Laura Ingraham Wrong About Iraq and WMD

Knowing what I know now, I'd still authorize the invasion of Iraq had I been President George Bush.

Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.

Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true": 

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham:
When he's asked a simple question, good on Megan Kelly by the way, what was the question? Knowing what we know now, not if you are in the same exact circumstances your brother would you have authorized this war, no no no, knowing what we know now, mainly that there were no WMDs, we got bad intelligence, if you had known all those things, would you have, he said, "Yes, I still authorize the war. That, in my mind, reveals, it's a sneak peek as to what Jeb is going to face come general election should he win the nomination. Megan gave him a little taste of that, it's going to go way beyond would you authorize the war in Iraq?

During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war. 

The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.

Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."

George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.

Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.

If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.

As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms. 

We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.

Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.

But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.

In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.

Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.

With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.

Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.

The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.

Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.

The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.

Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.

This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.

Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.

This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.

The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.

The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day. 

The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.

The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore. 

When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.

Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.

Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.

So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.

Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere. 

They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.

Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.

The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.

What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.

Laura Ingraham Wrong About Those Who Would Still Order an Invasion of Iraq Knowing What They Know Now

In her diatribe against Jeb Bush, Laura Ingraham continued on as if the assumption, solidified by media propaganda, were "fact." I mean, if the news people said that there were "no" WMD in Iraq, who in their "right" mind would have invaded in the first place?

I'm sorry, the Iraqi security personnel that suffered IED burns, on their skin, would disagree. The burn on their skin represent the aftermath of a blister agent laced IED. Blister agents are examples of WMD. This speaks volumes of the fact that WMD was in Iraq as President Bush argued.

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham
But that's, that  that's just a fun hypothetical but you have to say no to that! You can't say, "yes I still would've gone into Iraq! Or and if you do, you just have to have, there has to be something wrong with you! You can't still think that going into Iraq now as a sane human being was the right thing to do! I don't, I just, that's just, that's like you have no ability to learn from past mistakes at all! Well when the past mistakes were made by your brother.

Why can't we? Because most of the media claims that there were "no" WMD in Iraq... despite the fact that the WMD kept turning up throughout the Iraq War? 

I understand that Laura Ingraham was busy hammering Jeb Bush. She was doing her best to erode his credibility. After all, he is not the best candidate for the Republican side. 

The major fact that he did an about-face from his brother's decision made him a candidate that I would not vote for in the general elections.

In fact, any Republican candidate for president... that states or believes that he/she would not have ordered the Iraq invasion "knowing what they know now"... would not get my vote. If the ultimate Republican nominee is an agreement in this regard with Laura Ingraham, there's an excellent chance that I would not vote Republican for president in 2016.

So yes, I could understand that she's pulling all she could pull to torpedo Jeb Bush's credibility. However...

If I were president in early 2003, I still would've ordered the invasion of Iraq knowing what I know now.

Whether she realizes it or not, she labels those of us on my side of the argument as "having something wrong."

I mean, really? I strongly believe, based on the facts and on historical context, that going into Iraq was/is a smart thing to do. I strongly believe that we still should have gone in when we ultimately went in.

I say this knowing what I know now for an action I would still take had I been President Bush in early 2003.

It is our ability to learn from the past that makes us hold strongly to the argument that yes, we would order the invasion of Iraq knowing what we know now.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was an asymmetrical threat to the United States. He spent much of the 1990s, and early 2000's, playing games with the United Nations weapons inspections. 

A Russian defector wrote the book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy.

The author, Stanislav Lunev, went into detail on how he, as a member of a para-special forces unit in Russia, trained the Iraqis on deception with regards to weapons of mass destruction. He talked about how he trained them to create the WMD casing that look like anything that you would find in the environment.

Considering that the terrorists used MRE wrappers as IED casing speaks to this account being close to reality.

When they got word that the inspection team was coming to an area that had WMD, the Russian military provided advice on how to move and hide that WMD.

Too farfetched? 

Saddam Hussein complained about how members of the Western inspection teams were "spies" or "agents of intelligence agencies." 

The methods that Stanislav Lunev talked about in his book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, turned up again during Collen Powell's testimony to the United Nations. Collen Powell's accounts of how the Iraqis were moving suspicious items match with the descriptions for similar events given in the book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy.

Saddam Hussein was an asymmetrical threat that had to be removed from power.

On one hand, we had Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda dreaming of "fantastic" and "spectacular" attacks on US soil. On the other hand? We have Saddam Hussein refusing to come clean with his weapons of mass destruction program or weapons of mass destruction.

Those who say that Saddam Hussein would not have gotten along with Osama bin Laden fail to understand the following Arab saying:

"An enemy of an enemy is a friend." 

They also fail to see our own history where capitalist United States worked with communist Soviet Union to fight the Axis Powers.

Saddam Hussein has a history of supporting terrorism in the Middle East. Then we had this case of a terrorist training camp in Iraq, where some of the cadre admitted to training Al Qaeda. They may not have had joint cooperation with regards to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

However, one has to see this from an asymmetrical warfare standpoint. Those reading the reports of the two inspection teams that the US sent to Iraq post invasion... without the bias offered by the media... would see that the inspection teams could not rule out movement of WMD to another country.

They couldn't rule out the possibility that WMD existed in parts of the country that they did not check.

Both reports essentially said that in the areas that they searched, they cannot find WMD. Any attempts to describe the parts of Iraq that was not searched based on the findings of a limited search would be irresponsible.

That's what the mainstream media did. They extrapolated the results of a limited search and applied it to the entire country. That's academically irresponsible.

We had a situation where Al Qaeda is looking for a way to commit mass terrorism on US soil. That's still the case now. At the same time, we had a madman refusing to come clean with his WMD with the intention of reconstituting his WMD program. These conditions created an asymmetrical warfare version of standing in the middle of the room... Waist high in easily flammable liquid... With a man playing with matches.

We had to go in given those conditions. As I mentioned earlier, it was not just about WMD. It was also about setting the right conditions in the Middle East. These are conditions that would facilitate rapid economic and democratic growth in the Middle East. It was a process that was to happen over a long period of time.

History has been cruel to those who assumed that a specific type of weapon did not exist.

The only people that I notice, that have no ability to learn from the past, are those that still insist that there were "no" WMD in Iraq. 

They fail to recognize the numerous articles written attesting to WMD being found in Iraq post invasion.

They fail to learn from history. For example, in a morning in the Philippines in the late 19th century, Filipinos slaughtered American soldiers in the mess tent. They used weapons that certain American sentries thought "did not exist."

History has been brutal to those that think that certain weapons "did not exist."

What reasonable human being, one that's capable of learning, would ignore the facts in favor of media propaganda? That's where the statement, "There's something wrong with you," should be applied.

Laura Ingraham, No Strategic, Operational, or Tactical Military Experience, Criticizing the Decision to Go to War

In her diatribe against Jeb Bush, Laura Ingraham suggests that Jeb Bush should play into the media stereotype of the conservative:

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham
You can't just do, you have to have someone who says, "look I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot!" I'm not, I'm not stupid! I am a conservative and I learn from the past, I am prove myself, I don't bring in the same people who made the same stupid decisions in the 2000's ah to to get us into the 21st century, the the next part of the 21st century I should say, so, common, I mean we could learn but it's hard...

First, she's assuming that her opinion about this part of the Iraq War is "fact."

Second, she adopts an opinion that plays into the media stereotype of the conservative. She offers a solution based on the opinion that there were "no WMD" in Iraq. 

Again, George Bush's argument about WMD in Iraq was justified repeatedly throughout the Iraq War. 

Why is it that far too many people in the general population don't know this? It's because the mainstream media did not emphasize these WMD discoveries. If anything, they tried to downplay it. It's also because too many people are too busy to research the facts.

The mainstream media went into overdrive about the inspection teams not finding WMD. They went in the opposite direction when it came to articles involving WMD in Iraq being found. 

Even FOX News, where Laura Ingraham has commented on occasion, generated related articles. In these articles, soldiers were described as being injured with sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced IEDs.  

Under asymmetrical warfare, when you have somebody not coming clean with his WMD programs... In a similar camp as somebody else who has already successfully perpetrated attacks on US soil... You don't have room to maneuver.

I still see the decision, to go into Iraq, as the right decision to make. I say that knowing what I know now.

Laura Ingraham leverages her opinion about that argument, misdiagnoses the problem, and gives an erroneous solution. The solution entails partially accepting the media stereotype of the Republican/conservative.

Her statement about being a Republican, but not being stupid, ratifies the liberal's opinions of conservatives. 

As a conservative, what I see as stupid is accepting as "fact" media propaganda... then turning around and suggesting the following as a tactic: "I'm a Republican but I'm not stupid, I could learn from my mistakes."

That's like saying, "I live in Washington D.C., but I'm not stuck up." Or, that's like saying, "I may live in the 'boondocks' in the "Deep South", but I'm not a bigot." Both these hypothetical statements, and the Laura statement, ratifies the traits that the speaker is distancing himself from.

To make this clear, we could restate Laura's statement as saying this, "Republicans are 'stupid' and 'don't learn' from their mistakes; I'm a Republican but I'm not stupid and I do learn from my mistakes." 

Real conservatives don't allow the opposition to describe them. 

Real conservatives stick to the facts, and stick to their decisions. They will continue to stick to this decision when the facts dictate a scenario not supported by mainstream media or by the general public. 

Those advisers that she criticized made decisions within a geostrategic environment. They had access to the facts that Laura Ingraham did not have access to. Their arguments, as presented in the months leading up to the Iraq war, as well as presented into the United Nations, still hold.

WMD were consistently discovered in Iraq post invasion. The Iraqis rapidly embraced the change that we were bringing about. Together with improving conditions in Afghanistan, those countries contributed to major changes that took place in the Middle East.

This contributed to the "ripple effect" that the Bush Administration, and its supporters, argued about last decade.

It was up to Washington D.C. to keep aware of what was going on in the areas impacted by the Arab Spring. It was on them to leverage that movement in favor of supporting factors that would facilitate rapid economic and democratic developments.

The current administration failed to do that. This led to rolling back the progress that the Bush Administration delivered to the Obama Administration. Heck, the United States military handed over a straight cut victory in Iraq over to the US government... specifically the State Department.

The military had a plan in place to sustain our gains and to build on it via the Iraqi military. There was no will in Washington D.C. to preserve the victory. The results of this lack of will should not be used to downplay the decision to enter Iraq in the first place.

Again, a real conservative sticks to the facts regardless of the number of people that ignore those facts. 

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part I --The Real Deniers Deny Global Cooling

Al Gore refuses to debate his position with climate realist scholars and scientists. 

The sun is behaving the way it behaved during the beginning of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. This is the period known as the Mini Ice Age. Solar sunspot activity numbers, and solar sunspot flaring numbers, are decreasing. This decrease continues over the long run. 

Many record colds are beating 100 to 200 year old cold records. This is in contrast to warm records defeating decades old records. Winter behavior in both hemispheres indicate an earlier start, colder run, more aggressive play, and a later end.

Although evidence is increasing towards global cooling, people continue to express global warming myths. They attack those, who disagree with the man-made global warming theory, as being in denial. 

Reality? The so-called "climate deniers" are actually "climate realists."

Myth: Those who disagree with man-made global warming are climate deniers.

Those who disagree with global warming are not "climate deniers," they are "climate realists." They study actual observations as well as actual data. They study these as they occur all over the world. 

They base their conclusions on data gathered over a period of time.

Climate realists are noticing that summers are shorter and less hot than they used to be. They're noticing that winters are colder and are longer than they used to be. They're noting that the Antarctic ice sheet has been setting records recently.

These observations make it hard to accept the man-made global warming theory. 

Myth: Those who disagree with man-made global warming disagree with science.

Climate realists' disagreement with man-made global warming is based on science. Raw thermometer and satellite surface temperature measurements indicate a cooling trend. 

The physics involved with interacting air masses, where the polar air masses are progressively colder, explains current weather phenomena. This includes violent weather activity and weather extremes.

A look at history, as well as "forensic" examination of ice core samples, underwater sediments, tree ring data, etc., argue in favor of climate change being a natural process. Not a man-made one.

Myth: Overall average temperatures of the world is increasing.

The raw thermometer data over the past 80 years show an overall declining trend. 

Actual weather measurements, both ground and satellite, indicated a peak in natural global warming in the mid-to-late '90s. They show that average global temperatures stabilized in the first part of the first decade of the 21st century. 

Since the middle of that decade, there has been an overall declining trend in temperatures.

Certain groups have tried to average up the recent temperature measurements. They also attempted to average down the older temperature measurements. This provides a misleading graph showing an "increase" in temperatures into the present.

Actual raw data contradicts that conclusion.

Even many global warming scientists admit that there's a recent pause in a rise in temperatures... meaning, average global temperatures haven't risen in the past few years. 

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part II -- Actual Temperature Data Shows Long Term Cooling Trend

Myth: Climate realists look at a single cold winter's day and use that to dismiss global warming.

When climate realists say, "So much for global warming," they're saying it based on long term trends. They're not basing it on single incidents during a specific season... unless they're talking about those incidents collectively over time.

For example, we've had two cool snaps in North America during the summer of 2014. The polar air mass made the height of summer feel like late fall. This normally doesn't happen. Those cool snaps dropped average summer temperatures. 

This appeared to be a continuation of the cold snap events of the previous winter. The following winter also set records.

Many of those, that advance this myth, take a single record hot event as "proof positive" of man-made global warming. 

Many pro-global warming debaters tend to emphasize the impacts of summer heat waves in relation to the climate debate. Many of the same groups attempt to isolate cold snap events from the climate debate.

A few years ago, I saw a statement on a weather website. 

During the time, half the country was under a warm air mass. The other half was under a cool air mass. Records were being set under those air masses. However, they reported it something like this, "record heat set in ____ wintry weather in ___." 

That wasn't balanced reporting. They could've stated something like record heat in one area and record cold in another area. Or, they could've said "summer like" in one area and "winter like" in another area.

The bias toward the man-made global warming argument was evident in that headline.

In reality, records favoring the cold and warm ends of the temperature extremes are set each year. This includes record highs, record lows, record low highs, and record high lows. The momentum is shifting more in favor of record cool and cold temperatures throughout the year.

There are those who will take the record highs and try to use that as an argument that the world is getting "warmer." This same group ignores the more impressive record cold/record cool temperatures and weather.

Myth: Increased storms and droughts are a sign of man-made global warming

Climate change has always been around, at least since the atmosphere facilitated climate change. It's not restricted to Earth. Evidence of climate change has been observed on Mars. 

Unfortunately, the term "climate change" has been hijacked as an alternative term for "global warming." Momentum for this term change accelerated as evidence contradicted man-made global warming.

The increasing volume of evidence makes it easier to debunk global warming. Those that advance the man-made global warming theory attempt to shield themselves from "being wrong."

After all, when "the majority of the masses" see that the pro-global warming debaters are wrong, the latter could say that the climate did, in fact, change.

Increasing storm intensity, and increased temperature contrasts, are symptoms of a mini ice age. The larger the difference between meeting air masses, the better the chances of violent storm reaction.

Air masses headed south, to meet warmer air, have trended towards being cooler/colder each year. This increases the temperature difference compared to the air mass flowing north from the Caribbean. This contributes to more energetic and violent storm activity each year.

Myth: Climate realists just use recent years to argue global cooling; they "ignore" the graph that started in the 1970s and earlier.

When climate realists use a graph, they use one that spans decades, even centuries. They also use the one that resulted from the ice core samples pulled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This spans approximately 400,000 years.

The global warming group emphasize the graph running from the 1970s to present. Or, they use one where the data was manipulated. This manipulation increased temperatures in the present while suppressing temperatures prior to 1970.

This provides a phony image of temperatures rising in conjunction with human industrial activity.

Climate realists utilize raw data graphs. These raw data graphs indicate natural rises and decreases in temperatures that follow a pattern.

Raw data indicates a declining overall trend in temperature starting in the 1920s. With the 19th century's climate included, these graphs show an increase in global temperatures from the mid-19th century until the 1930s.

Temperature trends declined from the 1940s to the 1970s. They increased from the 1970s to the 1990s. Since then, it has been getting cooler.

Both long-term, and short-term, trends show a world that's cooling down, not warming up.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part III -- Actually Much Warmer Before Modern Times

Average temperature graphs covering 400,000 years to the present disagree with the man-made global warming theory. Scientists constructed these graphs using data from ice core, tree rings, underwater sediments, etc. 

It has been warmer, over the past 10,000 years, then it has been during our lifetimes. We are long overdue for major glaciation. Human activity will not stop a process that started before 1 million years ago.

Myth: Temperatures and CO2 levels have historically been low. As human industrial activity increased, CO2 levels increased and so have temperatures.

Actual, raw, data shows increases and decrease in temperatures. In the past 2,000 years, there was the Roman Warm Period, The Medieval Warm Period, and the 20th Century Warm Period. 

This graph, of natural data, tells a different story from what most people are being told. 

It shows that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th Century Warm Period. Warm periods that happened before the Roman Warm Period were generally warmer than the Roman Warm Period.

In the same graph, there are mini ice ages. The most recent one taking place from the 1600s to the 1800s.

Even among these Warm Periods, the trend is towards declining average temperatures.

Myth: Most of the hottest years occurred this century...

Raw temperature data disagrees with this. They actually indicate that the hottest years occurred in the previous century. Global warming peaked in the 1930s and again in the 1990s. 

Many record-breaking cold temperatures are defeating 100 + year old cold records. Contrast this with record hot temperatures defeating records set within the last three or four decades.  

Most of the global warming that took place before the 21st Century took place from the late 19th century through the 1930s. This reversed from the 1940s to the 1970s. Average temperatures rose again from the 1970s to the 1990s. From the late 1990s until present, average global temperatures have been sinking. 

It's getting colder.

Despite that up-and-down temperature trend, human industrial activity continued to increase. CO2 emissions continue to go up. Even with the current "pause" in "global warming", CO2 levels are going up.

Raw temperature data this century leans toward record cold/record cool temperatures. Announcements, declaring that we just set a record hot year, were based on averaged-up data. 

Actual, raw, thermometer measurements for each year consistently didn't support that conclusion. Average temperature trend is downward.

Myth: Climate realists do not factor in satellite data.

Climate realists utilize raw data from both ground thermometer and satellite temperature measurements. 

They do this not only in real time, but across a longer period of time. When you take both into consideration, you see true temperature on the ground away from urban hot pocket areas. You'll also see true temperature trends throughout the world... across time.

Both long-term ground based thermometers, and long-term satellite measurements, indicate a current cooling trend.

Myth: In addition to "rising" temperatures, sea levels are rising, warming, and expanding at an alarming rate.

There are studies, of sea levels, that are producing conflicting conclusions. There are studies that indicate that the sea levels are rising. However, many of these studies indicate that the rate of sea level rise is declining.

This is significant. 

From a physics and mathematics standpoint, declining rates of sea level rise indicate something else. If that trend continues, we will reach a point of sea level decline.

Other studies indicate that sea levels are actually declining. 

This is natural. The Arctic Ice Sheet is regaining its lost ice. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is setting size/extent records. Most glaciers are actually growing, and not decreasing.

If this trend continues, more studies will show a declining sea level trend.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part IV -- Polar Ice Caps Volumes Actually Increasing

Solar Dynamics Observatory photo of the Sun. Increasing evidence points to the sun as the driver behind climate change. 

Myth: Ice in Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an unprecedented rate... and Arctic Sea Ice continues to decline....

First, the Arctic Sea Ice has regained 50% of the average ice volume it lost during its record ice loss year. The Antarctic Ice Sheet set records two years in a row. It's currently set to match those previous two years.

Most people, biased towards global warming, zero in on the part of Antarctica that is melting. That melt is caused by an active volcano underneath that ice. That ice sheet, containing the volcano, is a small percent of the total ice sheet. The ice sheet on the rest of the continent is increasing in volume.

This contributed to the record sea ice increases surrounding Antarctica.

Second, the Arctic Ice Sheet will melt as we progress from winter, through spring, to summer. This melt stops sometime in the fall. This is when the ice sheet grows back. This also happens in the Antarctic.

Third, the Danish Meteorological Institute discovered that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually growing. This growth has outpaced growth in the previous years. This is consistent with the performance of the ice volume from the rest of the world.

Myth: Climate realists just look at the past 3 to 5 years, they ignore the overall trend.

That's getting into semantics. Something happened in recent years that set the conditions for ice recovery on both poles. Obviously, there's a new baseline by which to measure both ice sheets. 

Second, some of our Antarctic stations have stilts. This has been the case since at least the last decade. One reason they have stilts is that the "ground" keeps "rising." This wouldn't be happening if the ice volume wasn't increasing. 

Third, longer trends indicate increasing ice volume.

Myth: The sun was brighter in the '30s. Since the '50s; however, it has been getting dimmer, but temperatures continue to rise...

Long-term global climate/weather matches solar activity. The sun was more active than normal in the 1930s and the 1990s. These happen to be the global warming heights of the last century.

Historically, declines in solar sunspot activities led to declines in average global temperatures. Absence of sunspots correspond to brutally cold conditions. As solar sunspot flaring activities increased, so did average global temperatures.

The sun's effect on the climate has been observed in nature. It has been replicated in the lab. A decrease in sunspot flaring activities is related to a decrease in solar winds. 

Solar winds are our "first line of defense" against cosmic rays. Our second line of defense is our magnetic field. As of the generation of this post, both solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field are weakening.

Cosmic rays facilitate droplet and cloud formation. This facilitates cooling trends and increased precipitation.

A satellite launched to study the sun, in the early 1990s, indicate a rapid decline in solar winds. This decline matches the decline in average global temperatures. The information that the satellite gained, from its orbit around the sun, has contributed to a new theory. 

It provides a better explanation of what could be happening in the sun, solar system, galaxy, and surrounding areas. In fact, it does a good job explaining the events happening throughout the universe.

This new theory better explains the sun's behavior, as well as its impact on our climate. It better explains the sun-to-climate relationship than the earth's inclination or the Milankovich Orbital Cycle. 

This is the electromagnetic sun theory. It also falls under the electromagnetic cosmos theory, or the electromagnetic universe theory.

This electromagnetic sun theory proposes that the sun operates electrically. This is both by itself, and in conjunction with the solar system, and neighboring stars. This theory posits that the sun is fed from an outside source. By extension, when this "outside source" stops feeding the sun, our star dims and runs on residual power.

This dimming makes it hard to sustain agriculture in temperate areas of the world. These are many of the same areas in the world that were covered by ice sheets during the mega Ice Age. 

It's becoming more and more evident that our star, not humans, is to "blame" for climate change. The sun drives short-term and long-term global weather.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part V -- Temperatures Going Down, CO2 Going Up

Man-made global warming folks point to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the greenhouse gas playing a role in "man-made global warming." However, actual data does not support that. Carbon Dioxide, or increasing amounts of it, is not causing global warming. 

In fact, even the United Nations has admitted to a "pause" in "man-made" global warming. Despite this fact, the volume of CO2 in our atmosphere keeps increasing.

Myth: Before human activity, the CO2 system was in balance, with the oceans absorbing that same amount as was emitted.

The Ocean has released and absorbed CO2 at different amounts throughout our history. It's a cycle. The oceans continue to do both, absorb and release CO2 at the same time. It alternates between absorbing more, and releasing more. The net release, or absorption, has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.

Many man-made global warming articles show CO2 being released from industrial activity. That's not CO2, but CO, or carbon monoxide, and one or more of the other major pollutants. Other pictures show factories releasing water vapor in the form of steam. This picture accompanies an article talking about CO2 increase milestones.

They also show other elements, but not a massive collection of CO2. 

Myth: The natural CO2 emission and absorption rate allowed for 180 to 200 ppm CO2 prior to human industrial activity. Industrial activity contributed to an increase in CO2 volume above 200 ppm.

There were times, before the first humans walked on this planet, when CO2 existed in higher concentrations than today. Neither humans, nor human industrial activity, existed during those times. The rise or fall of CO2 concentration is a natural process. Humans will not be able to stop it.

Myth: Human industrial activity is the reason to our blowing over 300 PPM CO2.

The Vostok Ice Core graph shows that whenever we exceeded a certain volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, we entered a mega ice age. This happened like clockwork. We have already passed that point.

This has happened multiple times over the past 400,000 years. 

Myth: Humans are the biggest CO2 release culprits.

Most of our CO2 comes from the oceans, from forests, from animals, and from other natural sources. This has not changed because of our existence. When humans cut down forests or vegetation, this contributes to the release of the CO2 contained in the vegetation. 

Humans also release CO2 when they exhale. Does this make humans guilty of pollution every time they exhale? 

Myth: CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. That comes from natural sources. CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gases, most of which comes from natural sources.

Myth: CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 is a natural gas that exists mainly from natural sources. CO2 is a natural fertilizer. Plants need CO2. With all other things being equal, the more CO2 a plant gets, the better it generally does.

Human industrial activity, and vehicle activity, tend to release carbon monoxide, or CO, and other pollutants. Those biased towards global warming try to get CO2 confused with CO. 

Carbon Monoxide is a pollutant, it's released by human activity. By itself, it's not being accused of causing global warming. Something that humans exhale gets blamed instead.

Myth: Unlike human CO2 activity, volcanic eruptions do not impact climate.

There's a strong argument for volcanic eruption impact on weather, compared to human activity. There are studies that suggest that their impact tends to cool climate down temporarily. Decreases in temperatures early in the 1990s pointed to a single eruption of a Filipino volcano as a possible cause.

Contrast this with the alleged impact of human industrial activity.

Most of the modern global warming happened before World War II. It ran from the late 19th century until the 1930s. Temperatures declined from the 1940s to the 1970s, despite increasing industrial activity.

The second warming run, from the 1970s to the 1990s, stopped in the late 1990s. Temperatures have been trending downwards since then. 

Human emissions continue to increase despite that natural up and down cycle.

Even the United Nations has acknowledged a "pause in global warming." Despite this "pause", CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is still going up. If temperatures paused despite rising CO2 concentrations, then what is causing CO2 increase?

Responsible science would reject the assumption that CO2 is causing temperature rise.

An increasing amount of volcanoes are active, both on land and underwater. These can have more of an impact on the climate than human industrial activity.

CO2 is a natural fertilizer that plants need. It's a naturally occurring gas. Human contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to that of the oceans, forests, volcanoes, and other natural sources.

Myth: "Man-Made" global warming is causing these recent floods and increased precipitation.

Cosmic rays facilitate water vapor and water droplet formation. As solar sunspot flaring activity decreases, solar wind activity decreases. With a decrease in solar wind, cosmic rays into our atmosphere increase.

Cosmic rays contribute to water droplet and cloud formation.

This leads to an increase in moisture and water vapor in the atmosphere. This contributes to increased precipitation as average global temperatures decline. This concept has been observed in nature, and has been successfully replicated in the lab.

Myth: An increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperatures.

Actual ice core data shows that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, not the other way around. The Vostok Ice graphs show that CO2 continued to climb well into a mega ice age before dropping off. 

Myth: In actuality, most of the weather/climate observations matches the computer model global warming predictions.

Computer forecasting based global warming predictions have failed. These models made predictions over the past 14 years. Mother Nature has proven those models wrong. The further into the future the projection, the bigger the deviation.

Actual temperature measurements indicate a cooling trend.

Deception: If you rerun computer global warming models with 3 degrees of warming, the predictions match exactly the warming that we've observed.

This is an arbitrary increase at the input end.

Computer models are an example of "garbage in garbage out." It's impossible to fit every variable, impacting climate and weather in the real world, into a computer model. Computer models run on artificial variables and constructs.

With their not running on the actual variables, their forecasts are largely unreliable. Computer models cannot accurately predict weather in the next two days. They can't be relied upon to predict climate over the long run.

There has been no increase in average temperatures since the end of the 20th Century. So, if computer modeling still shows an "exact" matching to the "warming" that has "happened" since then, then the projections, and computer modeling, are still wrong.

Myth: Initial CO2 release amplifies the warming...

Again, initial temperature increases led to CO2 increase. This means that when temperatures rise, they cause a chain reaction that causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. When the weather gets cold, as in major glaciation, a chain reaction happens that tends to pull CO2 from the atmosphere.

Raw data proves this.

Deception: Over 90% of the warming happens after the CO2 starts to rise...

That's a play on words. That's trying to give credit to the subsequent temperature rise... due to solar activity... to the initial CO2 volume increase. The graphs show that temperature rise consistently leads to CO2 rise. They also show that temperature declines consistently lead to CO2 level declines...

Myth: ... More intense storms, more intense droughts, more acidic oceans, rising oceans, are happening because of man-made global warming.

You get more intense storms when meeting air masses show a larger difference in temperatures. Intense storms, increased droughts, etc, are a symptom of the planet's entering a mini ice age. 

For example, droughts that hit the beginning of the last mini ice age led to thousands of people dying via starvation and sickness. 

The oceans becoming more "acidic" are doing so due to natural causes.

Myth: Reductions in human industrial emissions will lead to reductions in temperature.

If we reduced our emissions now, CO2 will still go up. Water vapor is the major gas. Out of the total carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, the vast majority are from natural sources. 

Mother Nature contributes 95% to 97% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Humans contribute the remainder of the CO2 released. Water vapor contributes 95% to 97% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. CO2, along with "other gases" constitute the remainder.

Human industrial contribution of CO2 is a small fraction of 1% of the total greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

This figure alone indicates that Mother Nature will increase or decrease our temperature without our help. She has done this long before our existence. She will continue to do this long after our existence.

Those biased in favor of global warming confuse pollutants with greenhouse gases in their argument. Carbon Monoxide, a pollutant, is being hidden in this case by the mention of Carbon Dioxide, a natural gas. 

Bruce Dignan, Anger Management Problem Issues, Prone to Hurt Himself or Others

A guy with anger management problems with his booger hook on the trigger... bad combination... his weapons may be his only friends. Here's his comment about the VA at Roseburg, he meant to say, "anger issues":

"I am hoping me and them can come to an understanding later, one that doesn't include me ever being accused of having 'angier issues'" - Bruce Dignan 

Bruce Dignan: Took ya a couple days to muster the strength and thought to respond, I mean, I figured you were working up the steam to reply,

No, it doesn't take me long to come up with a reply to your nonsense. In fact, I had a reply to your nonsense almost immediately after I saw your reply. Understand that I do not do things the way you do things.

I'm a freelance writer. I generate my articles, and my other writings, on Microsoft Word. I say "generate", because I'm using Dragon Naturally Speaking dictation software. 

I generate my replies on Microsoft Word before I post them on Facebook. 

When replying to you, I generated my replies on Microsoft Word. Then, I waited a couple days before I copied and paste them to my reply to you. Between that time? I was engaged in other constructive activities, including the writing related to my job. 

So, when I sit down and actually address your replies, it doesn't take me long. You, as a simpleminded person, advance arguments that are easily refuted.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, I wasn't kidding, you are like a hop, skip, and a jump from either hurting yourself or hurting someone else, I can tell,

There you go again, accusing me of having the traits that you have. I would not be surprised if you react to my replies by yelling and screaming at your computer or at some point in your room.

I won't be surprised that if people know you, and they see my replies to you, they start anticipating your angry reactions.

I have fun taking your arguments apart and replying to you this way. There's no anger at all in me when I'm doing this. I'm cool, calm, and relaxed, as I dictate my replies to you through my microphone.

I'm nowhere near being in position to where I would "hurt" someone physically. The only "hurting" that I'm doing is hurting your argument, your views of yourself, and your feelings.

Bruce Dignan:  likely cause I am way older than you are and have seen it all before.

Let's do the math. At one point in here, you stated that you were in your late 40s. I'm in my middle 40s. We're not that much different in age.

You're not seeing things based on your experiences. You're seeing things based on your emotion and your biases. You're finding ways to try to insult me for generating replies to get under your skin... and to force you to see how wrong you are.

Bruce Dignan: I would say that you are maybe gonna end up hurting someone else before hurting yourself,

If what you say about me were anything like your marksmanship, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you. That's how far off you are.

I'm in no way shape, or form, in the mental condition to want to hurt someone. In fact, I'm having fun. Replying to you this way, and hammering you consistently, is enjoyable. I'm in a positive mood while generating my replies to you.

Again, the only "hurting" that I'm doing is hurting your argument and hurting your feelings.

Bruce Dignan:  but the smart play is to make it look like you are strong when in fact you are weak,

Says the guy that looks like he would be out of breath before he walks a block. Again, I run on a regular basis between 4 and 6 miles each run. I swim between 1 to 2 miles whenever I swim. 

How would I be able to do these things if I were "weak"?

The only "weak" that I see here is your argument, your reading comprehension, and you. I'm not doing this because of any sense of "strength." I'm doing this because I get joy at destroying your arguments and seeing your reaction to that destruction.

I'm also doing this to force you to see how wrong you are. I'm also doing this to show you that you actually do have issues.

Bruce Dignan: and in fact want to hurt yourself, and probably not in any inventive way, either through stress or substance abuse,

No, I don't want to hurt anybody else or myself physically. You're assuming that I have the kind of mental rage that you're displaying with your replies.

You have a lot of pride, over excessive pride, in your replies. This pride refuses to let you see yourself for what you actually are. Your replies amount to you setting up stress shields. 

Your reading my replies to you forces you to see yourself the way you are. Your intellect is seeing that, your ego refuses to acknowledge it.

My putting you in the position makes you boil with anger. 

You're consumed with rage as you reply to my posts. Your ego completely drives your replies to me. Instead of coming to terms with what my reason is forcing you to see, you're trying to paint me in a negative light. This, in turn, allows you to dismiss what I say. 

I see those ploys for what they are, defense mechanisms set up by your rage and ego.

Again, Bruce, get help for your anger management issues. Make the call before you end up hurting someone.

Admit it. You are the very things that you describe of me here. I would not be surprised that if I were to talk to those that know you, they would describe you using the same descriptions that you're using to describe me.

You're guilty of deflecting your traits onto me.

Bruce Dignan: you will likely do the deed eventually,

Bruce, this is you using deflection to deflect your very traits onto me. What you're really saying is that you intend to do that deed eventually.

The rage and anger that you're demonstrating in your replies hints at that.

Do yourself, and your family, a favor and get help for your rage. Get help for your anger management problems, your stress management problems, and your control issue problems.

Me? I'm enjoying life too much to do what you assume I will do. In fact, I enjoy destroying your debate and watching your reactions.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, you are a professional internet troll,

I guess it's easier to "dismiss" me as on "Internet troll" than it is to see that you are the very things that I describe you as. But, if you think that I am an "Internet troll," why are you feeding the "troll"? You do know that saying, do you? About feeding the troll?

You feed the troll because you take sadistic pleasure in getting destroyed in debate like this. You relish the humiliation that you get from here. This puts you in a point of contradiction. You want me to stop forcing you to see yourself for what you really are. My replies are forcing you to see you for what you actually are. You don't like what you see. 

Bruce Dignan Destroyed in Debate, Accuses Victor of Being a Traitor

"you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test" - Bruce Dignan

"now folks are wondering if I am a 'danger to society', or 'deranged'," - Bruce Dignan

Bruce Dignan: probably getting paid to do so, errrrr, with a monthly paycheck from the federal government, either in VA pay or other. Oh yeah, I still hold the fact that you are a VA employee, "WASTING GOVERNMENT MONEY TO HECKLE VETERANS".

This statement proves that you never made an effort to find out who I was. This also proves that you did not have some kind of friend that did some research into who I am. If you did, you'd know for a fact that I do not work for the VA.

I'm a freelance writer, I work for myself. I do not take any "employee pay" from the VA. I don't work for the VA.

I do get disability pay; however, that is for my service-connected disabilities. They're not for anything else that I currently do elsewhere.

I work for myself from my home office. I hammer you here as a distraction from my normal job. So, if you want to report me to "my boss" because of this thread, you're speaking to him.

I'm hammering you on my own free will, not in somebody else's orders. I waste no money, and no time, when I hammer you. 

In fact, prior to generating these replies, I worked on articles that I eventually forwarded to a website for publishing. I worked on a couple other articles that have already been forwarded to another website for publishing.

I have other activities in addition to coming here to hammer you.

Bruce Dignan: Which makes you a traitor, against the united states of america.

How does my hammering you, on this thread, make me a "traitor" to the United States of America? It doesn't.

You're the one that got banned temporarily from the VA services. Your temporary ban was due to anger management problems. 

There's a good chance that you displayed aggressive verbal assaults against those around you. You were this way when dealing with the VA employees. This attitude is what put you against the United States.

Chances are great that you verbally assaulted those people working for the United States. Your anger management problems makes puts you against US interests. You displayed anger management issues to the VA. 

My hammering you doesn't put me in that situation.

Bruce Dignan: Call the suicide/psychotic hotline, joseph, do it, do it soon.

Sorry, I'm not going to take up the time, or the resources, that the VA has in place for people like you.

If anything, this is your subconscious talking to your consciousness. My replies to you are putting you in a position to where you have lost a lot of control. Consequently, you're thinking about harming other people or yourself.

You're wanting to do that is a way for you to "regain" control. You have a need to gain that control. My hammering you on this thread is making you feel like you have lost control.

It is this need for control that's contributing to you having anger management and stress management problems.

Bruce, you're deflecting your traits in this debate. You're the one that needs to call that hotline in order for you to get that help.

Bruce Dignan: Speaking again of Josephs violent/self destructive internet raging,

Explain to me how my replies to you are consistently being "physically violent" to myself or to anybody else? Do you stress out so easily, that mere words will hurt your feelings? That they'll do so to the point that has you thinking that I am being "self-destructive"? And that I am "engaging" in Internet raging?

There's no violence, of self-destructive intents, in my replies to you. My chuckling and laughing at your replies temporarily delayed my generating my replies. But not by much.

You are doing the very things that you are accusing me of doing on this thread.

Bruce Dignan: originally in the name of god almighty

I'm hammering you so hard in this debate that you feel like the wrath of God is coming down hard on you.

In reality, I'm doing this for fun. Also, I could tell that I'm forcing you to see yourself for what you actually are. You don't like what you see. That's another side benefit of doing this.

Bruce Dignan:  and glorious ptsd monies, this is a prime example I am even more against the expanding of ptsd monies or programs,

So, you're actually opposed to allotting funds to help veterans with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS)? You froth at the mouth about how you, as a veteran, are being treated by another veteran. Yet, here you are showing that you do not care about veterans in need of the funds you don't care for?

These are veterans who actually need more help than you do.

Bruce Dignan: it serves as a self serving platform for some of the more incompetents of the VA and folks like this Joseph ptsd,

I do not have PTS, and I'm not receiving any kind of funding or assistance related to PTSD. This is typical of other people that I have destroyed in debate. You folks like to accuse me of having one sort of psychological issue or another.

You guys tend to react this way when you lose a debate and you lose control.

I do not work at the VA. So, my hammering you here has nothing to do with creating a "self-serving" platform.

Bruce Dignan: obviously unhinged by 100% ptsd rating for justing being simply bully or a-hole,

This statement proves that you did not do research to find out who I am. This also proves that you do not have a friend that's able to do this. This means that you lied about what that friend allegedly found out about me.

But again, you're a chronic liar. If you truly had a friend that did the research, you know that what you said is a lie. If anything, I'm a cool guy. I'm not a bully.

I just enjoy picking your argument and your post apart point by point. I also love seeing your reaction. This last post of yours had me laughing for a few minutes before I could focus on generating the remainder of my reply.

Your attitude, in your last reply, shows that you are not used to this. You're used to people leaving you alone when you get bellicose with them. Instead, I persistently hammer you and take you apart. You're not used to this. You're used to people ignoring you when you get hostile, aggressive, and angry with them.

They tend to ignore you, I don't. When I keep hammering you no matter what you do, you resort to calling me names and accusing me of having one psychological issue or another.

Look at your reactions to the other people on that thread. You'd see who the real bully or a -- hole is. It's not the people that replied to you. It's you due to the fact that you have anger management and stress management problems. You refuse to get help for your anger management problem. 

Bruce Dignan: and most likely addicted to all sort of psychotropics,

I'm not taking any psychotropic medication. But, given your conduct on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you have been prescribed psychotropic medications... and if you're cheeking those medications. 

Bruce Dignan, Out Of Breath Before Reaching the Garbage Bin?

 Bruce Dignan demonstrated plenty of anger issues on a recent thread debate. Here he is sending a message to the viewer with his weapons. Playing into the media stereotype of the veteran in order to scare people to stop "picking" on him?   

Bruce Dignan: I mean, so crazy and dangerious either on or off his ptsd meds,

"Crazy" and "dangerous" when it comes to your false persona. My replies to you challenges your false image of yourself. They force you to see yourself for what you actually are. Not as you wish you were.

My refusal to stop hammering you is making you feel like you lost control. You're panicking. Others ignore you when you get belligerent. I hammer you back. This is an anomaly to you, thus you think that I'm "unhinged".

However, as I've stated repeatedly on this thread, you are deflecting your own traits onto the person that you're replying to. Other people see in you the very things that you're seeing in me. Read your replies in order to see a true picture of yourself.

Bruce Dignan: I'll always have to worry about taking the garbage at night or such like that,

You're worried about what? That the garbage bin, on your apartment parking lot, is too far from your apartment? Worried about running out of breath before you get to that bin? Worse, you're worried that you'll run out of breath, then fall asleep where you're at. 

I can picture that, you crumbled and sleeping by a garbage bag. In the middle of the parking lot facing the garbage bin. People laughing at you.

You look like that you are out of shape, so that seems to be a reasonable worry.

Bruce Dignan: manufactured and turned out by the VA in the thousands every month, I've been around them before, suddenly they get told they should have ptsd to get medical treatment, then they start taking meds, then they get like really violent and angry all the time,

First, statements like this is one of the reasons why people have doubted your claims of being a veteran. Why?

None of the real veterans, who have utilized the VA services, came out with that conclusion. In fact they, along with the most of the veterans in the veteran community, don't think that way. They know that PTS doesn't turn people into what you describe them.

Medication doesn't make them that way either. You're regurgitating myths that you heard from other people.

If people with PTS have chronic anger and other issues, chances are they had those issues before they served.

Many phony veterans advance the "PTS made them do angry and violent things" canard. There are a lot of people with PTS that are laid back, quiet, calm, productive citizens, etc.

However, your attitude about those with PTS reflects the attitude of those who are outside the veteran community. 

Second, let me remind you of your own statement:

"you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test." - Bruce Dignan

Bruce Dignan: and look at this joseph ptsd, he is like his life, apart from his VA job,

Again, if you, or your "veteran friend" allegedly researched me, you would not have that opinion. You'd know that I do not work at the VA. You'd also know that I have not been diagnosed with PTS or with any other psychological issues.

I work from my home office. I'm not hammering you on behalf of the VA or anybody else. I'm hammering you because it's fun. Your responses make me laugh, this is entertaining. Your failure to manage your stress and anger make your replies funny.  

Bruce Dignan: having to bully around old veterans like myself, I mean, in the real world, a young feller in his twenties who pushes around older fellers like me bout fifty years old are engaging in "elder abuse", and that means "criminal behavior", apart fro the traitorous pursuit of bullying around veterans of the usa for dollars.

First, I'm in my mid-40s. If you are "about 50 years old," we would not be that much different in age. I'm not a "young feller" by your standards. I do not see you as an "old person" nor do I see you as an "elderly person."

Second, the fact that you see me as "pushing you around" is proof that even you see that I'm destroying you in this exchange.

Third, Oregon law identifies on elderly person as someone that is 65 years old or older. You have quite a way to go before you reach that category. Also, according to Oregon law, your description would require a "physical" act.

My replies to you are not physical. Your sensitivity makes it seem that way to you. You're simply getting destroyed in this exchange. You can't handle it, so you cry "elder abuse." 

There is no bullying, elder abuse, or criminal behavior going on. I'm simply being persistent against you. I'm also replying to you in a way that's knocking you off your own pedestal. My replies force you to see yourself as you actually are, not for what you think you are. 

Bruce Dignan: I decided to do the right thing, by blocking joseph and reporting to facebook, if that could help him in anyway, he is sick.

Facebook took no action against me. Not even a message. Why? Because as usual, you are wrong.

You didn't do the right thing. You proved yourself to be a coward.

First, you proved that you are not man enough to take what's coming. You get verbally abusive to other people in the thread that disagree with you. Yet, when someone hammers you, you have an aneurysm.

You could dish it, but you can't take it.

Second, you resorted back to when you were a kid. As I mentioned earlier, you must have been picked on when you were a kid. Your attitude, and the way you reacted under stress, made people want to make fun of you.

I would not be surprised if you ran to a teacher, or to your parent, and demanded that those teasing you stop.

Third, you blocked me, because you cannot handle the truth. That's like what I've been saying all along, you have control issues. You're not able to control my actions, so you blocked me. That was your way of "regaining" control.

The only person, that was helped, was you. You made that "mean guy" disappear.

Big mistake. As you can see, by this series of blog replies, that a reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Now I get to make a fool out of you in front of an international audience.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 01-Getting Defensive when Asked about his Military Background

Bruce, I asked you for information on your military background. This includes your duty position, the unit you deployed with (company and field level), where you served, and other basic information. These are questions that veterans would easily be able answer.

For example, if you didn't deploy, you'd simply be able to state that you didn't deploy. However, you stated that you deployed during the Gulf War. It doesn't matter what branch of the military you were in, you'd be able tell me the company and field level unit that you deployed with.

You provided me an initial response about your military service. However, when I probed deeper, you provided me with anger management problem responses. You should be able to easily answer all those questions without going into all sorts of directions. You dodged questions that veterans would easily answer.

This tells me one of two things.

One, it tells me that you served, but your service was lackluster. You may have gotten busted in rank. You may have gotten busted a few ranks. Chances are, you may have been discharged for behavior related reasons.

Two, if it's not that, then the chances are strong that you didn't serve.

One other person accused me of being "gay" as a result of questions I asked that person. I busted him for being a phony Navy SEAL veteran. That person never was a Navy SEAL. Your response and reactions to my asking you those questions demonstrate lack of comfort on your part.

Why the lack of comfort?

I sense that you're not being truthful with us on this thread. Either you served a lackluster term in service, or you may not have served... and you're just here to get attention.

I didn't ask you for your Social Security number. Nor did I ask you to provide me money via a "gofundme page." I don't have one.

You mention that you're almost 50 years old. You subsequently reference me as part of a collective group of "young folk."

I only talked about a part of my military service. The reality is that I'm in my mid-40s and have somewhere between a fifth of a century to a quarter of a century of military service under my belt.

You're not that much older than me.

Okay, you have high blood pressure. Nobody's telling you to read my replies. Nobody's telling you to read this thread. However, you choose to do so knowing full well that you cannot handle disagreement.

You can't handle it when things don't go your way.

Your responses on this thread, and in your PMs to me, indicate a need for you to get help. You need to attend a couple classes: anger management and stress management.

As for my advice for you to obtain your medical records.

You need these to apply for VA disability. You complain that you're not getting compensation and VA care. If you could prove to the VA, via your medical records, that you have service-connected disability, you'd make headway.

Based on your recent replies, to this thread and to my inbox, I highly recommend that you get help. Your inability to handle your stress and your anger is cause for worry.

Your avatar picture with your weapon, plus your anger management issues, is cause for worry.

You could help yourself, and help God help you, by getting help for your anger and stress issues. I also recommend that you attend nutrition classes. You should also start an exercise program. Proper eating and exercising will help you manage stress.

You could take the first step by acknowledging that you're the one with the issues. It's not with those of us that replied to this thread. I'm not the one that needs the prayer from you for the reasons that you stated.

Pray for yourself, then take the above two classes. 

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 02 - Thought Facebook Edited My Post

Bruce, I asked you a series of simple questions that veterans would be able to easily answer. All you had to do was answer these simple questions. If you're a veteran, that wouldn't be a problem.

No, I'm not trying to steal your identity and I'm not trying the make you mad. After your conduct on this thread, who would want to steal your identity? People will probably pay you to keep your identity.

You seem to be putting a lot of efforts into dodging my questions, why?

Having your congressman's office look into this? Please make the call. Have his staff look at this thread. I don't see anything illegal being done in this thread. All I'm doing is trying to hold a "veteran to veteran" conversation with you. This includes asking you questions about your military service.

Unfortunately, it seems to be a one-sided conversation. You don't come across as being a veteran.

You're putting excessive efforts to dodge questions about your military service.

This speaks volumes about your service, if you served. In fact, the ploys that you use here are similar to the ploys used by people that claim one type of military service or another... but who end up getting called out.

Getting the police to look into this thread? Please do get them to read this thread. Phony veteran/veteran embellishers love to threaten, those calling them out, with legal action or jail time.

If you're not reading my response, how'd you know whether or not I'm telling the truth or lying? If I were "lying", you should be able to answer my questions without dodging them or tap dancing.

Again, nowhere on this thread have I asked you for any money. Also, I'm not lying. I'm telling it like it is. I stand by my statements on this thread, including those calling your claims out.

The reason you're dodging my questions is because you know that you're making things up. You could only pretend so much; hence, your refusal to answer my questions. You know that if you tried to pretend even more, I'll call you out on it.

Your responses amount to "deflection." This is where you accuse me of having the very traits that you're displaying.

Again, do invite the police to look into this thread. Do invite the other authorities to take a look at this thread. Don't forget to contact your representative's office. Have them look at this thread.

They could use the laughter. You do realize that I'm laughing at your posts, do you? I would've replied a lot sooner had it not been for me laughing really hard.

If you want to know the reason for the "edit" on my last post, why don't you go back there and read it to find out? See what Facebook "says" regarding you before you insinuate that "they're lying."

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 03 -- Clueless About Facebook Profile Privacy Settings

"No one is calling u stupid or accusing u of being stupid. U handle that quite nicely on ur own." -- Kent Oakley' response to Bruce Dignan

Te wit:

Bruce Dignan: you have a shady facebook page WITH NOTHING ON IT

That's because we could set our Facebook profiles up with high privacy settings. This option is available to prevent the public from seeing what we have in our profiles. Your Facebook profile is very similar to the profiles that you complain about. 

Bruce Dignan: I don't even have a cellphone, but I wished I did, I'd be able to tell the police more of what I know for them to look into.

Why don't you use your telephone then? You could do that over a regular land line. You could also borrow your friend's phones, if you have any friends.

Bruce Dignan: I wished facebook had the ability to edit postings properly.

There is a way. I'd tell you, but you'd say something like this:

"...haha, ah man, you must think you are like so smart and like I might have a lightbulb light up in my head with some sort of unknown keen insight from one of the smarter ones of the VA," - Bruce Dignan's response to Joseph as the latter gave him advice about his records.

Bruce Dignan: "you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test

Many people have the misconception that those with anger management issues must be that way "because of combat." Your reactions to her suggested that you got belligerent with her, just like you got belligerent on this thread. Your outbursts, and reactions, made them reasonably suspect that you were doing narcotics. 

That's a misguided notion, in reference to Posttraumatic Stress (PTS). People with anger problems generally had them before military service. 

Bruce Dignan: now folks are wondering if I am a "danger to society", or "deranged",

Hmmm, anger issues on this thread, anger issues as observed per your anecdotes. Also, we have your line of reasoning, plus the photo of you holding a weapon. Hmmm, I "wonder" why they'd come to that conclusion. 

Bruce Dignan: ummm, with some sort of anger I can't get my head around they got that from, maybe the cross I wear(or did till lately since I no longer go to church), or my views on peace and love to mankind and my support for other veterans for instance more deserving than myself,,

I won't be surprised that if you did serve in the military. You displayed the kind of attitude that would've sunk your military career. 

You refuse to acknowledge that you have anger and stress management issues. What you rationalize yourself to be, and what the rest of us see, are two different things.

Bruce Dignan: I just listened to a message from the VA, wonderful and on the ball apparently, like they said they would do, I am back in the VA healthcare.

What you said in December: 

"Actually, I rate a "0" star for them. I left the VA health care system in December." - Bruce Dignan

This is one of your contradictions. Based on your latest comment, do they get more than 1 star? You got back in with the VA. That's proof that the VA is not the monster that you paint it out to be. Your recent statement indicates that. 

No, I'm not associated with the VA. I go to them for healthcare, and my compensation comes from the VA. I'm with another region as well, not your Oregon one. 

I'm not a Nigerian either. They try to sucker people into believing something involving money. I "sucker punch" people like you with the facts. Big difference.

If you calmed down and read my posts as you demand of others: 

"folks refuse to read posts, they see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear." - Bruce Dignan

This is precisely what the other people here see of you. You refuse to read our posts to see what we're actually saying. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You reply according to that.

Bruce Dignan: I am hoping me and them can come to an understanding later, one that doesn't include me ever being accused of having "angier issues".

I recommend that you listen to what they're actually saying. Grow a thick skin, quit taking offense to things said that you perceive attack you. Recognize that you have stress and anger issues. You need help with those issues. Get that help.

Once you do that, you'll improve your chances of them and you coming to an understanding. This would be one that doesn't include you having anger issues. 

Your performance on the VA thread showed that you have anger issues.

Burce Dignan: Do you have any idea what society does to people accused of having anger issues, any idea at all?

Yes, you described it in your posts. Read this thread with a calm mind to see what society does with people that have anger issues. You have anger and stress issues. I came to this conclusion by reading your posts. 

I have no working relationship with the VA employees that you interacted with. 

Bruce Dignan: It doesn't take but a few movies or talk among veterans groups to figure out what exactly happens.

Veterans groups, and veterans individually, don't reference movies for what'll happen in real life.