genetic disorders. While Pakistanis are responsible for three percent of the births in the UK, they account for 33% of children with genetic birth defects.

The risks of what are called autosomal recessive disorders such as cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher, and the risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher. Other negative consequences of inbreeding include a 100 percent increase in the risk of stillbirths and a 50% increase in the possibility that a child will die during labor. Lowered intellectual capacity is another devastating consequence of Muslim marriage patterns. According to Sennels, research shows that children of consanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as “retarded,” increases by an astonishing 400 percent among children of cousin marriages. (Similar effects were seen in the Paranoiac dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)

In Denmark, non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish army. Sennels says, “The ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world.” He points out that the Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does.

In the last 1,200 years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year. Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book. Sennels points out the difficulties this creates for Muslims seeking to succeed in the West. “A lower IQ, together with a religion that denounces critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many Muslims to have success in our high-tech knowledge societies.” Only nine Muslims have ever won the Nobel Prize, and five of those were for the “Peace Prize.” According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10 percent of the world average when it comes to scientific research measured by articles per million inhabitants.

In Denmark, Sennels’ native country, Muslim children are grossly over represented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education, and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background. Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that 64% of schoolchildren with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant dropout rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.

Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of patients in Denmark’s biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background. The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, “One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.”

Sennels concludes: There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. This has produced overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences. Bottom line: Islam is not simply a benign and morally equivalent alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sennels points out, the first and biggest victims of Islam are Muslims. Simple Judeo-Christian compassion for Muslims and a common-sense desire to protect Western civilization from the ravages of Islam dictate a vigorous opposition to the spread of this dark and dangerous religion. These stark realities must be taken into account when we establish public polices dealing with immigration from Muslim countries and the building of mosques in the U.S. Let us hope the civilized West and the North Americans wake up before a blind naiveté about the reality of Islam destroys what remains of our Judeo-Christian culture and our domestic tranquility.

Some interesting links that support this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam

http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/the-one-about-muslims-being-inbred/

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/08/1400-years-of-inbreeding.html

You can never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIP
Bob Lonsberry©2016

The account of two U. S. Navy vessels being seized by the Iranian navy earlier this week seems completely implausible.

No part of it makes any sense.

The story is that two river patrol boats – bristling modern-day incarnations of the Vietnam swift boats – were navigating south from Kuwait to Bahrain. At some point, via some means, the two boats, with their contingent of five sailors each, surrendered to the Iranians.

Two accounts have been offered as to how that happened. The first was that one of the vessels lost its engine and that they both then drifted into Iranian waters. The other was that the two boats had been operating fine, but inadvertently navigated into Iranian territory.

Simply put, they got lost.

Neither account seems possible.

First off, if one of the boats broke down, and the sailor aboard trained to tend the engine couldn’t fix it, the other boat would merely take it in tow and they would proceed on their way. That is not a novel maritime undertaking.

The second scenario – oops, we got lost – is even less likely. It turns out that navigation and navigation equipment are kind of a high priority for the Navy. Boats don’t get lost. Highly technical navigation equipment on both boats would have told crew members exactly where they were.

And in the unlikely event that both boats lost all electronic navigational equipment, and the compasses lost track of magnetic north, there is the simple fact that sailing from Kuwait to Bahrain pretty much involves nothing more complex than keeping the shore on your starboard side. And should you lose sight of shore, and can remember that the map has safety to the west and danger to the east, you’d think that the position of the sun in the sky or the fact that prevailing winds in the Persian Gulf in the winter are northwesterly, would somehow have allowed our sailors to find the Saudi shoreline instead of Iranian waters.

And all of that presumes that these two boats were operating alone in the open seas, which they presumably were not. There is, in fact, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf.

The USS Harry S Truman owns the Persian Gulf these days, and the significant American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – lands immediately proximate to the waters where our sailors were operating – makes us the biggest dog on the block.

And we’ve got radar and helicopters and airplanes and stuff like that.

And if an American vessel breaks down at sea, or strays from course, under those operational conditions, there are a lot of American assets that would both notice the problem and be able to offer relief.

Yet no one did.

We’re supposed to believe nobody radioed a couple of inexplicably lost boats to ask where they were going? When one of them supposedly broke down, a carrier battle group had no means to come to their assistance?

That makes no sense.

It’s completely unbelievable.

So is the apparent conduct of the sailors in the face of a supposed challenge by the Iranian military.

If one of the vessels was disabled, as is claimed, and hostile craft are approaching, bringing with them the prospect of capture and captivity, don’t you put all 10 sailors on the able boat, sink the disabled boat, and race the bad guys back to international waters?

From the Iranian video, it looks like two or three bass boats and four guys in mismatched uniforms, with a couple of AK’s, captured two far-larger and better-armed American boats, both of which were bristling with mounted machine guns.

Here’s a fact: When you’re kneeling on the deck of your own boat, with your hands clasped behind your head, and some guy’s shouting at you in terrorist language, things didn’t go right.

And yet, that’s exactly what supposedly happened here. Ten American sailors, successors to Captain James Lawrence, are on their knees next to their unfired guns, in the face of a smaller and less well-armed opponent – with little American flags snapping in the breeze.

This is not the stuff of Commodore Perry and Admiral Farragut.

And you wonder whose call it was.

How far up the chain of command did they have to go to find the cowardly lion who ordered this genuflection before a bunch of savages? Did this get bounced all the way to the Pentagon, or the Situation Room? Which secretary of what made the decision not to put a squadron of naval aviators above those two boats to keep the camel jockeys at bay?

It is shameful, a worldwide embarrassment for the nation and the Navy.

And it is topped off by an obsequious videotaped apology, and pictures of our sailors, captive in hostile hands, the female with a towel over her head.

The President can ignore this.

But we can’t.

We got pantsed. We got humiliated. We showed either weakness or incompetence. And unfortunately either one only invites aggression against us.

It is inconceivable that you could find 10 Americans willing to surrender themselves and their equipment without a fight. It is not plausible that any young man or woman entering into the naval service would willingly kneel on the deck of a combat-capable ship.

Somebody told them to give up.

And that somebody, and the philosophy he represents, will be the death of us.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2016

DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIP 
Bob Lonsberry © 2016
 
The account of two U. S. Navy vessels being seized by the Iranian navy earlier this week seems completely implausible.

No part of it makes any sense.

The story is that two river patrol boats – bristling modern-day incarnations of the Vietnam swift boats – were navigating south from Kuwait to Bahrain. At some point, via some means, the two boats, with their contingent of five sailors each, surrendered to the Iranians.

Two accounts have been offered as to how that happened. The first was that one of the vessels lost its engine and that they both then drifted into Iranian waters. The other was that the two boats had been operating fine, but inadvertently navigated into Iranian territory.

Simply put, they got lost.

Neither account seems possible.

First off, if one of the boats broke down, and the sailor aboard trained to tend the engine couldn’t fix it, the other boat would merely take it in tow and they would proceed on their way. That is not a novel maritime undertaking.

The second scenario – oops, we got lost – is even less likely. It turns out that navigation and navigation equipment are kind of a high priority for the Navy. Boats don’t get lost. Highly technical navigation equipment on both boats would have told crew members exactly where they were.

And in the unlikely event that both boats lost all electronic navigational equipment, and the compasses lost track of magnetic north, there is the simple fact that sailing from Kuwait to Bahrain pretty much involves nothing more complex than keeping the shore on your starboard side. And should you lose sight of shore, and can remember that the map has safety to the west and danger to the east, you’d think that the position of the sun in the sky or the fact that prevailing winds in the Persian Gulf in the winter are northwesterly, would somehow have allowed our sailors to find the Saudi shoreline instead of Iranian waters.

And all of that presumes that these two boats were operating alone in the open seas, which they presumably were not. There is, in fact, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf.

The USS Harry S Truman owns the Persian Gulf these days, and the significant American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – lands immediately proximate to the waters where our sailors were operating – makes us the biggest dog on the block.

And we’ve got radar and helicopters and airplanes and stuff like that.

And if an American vessel breaks down at sea, or strays from course, under those operational conditions, there are a lot of American assets that would both notice the problem and be able to offer relief.

Yet no one did.

We’re supposed to believe nobody radioed a couple of inexplicably lost boats to ask where they were going? When one of them supposedly broke down, a carrier battle group had no means to come to their assistance?

That makes no sense.

It’s completely unbelievable.

So is the apparent conduct of the sailors in the face of a supposed challenge by the Iranian military.

If one of the vessels was disabled, as is claimed, and hostile craft are approaching, bringing with them the prospect of capture and captivity, don’t you put all 10 sailors on the able boat, sink the disabled boat, and race the bad guys back to international waters?

From the Iranian video, it looks like two or three bass boats and four guys in mismatched uniforms, with a couple of AK’s, captured two far-larger and better-armed American boats, both of which were bristling with mounted machine guns.

Here’s a fact: When you’re kneeling on the deck of your own boat, with your hands clasped behind your head, and some guy’s shouting at you in terrorist language, things didn’t go right.

And yet, that’s exactly what supposedly happened here. Ten American sailors, successors to Captain James Lawrence, are on their knees next to their unfired guns, in the face of a smaller and less well-armed opponent – with little American flags snapping in the breeze.

This is not the stuff of Commodore Perry and Admiral Farragut.

And you wonder whose call it was.

How far up the chain of command did they have to go to find the cowardly lion who ordered this genuflection before a bunch of savages? Did this get bounced all the way to the Pentagon, or the Situation Room? Which secretary of what made the decision not to put a squadron of naval aviators above those two boats to keep the camel jockeys at bay?

It is shameful, a worldwide embarrassment for the nation and the Navy.

And it is topped off by an obsequious videotaped apology, and pictures of our sailors, captive in hostile hands, the female with a towel over her head.

The President can ignore this.

But we can’t.

We got pantsed. We got humiliated. We showed either weakness or incompetence. And unfortunately either one only invites aggression against us.

It is inconceivable that you could find 10 Americans willing to surrender themselves and their equipment without a fight. It is not plausible that any young man or woman entering into the naval service would willingly kneel on the deck of a combat-capable ship.

Somebody told them to give up.

And that somebody, and the philosophy he represents, will be the death of us.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2016

He was 1 year ahead of me. I was class of 1959, and he was class of 1958.

I can guarantee they did when I was a Midshipman there in 1955!

What ever happened to our Navy's hero, John Paul Jones' famous quote?

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

The Midshipmen at our Naval Academy at Annapolis have this instilled in them continuously.

Lived in Maitland, Florida, at that time, working for Tektronix, Inc., and spent most of my time at the Cape in those days. The day of the game I was on planes to Portland, Oregon, for meetings and the pilot kept coming on the P.A. updating the passengers on the score.

Islam understands something that we Westerners seem to have forgotten: A society that refuses to defend its women will defend nothing.

Islam targeted European women because it views them as our most valuable property (with the possible exception of our nuclear weapons). If we will not defend them, is there anything we will defend?

Well, is there?

The photo below has a “typo” for the year in error – should be 2016 not 2015.

Islam understands something that we Westerners seem to have forgotten: A society that refuses to defend its women will defend nothing.

Islam targeted European women because it views them as our most valuable property (with the possible exception of our nuclear weapons). If we will not defend them, is there anything we will defend?

Well, is there?

The photo below has a “typo” for the year in error – should be 2016 not 2015.