The Army Chief of Staff was recently asked by the President to form an elite counter-terrorist unit. The General went to his Sergeant Major, who was both Ranger and Special Forces qualified, and asked him which organization he would recommend to form this new counter-terrorist unit. The Sergeant Major thought about this for a few minutes and then responded to the Generals question with this parable:
Sir, if there were a hijacked Delta 747 being held by international terrorists along with its passengers and crew, and a counter-terrorists unit formed either by the Rangers or Special Forces were given the rescue/recovery mission, this is what you could expect to happen:
Forces/Equipment Committed: If the Rangers went in, they would send a single Ranger Company of 120 men with standard U.S. Army issue equipment.
Mission Preparation: The Ranger company first sergeant would conduct a haircut, uniform and boots inspection.
Infiltration Technique: They would insist on double-timing, in company formation, wearing their full combat equipment, and singing Jody cadence all the way to the site of the hijacked aircraft.
Actions in the Objective Area: Once they arrive, the Ranger Company would establish their objective rally point, put out security elements, conduct a leader’s recon, reapply their face camouflage, and then conduct final preparations for actions on the objective.
Results of Operation: The rescue/recovery operation would be completed within the hour, all of the terrorists and most of the passengers would have been killed in the ensuing intense firefight, the Rangers would have sustained light casualties and the Delta 747 would be worthless to anyone except a scrap dealer.
SPECIAL FORCES OPTION
Forces/Equipment Committed: If Special Forces went in, they would only send a 12 man team, (all SF units are divisible by 12 for some arcane historical reason), and however, due to the exotic nature of their equipment the SF team would cost the same amount to deploy as the Ranger Company.
Mission Preparation: The SF team sergeant would request relaxed grooming standards (long hair, and beards) for the team and uniforms would not be required.
Infiltration Technique: The team would insist on separate travel orders with max per diem, and each would get to the site of the hijacking by his own means. At least one-third of the team would insist on jumping in.
Actions in the Objective Area: Once they arrive, the SF team would cache their military uniforms, establish a team room, and use their illegal team fund to stock the unauthorized team room bar, check out the situation by talking to the locals, and have a team meeting to discuss the merits of the terrorist’s cause.
Results of Operation: The rescue/recovery operation would take two weeks to complete and by that time all of the terrorists would have been killed (and all would have signed confessions), most of the passengers would be ruined psychologically for the remainder of their lives, and all of the women passengers would be pregnant. The Delta 747 would be essentially be unharmed, the team would have taken no casualties, but, would have used up, lost, or stolen all the highly expensive exotic equipment issued to them.
In Part Three of his We The People v2.0 series, host Bill Whittle explains how capitalism not only incentivizes extra work, it also is, by far, the most moral and fair economic system ever devised.
With the Russian election hacking scandal having gone from the merely strange, to the bizarre, to the ironic, to the McCarthyist, and most recently, jumping the patently absurd shark – as of last night, anyone who is against Hillary is “influenced by Russia” according to a former Clinton advisor – Russia decided to have some fun at the expense of US paranoia.
On Saturday, the ministry posted the following audio file of the “new” automated telephone switchboard message for Russian embassies.
“You have reached the Russian embassy, your call is very important to us. To arrange a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent, press 1. To use the services of Russian hackers press 2. To request election interference, press 3 and wait until the next election campaign. Please note that all calls are recorded for quality improvement and training purposes.”
And just to make it clear, it is April 1: as AP observes for the countless spy agencies, and congressional committees still trying to explain how Moscow subliminally influenced millions of Americans to vote for Trump instead of Hillary, a ministry officer confirmed that the post was a joke.
Can’t be said any better, thanks.
Great come back … lol
February 10, 2017 12:33 PM
Whispering in the library
A man was looking for a place to sit in a crowded university library.
He asked a girl: “Do you mind if I sit beside you?”
The girl replied, in a loud voice “NO, I DON’T WANT TO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH
All the people in the library started staring at the man, who was deeply
embarrassed and moved to another table.
After a couple of minutes, the girl walked quietly to the man’s table and
said with a laugh: “I study psychology, and I know what a man is thinking;
I bet you felt embarrassed, right?
“The man responded in a loud voice: “$500 FOR ONE NIGHT? ….. I`M NOT
PAYING YOU THAT MUCH!”
All the people in the library looked at the girl in shock.
The man whispered to her: “I study law, and I know how…
View original post 4 more words
Armstrong Economics Blog/2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Re-Posted Jan 29, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
Then Feinstein’s husband won the contract to sell Post Office Department real estate. Of course they cover that up claiming Blum Capital Partners, L.P (Richard Blum, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband), won the bid against 7 other competitors. They have never released proof of the bidding. Even the appearance of impropriety is reason to recuse a judge whenever it may be “reasonable be questioned.” It goes even further: Blum and Feinstein both knew that this transaction has the appearance of corruption and a Federal Judge would be compelled to recuse themselves from such a case if “his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.