Saturday, September 05, 2015

Robert Keith English's Lack of Tactical Military Experience Painfully Shows

Robert Keith English, The 19th. He's pointing his weapon at the wall, after pointing it to the camera. That's not how you clear a hallway.

Robert Keith English, also known as Master English, and Kioshi English, is a martial arts trainer at Richmond, VA's Tactical Martial Arts. He has no records of serving in the Marines, Army, or Navy. There are no records of him serving in any tactical capacity in the military.

He likes to claim that he was a Marine, but he never served in the Marines.

Yet, he showcases himself as a martial arts expert drawing experience from his time in the military. The problem for him is that there is no evidence that he served even a day in uniform. But, that doesn't stop him from continuing to show people that he had that expense.

A viewing of the trailer, "The 19th", shows Robert Keith English's lack of tactical experience.

The preview begins with guys breaching a doorway. The number one man points his weapon at the camera, then hooks right. He stood at the doorway area too long. As long as he pointed the weapon towards the camera, he should've continued forward while remaining concealed from potential enemies in the next room.

Instead, he took "forever", waving (flagging the camera) his weapon back-and-forth horizontally, before finally turning to his right. All that was required was one sweep of the weapon eyeball pair. He stood there in from the open door, with a weapon pointing toward the camera for split-second sweeping to the right as he hooked right. He also pointed his weapon at the wall for too long.

Almost instantaneously, the number 2 man would've proceeded toward the camera while remaining concealed.

Now, the number two man enters pointing his weapon toward the camera, but doesn't keep his weapon pointed in that direction. He too turns toward the right. In this part of the film, both the number one and the number two men are pointing their weapons toward their right. No weapon is covering the front of the movement.

Now, the camera may have represented a "wall." If this were true, they would not have needed to continue to cover that area. Both men were pointing toward the opening, neither men needed to "split" in the hallway. If it was evident that the specific section that they were in was "clear", and now they had another opening to worry about, they would've immediately stacked before that opening.

The team walked in front of the opening in a gaggle

From there, someone would of "sliced the pie" (" sidestepped" sideways converting the "unknown" to the "known.") as the number two man did in the film. However, the guy that "sliced the pie" walked sideways in a way that anybody in the other side would have seen his elbows before they saw the rest of him.

The enemy would know about them before our "team" would've learned of the enemy. This would've given the enemy the upper hand.

In an actual scenario, had the enemy been in the other room, this would have initiated a firefight, with the enemy in the room firing the first shots. Or, they could've waited for everybody to start piling into the room. The next room's set up would've allowed the enemy to remain "concealed" from the team entering the room. The door would now live up to its "fatal funnel" label.

Let's take this from another angle.

The guy that "sliced the pie" continued to stand in front of the "opening" that everybody was pointing their weapons too. He was presenting himself as a target. If he would've quickly "sliced the pie" and taken another part of the doorway, concealed, he would've had a good idea of what lay on the other side of the wall that his battle buddy was at.

The team spends too much time in the "fatal funnel"

Yet, he didn't take the opposite position. He just stood in front of the opening. In real life, if someone was waiting for them, hiding behind something in the other room and ready to shoot, the man that just stood in front of the opening would've been shot before he could get any of the action.

As the scene progressed, the number one man shined his light "around parts of the door edges". Then he "carefully" walked to the other side of the door, in front of the number two man, still pointing his weapon at the opening. The number two and the number three men lowered their weapons respectively as the number one man passed in front of them.

That action alone wasted a lot of time, and put the number one man at risk if a target presented himself in from the team and fired at them. It also caused two of the men to lower the weapons, temporarily leaving their sectors uncovered.

At this point of time, all three team members pointed their weapon at the opening. A fourth man did his job and covered the direction they came from.

Meanwhile, the three men stood in front of the opening too long. The enemy would've had a perfect opportunity to take all three down. Again, the door area would've lived up to its "fatal funnel" nickname.

Robert Keith English's Combat Tactics May Get Everyone Killed


Robert Keith English, The 19th. Three men pointing their weapons in the same general direction, a fourth person points to the rear. Meanwhile, the remaining sectors of fire are not covered, and provide the enemy an opportunity to attack their flanks.

On to the next room.

The number one man takes his time walking in, continuously pointing his weapon in one direction. He should've either hooked left or right, not faced forward for a long time. One of the folks behind him would've taken care of that.

You can see that his two battle buddies were pointing their weapons in the same direction, then all three pointed their weapons right. Who is covering their left? Another question is, who is covering from the 6 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position when all three turned the point there weapons towards the 3 o'clock position?

They bunched up and did not cover a 360° sector around them 

One common theme, that's present in all Soldier and Marine battle drills, involving room clearing, has soldiers covering all directions. At no time do you permit any firing sector to remain unwatched.

Once again, in this scenario, the bad guys could've came up on them from behind and shot all three of them.

Speaking of which, remaining bunched up like that while moving into, and through, the room, allows the enemy to maximize the use of stray rounds. For example, a round intended for the middleman, but misses, could hit one of the men on either side of the intended target.

The bad guy, armed with a machine gun, would not have spent as much time gunning them all down. Even rapid reflexive fire from a rifle or carbine on semi-automatic would take them all out.

As the preview progresses, the fourth man does his own thing. He switches from pointing his weapon in same direction as the other three to now pointing to the 12 o'clock position relative to their original movement into the room. Nobody is watching the fourth man's 6 o'clock through 11 o'clock positions. The fourth man's right side was vulnerable from his 1 o'clock through 2 o'clock positions.

The issues that I point out above, for the first three men, now apply for the fourth man.

The three men headed towards the left have nobody covering their 6 o'clock positions. Nobody's covering from their 10 o'clock through their 11 o'clock positions.

So far, from the beginning of the preview of "The 19th", until this point, the four men have left large gaps in their sectors of fire. We have three weapons pointing in the same direction, with two of the men not having a safe sector of fire because of the men in front of him.

Their movement, from most of this preview, is an example of what not to do 

With three of them moving in a straight line like that, one has to wonder if Robert Keith English learned his "tactics" from a videogame. One of the Black Hawk down video games shows this kind of movement. In the area they were in, there's a different way of moving.

Had Robert Keith English served, in an MOS that had to know room clearing, he would've known that. Back to the film.

If they would've been attacked at this point, these four men would've become casualties in less than a minute, depending on what weapons the enemy would've used.

Robert Keith English's advised tactics would easily be defeated

Their tactics at this point could've easily been defeated. For instance, one person could attack them from an uncovered sector of fire. The surviving "good guys" would've hopefully taken cover and fired back. But, given the trend observed so far, they would've taken a Hollywood "shoot back" approach.

While this is happening, another guy could come in and hit the surviving team members from the side.

This is just a movie preview. If Robert Keith English is providing tactical training to security companies, he's doing them a serious disservice. Again, his "tactics" are examples of what not to do.

If filmmakers are looking for someone with military knowledge, to provide guidance for actions in the movie, they should steer clear away from Robert Keith English.

On through the film.

The first three men walked towards the middle of the room, it takes too long for the fourth man to finally cover the rear, but then he turned around and covers a side. At this point, the 6 o'clock position of both groups of men are still vulnerable. The left flank of the three people in row, as well as the right flank of the fourth man, are vulnerable.

You can see that the three men turned away from the fourth man. This leaves his right flank vulnerable in addition to his back and left flank being vulnerable.

How can they be defeated in this section? Two people can enter from behind them, one of them shoots the fourth guy, while the other one simultaneously squeezes the trigger multiple times firing at the center of mass of the three progressing further into the room.

The examples that I bring up here, of defeating these guys, is just one of many examples that could be used to defeat the "tactics" that this preview demonstrated so far.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The three guys bunched up reduces waste, on the bad guy's part, if he were to miss his intended target. The stray round has a good chance of hitting one of the other two. Meanwhile, both groups in the above photo have vulnerable 6 o'clock positions, and vulnerable flanks.

Now, when the fourth man pointed his weapon to their new 6 o'clock position, the second and third man should have had their weapons pointed at the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions respectively. There were enough objects, in the area, that would've allowed hostile's, hiding behind them, to fire at the good guys.

Robert Keith English, keep that weapon pointed down range!

Robert Keith English, The 19th. He lowers his carbine then brings up a pistol. The transition is more than enough time for an attack from the front without the opposition fearing immediate return fire.

 Advance into the new room.

The lead man, looking like Robert Keith English, lowers his weapon temporarily as he enters the room. That's one of the many big "no goes" when doing these operations. The amount of time that weapon is lowered may have been seconds to the lead man. But to those who have done exercises like this repeatedly, that's an eternity.

For the amount of time that he lowered his weapon, the enemy could've fired into him and those behind him. Thus, ending their mission in the preview.

However, the reason he lowers his rifle/carbine is because he wanted to pull out his pistol. He had not fired any rounds from his rifle/carbine. Swapping out weapons like that wasted time and exposed their front to attack.

Also, when you still have rounds for your rifle/carbine, why put that away, in exchange for pistol, when doing a room clearing operation? In situations like this, the pistol is the, "Oh blank, I'm out of rounds, I now have to use my pistol!"

You can see that during this time, his battle buddies are walking in a straight line right behind him.

Their movement through the hallway is an example of what not to do

In a hallway like that, two would've taken a position against one wall, and the other two would've taken a position in the other side. The person on the left would've focused his weapon to anything that could jump out from the right. Person on the right would've done the same in the opposite diagonal direction towards the front left.

The two guys in the back would have been watching the rear using the same concept. Or, one guy would've covered the rear, while the third guy would've covered the middle sector in front of the movement.

Once again, they do not stack up against the door. The lead man standing in the opening makes himself a target. The second man is signaling. In that specific scene, there is no real tactical purpose behind the signaling. When one does signal in this group, a way is done to pass a signal back and forward.

What was he doing with his hand signals?

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The two guys behind are focused on the door, the signals are given well above their plane of view. System of signaling must allow for method for acknowledging receipt of signal.

The number two man, if he were in charge, would pass the signal to the number one man in a way that did not distract the number one man. He would have let the number one man know what the message was. Likewise, the number three man would've passed the signal back to the number four man.

While this message is being passed, all four men would focuse on their sectors. Again, their sectors would cover a 360 sector of fire coverage area.

After the signals are given, the number one man sidesteps into the opening, the man behind him does the same thing as he faces the other direction. The two men behind him are still in the hallway, too far behind them.

In reality, both lead men would've hooked left and right closer to the wall and move all the way almost instantaneously as the two men behind them would've entered the room. One would've covered one of the sectors in the other room, and the other one would've covered the rear.

As the scene progresses, the last two guys entered the room, the last man enters the room and still does not cover their six.

What would he do if he dropped the flashlight during a firefight?

Right after that scene, we see the number one man doing both, holding a flashlight up and using his pistol. Why do that when the carbine used earlier had a mounted light? His attention is now focused to flashing his light and pointing his pistol. What is he going to do if he were to drop the flashlight in the middle of a firefight?

Robert Keith English, The 19th. His carbine had a mounted tactical light. With the switch, he has to focus on two things, light and aim. What would he do if he were to drop that flashlight in a firefight?

Meanwhile, his buddies are in a straight line behind him and not focusing on covering their sectors.

You see a scene where they entered the hallway. The first man is pointing down the hallway. The second man, instead of coming in to cover the other direction, quickly looks back then quickly turns around and follows the first guy.

Once again, as they are going down the hallway, they follow each other in almost a straight line as opposed to taking parallel positions against the walls. As the scene progresses, the number two guy stops. He looks away from the direction that he's pointing his weapon. At no time did he stop the number one guy, who continues on.

Instead of the erroneous method that they used, he would signal the number one guy, so that the letter could provide him cover. He didn't. He allows the other two guys to continue walking on down the hall. This time, the team of four is split. In a large area like that, you do not want to split your team.

More than four people were needed to clear the rooms shown in the preview

In reality, if you're taking a large area like that, you'd use a lot more than just four people. Once your teams deploy into the building, they would work with each other. Team members would remain with their fellow members and do everything they can to remain in contact and together.

The guy, looking like Robert Keith English, does what apparently is a signal. He does it with his hand holding the pistol, waving the pistol down. With the way they have been moving, there is a good chance that he flagged (pointed the pistol at the other two) the others. Instead of stopping the guy ahead of him, he continues walking down the hall with him. They leave the other two behind.

They enter another room using the same lack of tactics that they've been using entering new rooms.

They continue in a straight line, or nearly straight line, instead of taking up positions on opposite sides of a hallway to walk parallel to each other. Either way, they did not effectively covered their sectors.

Robert Keith English, Tell Them to Maintain Team and Sector Integrity!

They get complacent right when they should've had their guards up

They come up to a woman sitting in the middle of a hallway.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The lead man should have kept his distance, and tried verbal interaction. The other guy would've provided cover. The other two should've also been there to provide cover.

Almost immediately, they let their guard down. One guy gets too close to her and gets tackled. The other guy failed to keep his weapon aimed at her in the middle hallway.

Around this time, a man comes out of the shadows and attacks the partner. There was enough time, between the time the second bad guy comes out of the shadows, and the time that the partner could've fired some rounds into him.

In reality, neither would've approached the woman. With her stance not known, the two guys "tactically" moving down the hall would've kept their distance, and kept their weapons pointed at her. This is based on the scenario in the video.

Also, in reality, all four would stayed together. Two guys in the front would continue to cover their sectors diagonally. The third guy would've continued to cover their six. A fourth guy would've tried to interact, verbally, from a standoff position, with the woman sitting in the middle of the hallway.

They would've had more than enough to overpower the two bad guys had they stuck together.

As they approached the woman, they still would've kept their distance. At least one of them would've kept his weapon pointed on the woman sitting on the floor while the others covered their sectors of fire.

As the preview progressed, a fight ensues. They temporary regain control of the situation, then take the attention away from the opposition. They could've at least "cuffed" the opposition that was down, or used something to restrain his/her movement.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. Where are the other two? Now the other guy maintains security, instead of turning things around by helping his buddy. Had the other two been there, they could've provided security while two guys overcome the bad guy.

The opposition regains control of the situation. The other two team members are nowhere in sight as the current pair gets ambushed. During the second struggle, the man had plenty of time to get off a couple rounds on the attacker. He did nothing.

If this scene would've taken place in reality, one event would've been consistent. Those guys that attacked the two men would've gotten shot. The four people would've stayed together, covered their sectors, and would've rapidly shot anybody that tried to come at them from the shadows.

This is where reflexive fire comes in handy prior to being in a situation like this.

This is just a very simple, very basic, look at the military/police tactics that Robert Keith English contributed to this film. Those tactics that they used are a reflection on Robert Keith English. They painfully show that Robert Keith English has no relevant military experience as it relates to this film.

Yet, he is showcasing himself as having military experience in order to attempt to get people to hire him as a consultant on fighting films.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. More than enough time to put rounds in the bad guy.


Thursday, September 03, 2015

Driving a Vehicle as a Reflection of Character, Bank Parking Lot

Changed location to grab this spot; common courtesy, and common sense, dictated that he remained where he was in order for the older people, in incoming cars, be allowed the convenience of parking closer to the bank. Two of the people, arriving in incoming traffic, were senior citizens. 
There are four or five vehicles, in motion, but halted, waiting for another vehicle to take action. The place? The Navy Federal Credit Union at 981 Providence Rd., Virginia Beach, VA.

One car enters from the East, turns right onto the front of Navy Federal Credit Union. Two to three cars are in motion in front of the bank, from the opposite direction. Vehicles in both directions are stopped; however, as another vehicle is trying to enter the path from the parking overflow.

Normally, when a vehicle leaves a parking area, and there are other vehicles in the area that this vehicle is entering, the vehicle is leaving. Not this one. The other vehicles were waiting for this one driver to leave the parking overflow, and to leave the bank's vicinity in general.

This driver, coming from the overflow, held up the other cars for two to three minutes.

The other drivers assumed that this guy, Gadson flag License Plate number 371 2TM,
 was leaving. He wasn't. Instead, he drove straight into a parking lot that opened up in front of the building.

Increasing traffic danger to get one's way

The driver that did this took a lot of risk, and held smooth flow of traffic up in order to do this. Realistically, this move was neither safe nor considerate.

The vehicle that was just entering from the East saw the vehicle that pulled out from in front of the building. However, that driver judged that there was not enough time to efficiently enter in that vehicle's place. Neither did the vehicles coming in from the west.

Although the lead vehicle, coming in from the west, could've safely entered that newly vacated parking spot, he had his left turn signal on. Too much time needed to maneuver into the parking lot, given the number of moving vehicles in the parking area. Using common courtesy, that vehicle wanted to park into the overflow. The car coming in from the east switched signal from right turn to left turn.

With the lead vehicle coming from the west wanting to park elsewhere, the next vehicle that would've been able to park in that spot safely was the car coming in from the east.

Instead, the driver that stopped traffic drove into the newly vacated spot. The person that did this was not a customer. He was waiting for someone that may have been inside the bank.

The disabled and the elderly have priority on "front row" parking lots

Common courtesy dictates that the parking spots in front of the building are reserved for bank customers. The disabled and the elderly get priority parking adjacent to the building.

Everybody else, able bodied, should have no problem parking further from the building, or in the parking overflow. If the passenger, for this errant driver, completed his/her business in the building then exited, the errant driver could've shortened the distance, traffic permitting.

This driver; however, did not care. He wanted his way at the expense of common sense, common courtesy, and basic traffic safety.

What does this say about his personality?

The Gadson flag is one of the flags that the militia units used during the American Revolution. It symbolizes people coming together to preserve freedom and to stand for their rights. It's a symbol representing success in cooperating numbers as opposed to failure among individuals attempting the same thing.

Unfortunately, a small percent of the population hijacked this concept.

This small percent of the population believes that it is beneath them to have to follow rules and laws designed for cooperative coexistence. Many consider these rules/laws as "oppressive" to individual freedoms. Many of these "anti-capitalists", as well as these "antigovernment" radical groups use the Gadson flag as a symbol.

Unfortunately, this puts them in position to spoil the message of the greater group of patriots who do use the Gadson flag license plate.

The fact that this driver, Gadson flag License Plate number 371 2TM, would ignore common sense and common courtesy, and violate safe driving practices, speaks volumes. It indicates a good possibility that this person has had a run-in with the law before.

This run-in with the law could involve a traffic violation, or some other law violation. Each of these violations would have been cited in response to this knucklehead's doing what he wanted to do at the expense of what he was supposed to do.

This person refused to learn from his mistakes. In fact, there's a good chance that he does not see these as his mistakes. Instead, he sees this as him "exercising" his God-given rights. Seen from that angle, society, the police force in the field and the key players in the court system, "get in his way".

The Gadson flag symbolizing some people's belief that they could do what they want

This knucklehead's use of the Gadson flag license plate reflects his misguided assumption. A revision of the current government, or its removal in the hands of a "revolution" would "zero out" this knucklehead's infractions in society. This is if he has any infractions recorded.

Additionally, this "revolution" would "create" a government that "recognizes true freedom." Except, in this case, "true freedom" isn't really the freedom that our founders fought for, nor the freedom that we have in mind.

In the minds of idiot drivers like this, that "true freedom" represents their doing what they want to do at the expense of others.

Everybody else must "bend over backwards" in order for these drivers to do what they want. In other words, he is all for "cooperative coexistence" provided that it does not get into his way. The moment society gets into his way, the rest of the world is supposed to "stop" and allow him to do what he wants.

With this kind of attitude, and the behavior that this person displayed, he is bound to get into a future involvement requiring the police, or to cause another accident. He is bound a future run-in with the law.

Unfortunately, he fits the profile of people that don't learn from their mistakes. That experience will further entrench him into his misguided notion that he is "right" and that society should just cave to his will.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Claims 34 Years of Law Enforcement

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier continues to embellish his experiences. This time, he's claiming over 30 years of law enforcement experience. Without clarification, this leaves the impression that he has over 30 years of active police experience.  

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier continues to make his embellished claims. In a recent posting, he claimed he had 34 years in law enforcement. In reality, he's stretching the truth.

Dennis Howard Chevalier is a "security guard for hire" who does things like guard private parking lots or similar property. At one point in time, he was a reserve police officer. However, he only served a short amount of time at each of the police departments that he served at.

He does not have that much time in as a police officer, or as a traditional law enforcement officer. His stretching his law enforcement experience that way is similar to an "Airsoft" commando claiming to have extensive military experience despite not having military experience.

HOOAH is associated with the Army. If it's used within the organized state militia, it's not as known as the Army using it. As with the law enforcement insinuation, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier leaves out a lot of information so that unsuspecting readers would think that he was part of  an Army or militia outfit, or that he has extensive experience in those outfits. 

Also, in his other posting, he uses the Army "HOOAH" statement followed by "fellow warrior." The implication there is that he had extensive background as a member of the National or State Guard.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier spent 20 days in the Texas National Guard waiting to get discharged for fraudulent enlistment. He spent two through three years in the Texas State Guard, but was discharged with a general discharge. His attitude created a hostile working environment.

 While he goes around pretending that he is something that he is not, to cover for failures in his life, one of his EXs purchased herself a new home as the sole owner. It's amazing the amount of money one could save up that Denny would have otherwise wasted.

Edited, August 3, 2015, to add the following: 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier on the job. This is a photo that he took, posted on his "The Centre" Facebook page. His client is to your left in this photo, not covered. Who's watching the guy adding money to the ATMs while Denny pretends to be a tourist? 


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Military Phonies Blog Updates Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier post

One of the things that these posers and embelishers don't realize is that veterans will close ranks after the military just as they do in the military. With my consent, the Military Phonies blog picked up on some of the articles on this blog:

https://militaryphonies.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/dennis-chevalier-retired-lt-col-u-s-air-force-poser-blog-of-shame/

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier is still up to his games, we veterans are constantly on his trail. 

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, Not a Mistaken Stolen Valor Case

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier implies that the same thing happened to him. The reality? That Marine's situation, and Dennis's situation, are different. Denny got called out for his phony veteran claims. 

Dennis Howard Chevalier and "This Ain't Hell" engaged in debate for months with regards to Denny's stolen valor claims. The "This Ain't Hell" community thoroughly explained to him that his military service claims do not reflect reality with regards to military service.

On Facebook, Denny Chevalier shares a post from the Washington Post. In this article, someone erroneously called out a Marine veteran for stolen valor.

It turned out that this Marine veteran was wearing formerly issued uniform items. He even advanced a good point: who would want to pretend to be a Lance Corporal with no combat experience?

On his commentary, Dennis Howard Chevalier laments that "they" mess this up all the time. Also, with regards to this "messing up," he should know. He's implying that he was falsely accused of stolen valor.

The reality?

It's a fact that Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier did the following:

* Claimed to be retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)
* Claimed to have flown U.S. Air Force C-130s
* Claimed to have flown U.S. Air Force C-130 compass call missions during the Gulf War
* Claimed to have received cancer as a result of his "Gulf War" experiences
* Claimed to be a member of a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) veteran for the Wilmar Police Department

Those claims have thoroughly been proven wrong. Even on his own blog, Denny Chevalier admitted to only doing 20 days in the Texas National Guard. Those 20 days were spent waiting to be discharged for fraudulent enlistment.

He did not even ship out to Basic Combat Training.

When confronted with these facts, Dennis Howard Chevalier said that he never made those claims. He blamed a hacker for going on the Internet and doing that for him.

On his blog, he tried to make it look like we were accusing him of making false claims. Among these "false" claims? That he claimed to be a retired Civil Air Patrol (CAP) LTC, a former member of the police, and a member of the Texas State Guard.

We repeatedly pointed out to him that we understood that he was a retired CAP LTC, a former police number, and, at the time, serving in the Texas State guard. Those facts stood out, we did not challenge them.

We called Dennis Howard Chevalier out on his claiming to be a Gulf War veteran that flew C-130 compass call missions. We called him out on his claims to be a retired U.S. Air Force LTC. We called him out on his claims of being a SWAT veteran.

He denied making the military veteran claims, blaming a hacker of doing it instead. He continues to claim that he was indeed a SWAT team veteran. The problem with that claim? The department, who he claimed to be a SWAT member for, is too small to have a SWAT team. It did not have a SWAT team during the time Dennis Howard Chevalier worked there.

A member of the "This Ain't Hell" posting community verified that with the Wilmer Police Department Chief.

A former spouse jumped onto "This Ain't Hell" and informed us of her experiences with Denny Chevalier. She stated that she heard him make his phony military claims to his students.

Freudian slip, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Describes Himself

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier describes himself as he describes the women in the above screen capture. He posted the photo prior to that, he's the one that liked it. 


One hot button item that popped up during the exchange between Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, and This Ain't Hell, was the fact that he was married six times. As of this post, seven times. His ex-wives, ex-fiancé's, ex-dates, etc., have described him the same way.

He starts off as a charismatic and approachable fellow. He has a "harmless" behavior, even one that draws the women to him. In fact, he's the type of person that could sell blocks of ice to Eskimos in the middle of winter. But, this doesn't last long.

He sweet talked his dates into getting married real fast. The reason? He cannot stay nice long.

As soon as the vows are made, and the marriage gets underway, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier's true self comes out. He becomes a control freak with anger and stress management issues. He will bleed his wife of all her earnings.

He ends up losing his jobs and becoming a stay at home husband. He will eat most of your food, spend all your money, and give you a hard time.

In short, he becomes an abusive, manipulative, and dangerous spouse. There's a trend during his posts about his past dates and wives. He ends up describing himself when he thinks that he's hammering the former women of his life. What he states in the above screen capture is precisely who he is.

Center post, he wishes that he could say that the slats broke because of sex. But, since it's the Internet... Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier reveals one of the things that drives his making false claims


Those that have seen the Denny Chevalier posts on "This Ain't Hell" and on this blog would not be surprised that his bed slats broke.

From this blog's article titled, "Mac et al, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Interview Part II," dated May 8, 2015:

"Narrator: Dennis Howard Chevalier slumbers over to the empty chair by Adrian Parks. He takes a seat. The material in the seat makes protesting noises as if they were going to buckle in.

"Good Idea Fairy: Okay Mac, let's get back to you. Why do you say that the troops are welfare whores?

"Mac: In society, you have the wealth generators, and the leeches. The military is part of the leach group. They get paid with the money forcefully taken from the wealth generators.

"Narrator: Right at this moment, the noise of Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair started to get stronger. When, all of a sudden, CRRAAACK, WHOOMP BUMP...

"Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair breaks and Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair collapsed onto the floor. Dennis Howard Chevalier falls back. His combat pilot hat falls off his head and skitters across the floor. Everybody sees the "Hollywood" label on it rotate into and out of view." - Writer Cubed

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Shows His Desire to Repeatedly Beat Women

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier exposes his true colors in this Craigslist post.
Deep down inside, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier has violent tendencies. He has anger, stress, control, and other issues.

He has demonstrated these tendencies, both overt and covertly, during his commentaries. Shortly after Andra Lorenz dumped him, he went on Dallas Rants and Raves to let out how he truly felt.

In one CL post, he suggests that if women continue to treat men the way they have been treating men, they may end up getting their butts kicked and beaten. He ends his rant with a "suggestion". In this suggestion, he "recommends" that these women "pretend" that the next man that they are with would "kill" them if they mistreated him.

By extension, they would "avoid" playing their games against men as if they were avoiding future harm.

Although the intention here was not that of murder, deep down inside he felt extreme rage. While he was writing that, a series of emotions were boiling to the point that he could easily be set off in a violent mood.

While in this mood, one "wrong" action would make him "fly off the handle." Once that happened, he would unleash his fury on the woman he felt had "wronged" him.

Granted, both men and women will play games with each other. Women play their game a specific way, and men will play their games in another specific way.

In Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier's mindset, he has a feeling of "lost control." There is a strong, primal desire to make things "right." Or, to regain control. In his mind, this kind of "wrongdoing" by the woman who doesn't do things his way in his favor is subject to his administering her a physical butt kicking.

One common theme, among Dennis Howard Chevalier's 7 marriages, is Dennis's verbal and physical abuse. Denny is prone to engaging in verbal and physical bullying. His sixth and seventh ex-wives escaped their marriage to him fearing for their lives.

Dennis is a ticking time bomb. If you are a woman, reading this information because you came across his advertisements, or he has responded to yours, run. Do not even give him a second thought. There's plenty of information on him on this blog and on the military blog "This Ain't Hell" for you to look over before you make a decision.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier is becoming more unstable. The longer he remains without a girlfriend, the more sense of loss of control he feels. This fuels up and builds up inside him. This means that the next woman that becomes unlucky enough to start a relationship with him faces danger.

She will wake up to his true nature. She will react accordingly. When this happens, she increases her vulnerability to receiving harm. There is a reasonable expectation that he will send his next girlfriend/wife to the emergency room or to the morgue.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Stalks Andra Lorenz

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier insists that the "problem" is with his ex fiance. He asks her if she has figured out if she "needed" help, then offers to help her get it. 

Andra Lorenz starts her New Year's (2015) right by dumping Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier.

Denny Chevalier's pride blinds him to the realities of his relationships. In almost every instance, he misinterprets his ex-wives/ex-girlfriend's reactions to him. When they react negatively to his controlling nature, his abusive tendencies, and his attitude problems, he attributes that to them changing.

He sees himself as a "constant." He assumes that there is "nothing" wrong with him.

It's as if he had "taken a dump" in the middle of the community park. In this scenario, people tell him that he shouldn't be relieving himself in the park like that, that his poo stinks, that he was causing health issues, and that his actions contributed to other negative impacts. In this scenario, he'd accuse these people of being obsessed with him and for bothering him for no reason.

Basically put, he doesn't think that his "poo" stinks.

So, when these women had enough of Dennis Chevalier's abusive, controlling, insecure, behavior, and they leave him, he doesn't see that they are done. He assumes that they are going through a temporary phase, and that they do not truly want to get rid of him.

In his latest case, the fact that half a year had gone by since Andra Lorenz dumped him does not faze him. Normally, if he were to find another date, he would leave his previous date/ex-wife alone.

After six months of trying multiple dating sites, and failing to get a new girlfriend, he returns to try to graze his ex-fiancé with his arrogance. His way of trying to get back with her? He sends her a text stating the following:

"well [sic] have you figured out yet you need help ? I can sill [sic] help you get it" [sic] -- Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier

In Dennis Howard Chevalier's mind, a woman that has problems with his control, narcissistic, and other issues "has" a "problem." In his mind, Denny Chevalier thinks that if these women "get help," they will go back to the way they were when they first met.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier labels anybody, that identifies him in a way that hurts his ego and feelings, as people that "need help".

"This group at TAH are, as suspected a bunch of mentally ill abusers that need medication and help  and should be prayed for" - Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, bottom sentence in photo 

Andra Lorenz caught Dennis Howard Chevalier spiking her drink with Valium. Denny figured that Valium would "calm her down." By extension, she would not be reactive to his abusive and hotheaded nature.

His sixth ex-wife suspected that Dennis Howard Chevalier was spiking her drink and food as well. She had no proof that he did so, but she had strong suspicions. When she left him, her energy and strength returned:

"I had to run for my life because I believe he was giving me something and making me ill! I was so sick I was begging him to take me to the hospital and he refused! I was in horrific pain and on the floor and he would not take me. Said I'll get over it! I have no proof but speculation, because as soon as I left him I was doing better!" -- fedupexwifeofdhc

All I have is the above screen capture of a phone number and the text. However, he has repeatedly screamed about people needing to get help. During his back and forth with the posters of This Ain't Hell (TAH), military blog, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier consistently stated that the veterans needed help.

Second to bottom sentence, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier suggests that we leave the world to those who have "stepped up" for those that "cannot help themselves." 

"OMG you need mental help!" - Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, between statements 12 and 13. 

An American's Response to Richard Brunt's U.S. Midterm Elections Rant

"When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?" - Richard Brunt
Richard Brunt: Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections.

People like you, who were confused by the U.S. Midterm Elections, do not have a complete grasp of the facts. You demonstrate this confusion with the rest of your rant against the American Electorate. I will address them point by point.

Richard Brunt: Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs,

First, record profits do not always mean that the economy is doing "great." Without getting into the customer sales side of the house, a company could reduce its expenses on the production side of the house. This may include reduced hiring, layoffs of current employees, closing down non-profitable production, etc.

These variables would lead to "improved profits" on paper.

Second, keep in mind that whatever they are earning, it's despite the fact that President Obama's, and the Democrats', economically destructive policies are in place. The cold hard reality is that if his economic policies, as well as that of his Democrat allies, were not hamstringing the United States economy, our economy would be doing much better.

It would have done much better month for month. 

Richard Brunt: the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month,

First, most of that was part time jobs. A job may be a job, but an increase in part-time jobs relative to full-time jobs is not necessarily "good news" for the economy as a whole. Realistically, people need to work two or three of those part-time jobs to help make ends meet. This is in addition to doing away with a lot of things that they could enjoy if they had one full-time job.

Second, you ignore the fact that jobs were also lost during that period.

Third, you ignore the fact that given the United States' growing working age population, we're going to need a lot more than 200,000 new jobs each month. We're going to need more than 200,000 new full-time jobs that is. Not part-time. 

Richard Brunt:   unemployment is below 6%,

Unemployment doesn't mean the amount of people that are currently not working versus those who are working. It just means the number of people, looking for jobs, who have not found it. Anybody that has stopped looking for work is no longer considered "unemployed."

Another group of people, not considered as "unemployed", are people who have decided to no longer participate in the workforce. 

In 2014, and continuing into 2015, the United States saw one of its lowest percentages of labor force participation rates.

So, combine those people who decide to no longer participate in the labor force, people who stop looking for jobs, and people who have to do a part-time job because they cannot find full-time job, and all of a sudden you no longer have a rosy picture about our labor situation.

A Republican/conservative economic policy may take longer to hold. But, when it does kick in, it provides better numbers in terms of job and economic growth. 

Richard Brunt: U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

On OECD's website, one of the tables list GDP from 2009 through a projected rate at 2016. For 2014, the U.S. tied with Canada, and both fell behind the United Kingdom.

Here's some ranking from the World Factbook:

The United States had a 2.40 GDP growth rate in 2014. We ranked 130. The United Kingdom, also a member of the OECD, had a 3.20 GDP growth rate in 2014. They ranked at 97. Hungary is also in the group of countries. At 2.80 GDP growth rate, they ranked at 116. 

Do I need to go through the list, of OECD countries, and match it to the World Factbook 2014 GDP growth ranking to find additional countries that ranked above the United States in GDP growth?

Richard Brunt: The dollar is at its strongest levels in years,

This has little to do with President Obama's, and the Democrats', destructive economic policies, and a lot to do with people's confidence in the global market. In this case, the dollar. There is a supply and demand process when it comes to investing in currency. This is driven on a global scale. 

Richard Brunt: the stock market is near record highs,

That's like bragging about the record number of churches and bars a town has compared to before.

As the US population grows, as more people participate in its markets, the US economy would get bigger. This will contribute to the stock market getting higher. It is performing better now than it did during the Clinton years. That's expected.

As time progresses, our stock market generally grows. This will happen regardless of who is president, which party this president comes from, what kind of policies are in place, etc.

There are other factors in play that's causing our stock market to go up.

Richard Brunt: gasoline prices are falling,

This has a lot to do with supply and demand, despite President Obama's, and the Democrats', destructive economic policies. 

Because of fracking and other technologies, our energy companies are able to extract energy sources that can compete with foreign oil. Without these additional technologies, OPEC would be in position to sucker us economically, forcing us to pay more at the gas pump.

They could no longer do that. Thanks to American dedication and ingenuity, we managed contribute to OPEC's decision to let the markets dictate price.

This is one of the reasons to why we are paying lower at the gas pump. There are other reasons as well.

Richard Brunt: there's no inflation,

Actually, inflation in the United States rose .8% during 2014. Also, many employed personnel saw their paychecks increase each year due to inflation adjustment. If there is no inflation, this would not have happened.

Richard Brunt: interest rates are the lowest in 30 years,

These rates are being kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve and its counterparts throughout the industrial world. President Obama is not the one that made these interest rates low. Low interest rates does not necessarily signal a "good economy."

One of the reasons for keeping these interest rates low is a lack of trust in how the economy would handle higher interest rates. 

Richard Brunt: U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing,

See my explanations above regarding fracking and other alternative fuel sources. Despite President Obama's, and the Democrats', restrictive and destructive economic policies, our energy producers are forging ahead with increasing energy supply.

With our leveraging our technologies to increase our oil and other supplies, we are decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. This is not because of president Obama's policies, but despite them.

Richard Brunt: the deficit is rapidly declining,

First, deficits and surpluses deal more with how much the government spends relative to what it collects. If the government spends more money than what it collects, we have a deficit. If the government collects more than what it spends, we'd have surpluses. 

Here's one variable that contributed to the deficit picture. The US government spiked its spending relative to tax revenue. Once the spending stabilized at the new rate, a new baseline was established. A decrease relative to the baseline shows a decrease in deficit.

Then we have the economic expansion, despite progressive destructive economic policies, leading to more money being collected by the federal government.

This doesn't change the fact that our debt still remains. It grew substantially under President Obama.

Second, the improving economy can result in people paying more taxes, as higher earnings put them in higher tax brackets. This will increase the amount of money that the government collects. This makes more money available to the government relative to what it spends.

Richard Brunt:  and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.

See explanation above regarding corporate wealth. The rich and super rich, the wealthy, happen to be also those that own and run corporations. What the corporations above did, with regards to production, adjustments in operation, setbacks/cutbacks in nonproductive operations, and other activities, helped improve a company's bottom line. This ended up benefiting the wealthy.

Richard Brunt: America is leading the world once again and respected internationally -- in sharp contrast to the Bush years.

Not really. Under President Obama's leadership, the United States has taken a "lead from behind" approach to foreign policy. This is spliced with a lot of indecisiveness. He has also taken other actions that has frustrated our efforts to fight against the enemy.

For example, the actions regarding Libya and the Arab Spring. A lot of the problems, stemming from the Arab Spring, can be attributed to lack of leadership from the United States under Obama.

Our failure to capitalize on the Arab Spring in Syria, when it started, blew the opportunity for us to prop up and support the good guys over there.

Obama's failure, or rather refusal, to work with the Iraqis and the US military... to forge an agreement to allow the US military to remain in Iraq after 2011... contributed greatly to ISIS's success in Iraq and Syria.

Obama's lack of leadership encouraged our adversaries, emboldened our enemies, and left our allies with worries.

We do not have the respect that you claim we have throughout the world. We are a laughing stock. The Chinese have been pushing hard against our allies, because they know that there's no leadership, nor political will, to respond properly. 

Our enemies are on the advance. They interpret our policies and actions, under Obama, as weakness. They are boldly trying to reach into the United States.

Under President Bush, we had real leadership both within the U.S. and throughout the world. We had a real strategy. We led the world. Don't mistake people's emotional rants and feelings as respect or lack of it. We were respected and feared under President Bush.

Now? We're neither respected nor feared. If earning respect around the world required taking the wrong courses of action, I could care less for that respect. 

If anything, we have started to decline as a superpower. This is one of the things that you could thank President Obama for.

Richard Brunt: Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq

It was President Bush's White House, and Iraqi leadership, that hammered out the conditions that would ultimately lead to troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was predicated on conditions happening on the ground.

The deal, made during President Bush's term, called for combat troops to leave by the summer of 2010. It called for the remainder of the US military to leave by December 31, 2011. 

That agreement left chances for talks for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) open. It also left the door open for the US military to remain behind after December 31, 2011, to provide further training to the Iraqi military.

Although the Iraqis proved "difficult" in the initial stages of this negotiation, they ultimately warmed to our terms. President Barack Obama deliberately made it impossible, by moving the goal posts, to come up with that agreement.

Had he been cooperative, and made it easier for the US military to get that agreement, the Iraqi military would've repelled ISIS at the Iraqi/Syrian border.

Bottom line, the agreement to pull U.S. forces out was already made before President Obama became president. The decision was made before him, and it was based on the fact that our plans were going ahead full speed in Iraq. 

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory.

It was up to President Obama and his team to leverage the conditions on the ground to preserve our victory in Iraq. He dropped the ball on that.

Richard Brunt: and killed Osama bin Laden.

No, President Obama did not kill Osama bin Laden. The Navy SEALS did. Had Hillary been president, or McCain, both would've ordered that raid that killed Osama bin Laden. 

Richard Brunt: So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of?

Wrong, the Republicans did not get us into the mess that you talk about. President Obama, as Senator Obama, contributed to the problem.

The financial crisis of late 2008 was a result of decades of the government interfering with the free market. Mainly, the government's move to force banks to approve loans for people that normally would not be good candidates to receive a loan.

The government forced the free market economy's decision for decades.

In the early 2000s, President Bush warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their potential impact on the economy. His White House warned about the financial consequences of not reigning those two government-sponsored organizations in.

Later that decade, Republican senators tried to push for change. Guess who fought tooth and nail on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You guessed it, the party that President Obama belongs to.

It was the Democrats that refused to do anything that would've prevented the financial crisis of 2008. That was President Obama's party, he was a senator before he was a president. Together with his party, he did not do anything to prevent this crisis. Their refusal to take action against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the financial crisis.

However, any claims stating that President Bush, and his Republicans, "caused" the financial crisis is based on ignorance and on susceptibility to propaganda. Both tried to do something about it, the Democrats refused to cooperate.

Richard Brunt: This defies reason.

Your own reasoning defies reasoning. You comment on the decision of the American Electorate during the midterms of 2014. You did so without first understanding American history, American philosophy, the American mindset, the concepts of a free market economy, microeconomics, macroeconomics, American civics, etc.

Richard Brunt:When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?

You guys can have him, in fact, can you take him sooner? 

Sunday, June 07, 2015

Gery Carson, Strong Future International (SFI) Founder, Corporate Headquarters Photo Deception

On Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) webpage, you see a photograph of a nice one-story brick building. The photo caption indicates that it's SFI's "corporate headquarters."

From Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) webpage. It's listed as the corporate headquarters for SFI

Strong Future International tries to give an impression that they are doing very well. They are doing "so well" that they have a nice, brick building with plenty of surrounding space. Not only did Gery Carson have plenty of space inside, but he had plenty of space surrounding his corporate headquarters building.

You have grass on one side and a large parking lot on the other side. The photo gives an impression of a multi staffed operation.

However, a Google search of 8251 Northwoods Drive, Lincoln, NE 68505, SFI corporate address, shows something different. Google maps showed two buildings, side-by-side, that look similar to the one shown on Gery Carson's Strong Future International website.

Google Maps marks the address obtained from Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) Webpage. The building is part of Northwoods Plaza, which has a collection of buildings containing suites for businesses to rent. 

In the same area, three additional buildings stand on the opposite side of the parking lot. A roundabout separates these rows of buildings.

The three buildings on the other side are larger versions of the one listed for SFI's address. This looks similar to a shopping district. In fact, a real estate listing on loopnet.com lists this as "Northwoods Plaza."

Loopnet.com listed one of the bigger buildings, in Northwoods Plaza, as being up for sale for well over $1 million. In the description, the building is described as having a high-quality tenant base.

In other words, multiple tenants occupy different suites in those buildings.

LoopNet, loopnet.com photo for 8251 Northwoods Drive, Lincoln, NE 68505 at Northwoods Plaza. Suite 200, SFI Corporate Headquarters' location, is just one of the suites in that building. 

SFI's address had a Suite 200 listed. Loopnet.com had a listing for the building, but not up for sale. 8251 is the number listed on the building. Strong Future International listed a Suite 200 as their address. It's obvious that the building in SFI's photo isn't entirely Strong Future International's.

Instead, Gery Carson's SFI is renting one of the suites inside of building 8251. Even if the window, to SFI's suite, is visible in the SFI photo, it's not detailed or identified. Strong Future International leaves that information out. Most viewers will think that the entire building is SFI's corporate headquarters.

That's not true.

So, if Strong Future International had any business ethics in them, they would not try to claim an entire building as their headquarters. Instead, they would've posted a picture featuring Suite 200 as their corporate headquarters.

Strong Future International (SFI) website photo for Gery Carson, the founder. This photo appears dated, and doesn't look much different from the one used on SFI's website last decade. 

If Gery Carson's Strong Future International is being deceptive about its headquarters, what else is it being deceptive about?

Strong Future International (SFI) website insinuating that the whole building is their headquarters.

Saturday, June 06, 2015

Glenn Beck is Wrong, the Liberals Were not Right About Iraq

Glenn Beck: Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free.

First, most of those who have been to Iraq, over the long run, disagree with that notion. I've combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. I disagree with that notion as well.

Second, liberals argued in favor of slavery up to the end of the Civil War, should we have listened to them? Liberals said that we should conclude the Civil War and negotiate with the Confederacy. Should we have listened to them? Liberals argued in favor of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and other oppressive laws. Should we have listened to them?

Historically, liberals have advanced the wrong argument. Starting in the middle of the 20th century, they have argued as "useful idiots" for our enemies and adversaries.

Advance to the 21st century.

When the liberals argued against the Iraq war, they were doing so because they disagreed with George Bush. Every justification that the liberals came up with, against the Iraq war, was wrong. The Iraqis wanted freedom. Reconstruction went a long way to improving their lot.

Glenn Beck: I thought that was insulting at the time.

Yes, it was insulting at the time. However, what's more insulting than that is a "conservative" throwing his hands up and waving the white flag when the going gets tough. To rub salt into the wounds? That same "conservative" suggests that both sides should come together under that white banner.

Do you honest to God believe that we will come together with the other side? This given that they have been wrong for decades? You think we would come together with them simply because of your opinion about them being "right" and that we should move forward?

I'm sorry, I will stick to the facts. You were right before. You are wrong now. Your attitude, and your claiming that the liberals were "right" about the Iraq war, makes you precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they coined the term "Summer Soldier" and "Sunshine Patriot."

Glenn Beck: Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right.

Liberals were wrong. There's an excellent chance that the majority of the liberals, that claimed that the Iraqis did not want freedom, did not deploy to Iraq.

I have news for you guys. The Iraqis wanted freedom. I saw that in their eyes. I saw it in their actions. 

It's so easy for you guys, sitting within the comfort of US civilization, to look over at Iraq and say, "They did not want freedom." 

The US military was not able to continue on with maintenance training with the right amount of troops. There was a lack of will in Washington D.C. to support this military request. This resulted in the deterioration of the Iraqi force. You can't use that as an explanation as to why you think that the Iraqis "did not want" freedom.

You could blame that on the failure of leadership in both Washington D.C. and Baghdad. You can't look at the results of that failure and say, "The Iraqis did not want freedom."

If the Iraqis did not want freedom, they would not have fled many of the cities and towns. They were getting away from the Sharia Law that you insinuate they preferred. They are fleeing from radical Islamic law. They are fleeing to safe areas where they would not be exposed to radical Sharia Law. 

Being protected from those realities, due to being within the comfort zone within US civilization, blinds liberals that you agree with to that reality.

Glenn Beck: We shouldn't have.

Wrong Glenn Beck, we should have. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. However, as with anything else in the world, an effort like that requires decades of involvement. Granted, the military portion could end, but that does not mean the supports and other areas could not continue.

Washington D.C. failed to secure the straight cut victory that we achieved in Iraq. Don't turn around and say, "We should not have gone in."

To me, that makes you, or any other conservative that believes the same thing, nothing more than summer or sunshine conservatives. 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.