Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 14

Randy Shipley: - like Trump was not mocking that reporter because Trump and his P.R. firm say he wasn't. 

I posted a video by someone who voted for Hillary Clinton, who believed that President Trump mocked a reporter. He also saw Donald Trump as a bigot/racist. Then someone showed him a video of President Trump doing his motions... when talking about someone else.

If you watched the video, you'd see a comparison. Trump did the same thing when talking about this reporter as he did when talking about others. The demeanor was the same. Seen in context, he was mocking someone for not doing something that he could've and should've done, but didn't.

For example

"They asked Jimmy why he didn't go outside... [shakes forearms around]... It's too cold outside..."

I'm a Disabled American Veteran, and I've seen the video where he allegedly did that. I didn't just see it in the link that I provided. I also saw a video of the disabled reporter, who didn't look like he was shaking. You wouldn't even suspect that he was disabled from watching that one segment.

Hence, neither fact, logic, nor common sense supports the assumption that the President mocked the reporter. He didn't. He didn't make fun of someone's disability, because the facts indicate that he didn't.

Randy Shipley: All done replying or reading Just blocked your garbage, your rhetoric and your blind faith in the orange buffoon.

That's not the real reason why you blocked me. You did so because you "lost control" in the debate. By "lost control", you saw, deep down, that I thoroughly destroyed your argument. You couldn't even mount an effective defense... You chose to "shoot and retreat". You even hid behind a website... Using its links as your rebuttal.

That didn't stop me from debunking your argument again, including the one advanced by that "fact" check site. It wasn't until I kept pressing you to answer simple yes/no questions that you decided to block me.

The reality is that my constantly remaining on your six, no matter what you did to try to shake me away from your argument, is also what drove you to block me. You had no real argument. You tried to substitute for that by attempting to "get the last shot". Not succeeding in that, you "regained control" by putting me on block.

Again, you dodged simple, straightforward questions. These are questions you knew destroyed your argument in entirety. Why the action?

#QuestionDodgRandy in order to #StinkSpewShipley

The fact that both Joe Jagunich and you blocked me speaks volumes to the fact that I destroyed both of you in debate... And you guys know it. Blocking me after replying to me demonstrates your control issues.

You could've had the character and integrity to bow out gracefully. That would've ended the debate. But, you wanted the debate to conclude more palatable to your excessive pride and feelings. You wanted the debate to end on your terms despite not being in a position to dictate any terms. For that, I've posted my rebuttal here... In a way that gives you internet search fame.

Again, you action tells me that you know that you can't take me on in debate. If you had the facts, reason, logic, common sense, etc., on your side, you wouldn't need to put me on block. You'd be able to stand your ground. You didn't because you didn't have a valid argument.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Introduction

Joe Jagunich demonstrated poor knowledge of what he was debating. Hopefully, his performance on that instrument isn't like his debate performance.  (Facebook)

I entered a Facebook debate against Joe Jagunich in August 2019. A mutual friend generated a Facebook post addressing Congressman Stauber. Joe Jagunich was one of the posters that jumped in and supported the thread starter. He attacked President Trump and his policies.

He was among those that I debunked. Joe Jagunich was one of two posters, on that thread, who blocked me instead of conceding defeat. When a poster blocks me, I use that as justification to smoothen out my replies and post them here.

His statements were copied over, but not edited. They are as Joe Jagunich posted them.

During the course of the debate, I asked him a simple yes/no only question. The correct answer to this question destroyed the specific argument that Joe Jagunich made. He failed to answer that question.

Since this argument occurred during the summer of 2019, my responses are based on factors that were applicable at the time of the debate.

If Joe Jagunich is a Christian, his argument is a contradiction to God's Commandments, statutes, and judgments. By extension, they're a contradiction to the Gospels. Among God's statutes in the Old Testament is the requirement to "diligently search the truth" before rendering judgment.

My responses represent the results of "diligently searching the truth". Had Joe Jagunich done the same thing, and if he were impartial, he would not have made the argument that he made. This is assuming that he is a "practicing Christian".

When the opposition debates me on Facebook or in other private media, they have two choices to make. Get destroyed in a private setting, or get destroyed in a public setting. When they chose to block or unfriend instead of ceding the argument, they chose to take the whoppen in a public setting.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 1

Joe Jagunich: John, Rep. Stauber is afraid of Trump. 

No, he's doing the equivalent to "negotiating through office politics" while doing the job he was elected to do. Additionally, President Trump represents the conservative base. Any Republican that goes against President Trump's initiatives will anger the conservative base. This is a legitimate concern for any House or Senate Republican.

Joe Jagunich: Trump came to Duluth to support Rep Stauber's election campaign.....

This is the only thing that you said that's correct.

Joe Jagunich: so Rep Stauber is afraid that Trump will destroy him if he doesn't follow the Trump Party line. 

This falsehood is based on three erroneous assumptions.

The first assumption is that the Congressman is only doing what he's doing in order to stay in President Trump's good graces. The second assumption assumes that he doesn't do any thinking of his own. The third assumption ignores the excitement, among the conservative base, who voted for Congressman Stauber.

Understand that this was the election that was supposed to give us a "blue wipeout" at all levels, including Congress. Many were expecting the Democrats to take the Senate, not just the House. So, it speaks volumes when a Republican wins a congressional race. 

As I mentioned above, the conservative base is excited about President Trump and is supportive of his policies. President Trump represents the conservative base. Turning against President Trump means turning against the conservative base.

This is a point that your side of the argument continues to be blind to.

Joe Jagunich: Pretty sad that our Representative is supporting a most-terrible, narcissistic excuse of a man! 

Sorry, but the terrible narcissist left the White House back in January 2017; replaced by someone who isn't a narcissist. President Trump is essentially doing this job "nearly for free". He's working long hours, etc., to fix the mess that he inherited from Obama. Not exactly what one would expect a narcissist to do. President Trump is clearly doing work to improve our situation, then turns around to donate his federal paycheck to one cause after another intending to help others out.

President Trump isn't a terrible president, he's a great president. He will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've had.

Joe Jagunich: Keep the pressure on John. 

What pressure? President Trump is facing hurricane-force headwinds from the leftist elites, from the movers and shakers in D.C. as well as from the establishment. That doesn't stop him from doing the great work that he's doing.

Joe Jagunich: Trump has gone after your religion, and labeled you as a person that 'doesn't understand' and 'is not loyal'. I am with you, John!

What President Trump actually said:

"I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty," - President Trump

This is not an attack. He lists two reasons why Jewish people would vote Democrat. One of those reasons is "total lack of knowledge" and the other is "great disloyalty". Two possibilities.

This is a dead accurate statement. The Democratic Party is no friend to Israel. There are people that insist that "Israel" and "Jews" are separable and that opposition to Israel's policies is "not" opposition to Jews.

This clearly indicates a total lack of knowledge of what is happening in that area.

On a strategic level, Israel's enemies and adversaries want Israel gone. They want to replace Israel with an Islamic Palestine. They consider Israel and Jews as synonymous. They see Israel as an "unjustified Jewish occupation of Arab lands".

The radical elements among the Palestinians do not intend to live peacefully side by side with Israel. They consider the idea, of not having all of Israel as Palestine, as a total insult. The areas the Palestinians currently have is an insult to them and falls short of their main objective.

Their Israel related policies are intended to end Israel's existence. Israel is in a state of war. Large segments of the Israeli population are either on active duty with the military or are in a reserve status. They have to stay vigilant at a security level, and they had to fight back against the Pro Palestine anti-Israel United Nations resolutions.

The removal of Israel, as a country, would not be an "end state" for the radicals. For them, it would just be the "beginning". Why? Their radical elements fully intend to eliminate Jews. They also intend to eliminate Christians.

So, it doesn't matter that we have Democrats who want to separate "Jews" from "Israel". The radical elements waging a war against the West and against Israel do not see such distinction. To the radical Islamists, "Israel" = "Jew". That's the reality that we have to deal with.

So yes, it is a factual statement that Jewish support for Democrats is done through a lack of knowledge of what is really going on.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 2

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I support the Office of the Presidency. 

If you supported the Office of the Presidency, you would not be basing your argument, against President Trump, on what others have said about his statements. Instead, you would read the actual transcripts of the statement in order to get it in context. A person supporting the Office of the Presidency would make every effort to understand the intent of the president's statement, comments, etc. Your argument indicates that you did not do that.

Joe Jagunich: It is tragic that you have the same message as Trump. His message: 'Like what I am doing, and how I am behaving, or leave the Country. Support me (Trump) or leave. That is just not an American attitude!

No, what is tragic is that your statement is not consistent with what the president actually said. If you read his actual tweet or the actual transcripts of the speech, you would see his statement's full context. 

What President Trump actually said:

"They're very unhappy, I'm watching them and all they do is complain. So all I'm saying is if they want to leave they can leave John, they can leave! I mean I look at the one, I look at the one I look at Omar, I don't know her, I never met her, I hear the way she talks about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has killed many Americans. She said you could hold your chest out, you can, what I think of America... huuuh... When I think of Al Qaeda I could hold my chest out... When she talked about the World Trade Center being knocked down, some people, do you remember..." -- President Trump

As you can see, there's an inconsistency between what you claimed he said, and what he actually said. If you read the actual transcript, or watch/listen to him make the speeches, you would notice that he is offering a conditional statement...

If you don't like it here, leave! By extension, if you like it, stay.

That's not him telling people to leave if they do not support him. That's nothing but pure propaganda that certain people fall for hook, line, and sinker.

People can't even use the tweets that he made. If you separate those tweets by sentences, you would get the context of what he was saying. He didn't tell them to "go back where you came from," He told them to go back to the "crime infested" places that they came from. "Crime infested" and "broken down" are descriptions that Conservatives use to describe Democrat districts that have voted Democrat for decades.

He was telling them to go back and fix their districts. He wasn't telling them to go back to "their" countries.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 3

Joe Jagunich: Randy Shipley Hi, Randy. Good to hear from you after so many years! No to both questions. If a Priest is accused of being a predator, he is removed. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Trump.

Based on what? Your side of the argument has colossally failed to prove your anti-Trump arguments to be "true". The cold hard reality is that President Trump is not guilty of what you guys claim him to be guilty of. So, President Trump is perfectly fine where he is at. Hopefully, he gets a second term and serves until January 2025.

Randy Shipley: Joe Jagunich good to hear from you as well! I have zero respect for Trump as a person or a leader 

Considering that your side of the argument has failed to prove your anti-Trump comments with a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument, this speaks volumes about you. President Trump has done a lot to earn respect as a person and as a leader. He is exactly what we need. Anybody that claims that he doesn't deserve respect is doing it for emotional reasons... Or they are doing it based on a lack of knowledge of what is going on... Not on fact.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 4

Joe Jagunich: [Name redacted] I am baffled at your statements. You articulate very well, but let's just say that I do not share your admiration for President Trump. 

I knew before I replied to you, that we would disagree with each other regarding President Trump. One reason for your being baffled is that your information sources have told you one thing about President Trump, and that has influenced your views about him.

You're not the only one that's baffled at my statements. This is a common reaction by others who don't think that the mainstream media has abdicated their journalistic responsibilities.

Joe Jagunich: He is NOT a good man. 

Your opinion isn't supported by what I've observed in him. If he weren't a good man, he wouldn't be donating his presidential salary. He has done other things that prove your statement wrong.

Joe Jagunich: He is a liar, a cheater, a racist, a narcissist, and has NO redeeming qualities.

I've lost count of how many times people claimed that President Trump "lied", just to find out that he was providing the facts. Likewise, women have come forward trying to claim that President Trump was a cheater, yet they haven't proven their claims.

A racist? President Trump hired people from all demographics. If he were a racist, he'd only hire white people. His actions around people from different demographics don't indicate someone that's a racist.

A narcissist? Are you talking about President Obama? The last president was a narcissist. It was about him big time. The current president is giving people a taste of their own medicine, that doesn't make him a narcissist. Likewise, the claims about his statements regarding "loyalty" and "getting out" are false claims. Hence, arguments about his being a narcissist fall flat on their faces.

He has plenty of redeeming qualities.

Joe Jagunich: That's why only despots and dictators support him. 

Actually, multiple world leaders support him. Other countries' leaderships are glad that someone is finally showing leadership. Yes, the U.S. economy was a topic point at the summit, and world leaders over there were supportive of his efforts with regards to the U.S. economy. They are going to have their differences on an international scale, but they have a lot of similarities and interests, which don't make it as much in the news.

Joe Jagunich: Most Democratic government world leaders have a very low opinion of Trump. 

That's one of the prices that you have to pay when you're in a leadership position. You're going to make decisions that many others aren't going to be happy with. I experienced that while in leadership positions during my military career.

However, the claim that most democratic government leaders "have a low opinion" on him could only be based on media hype and not on reality. The body language of the other leaders, in the same area as President Trump during their interactions with him, does not indicate that they have a low opinion of him.

Joe Jagunich: He can't even read, and can't speak in complete sentences. 

I've watched him speak in complete sentences, and he is capable of reading. His ability to speak and read is one of the reasons why he is a billionaire president. Keep that in mind when you insult him from your home office.

Joe Jagunich: He will never be re-elected.....thank God.

They said he would not win the election back in 2015 and 2016. They said it as if it were an empirical fact. They said that when he went up against career politicians during the primaries. They said that when he went against someone who was "supposed to have her turn."

I stand by what I stated earlier. I've been a news junkie since 1982. The last time I've seen this kind of excitement from the Republican base was in 1983 and 1984. It's like déjà vu again, down to the audience chanting, "USA, USA, USA."

I predict that with all other things being equal, President Trump will win re-election.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 5

Joe Jagunich: [Name Redacted] No, 

Yes, what I said in my previous post is correct, just like what I'm about to say here.

Joe Jagunich: other democratic world leaders used to be eager allies. Trump has made snide remarks about the leaders from Germany, France, UK, Mexico, Canada, many African countries, Puerto Rico; among others. 

Wrong.

First, they still want to be our allies. It would be a geostrategic disaster if they decided that they didn't want to be our allies. The alternative to the U.S. isn't pretty. Just ask the Asian countries surrounding China. Those countries are looking to the U.S. to counterbalance the Chinese. China's idea for their "national borders" extends deep into the South China Sea. Consequently, they have conflicting territorial claims... On islands closer to these countries than to China.

If you were to read their accounts about what's going on, you'd find that even Vietnam wants to politically ally with the U.S. against the Chinese. It speaks volumes when protesters in Hong Kong wave the American Flag and speak about President Trump in favorable terms.

Second, you ignore the fact that world leaders made remarks regarding President Trump and the United States. These were criticisms. Together with the mess that they have in their countries, that they are not effectively dealing with, it is just for President Trump firing back.

The Germans have a disaster on their hands with regards to migrants, as well as with their economic policy that makes them dependent on Russia. President Trump criticized them for these issues, and for the fact that they needed to be cattle prodded to meet their NATO obligations.

The French are dealing with similar problems, which reached the point that they've had demonstrations on their streets for multiple weekends.

The UK? Are you talking about the "stone-cold loser" London Mayor that attacked President Trump? Other UK politicians? Both their leaders and their talking heads, like to lecture the United States about topics like gun control. Yet, they have problems in that country that they are not effectively addressing... Like knife crimes.

Mexico? He hammered them hard for failing to enforce their own immigration policies. Result? The Mexicans are doing things now that they did not do during previous US administrations. They are effectively in the process of turning Mexico into an extension of "The Wall". If they were not eager to be our allies, they would not have gone through extensive measures to comply.

One of the purposes behind President Trump's remarks, regarding both Mexico and Canada, involves the fact that they were benefiting at our expense under NAFTA. During the negotiation process for the new trade agreement, he continued making those remarks regarding both countries and both leaders. Result? They ended up agreeing to a replacement trade agreement that's closer to being fair among the participating nations.

Those African countries whose leaders President Trump spoke against? They are still our allies. It would be suicide for them not to... Especially now that we are sending military advisory teams to their countries to advise and train them to deal with militant terrorists.

Puerto Rico? You do realize that Puerto Rico is an incorporated US territory, do you? As with the case with his criticisms of world leaders, his criticism of Puerto Rico is spot on. A generous amount of money was sent to Puerto Rico for them to deal with the hurricane's aftermath. Yet, Puerto Rico mismanaged the money. The help that this money could've brought about did not materialize. Where did the money go?

Legitimate corruption, within the Puerto Rican government, has come to light. Have you not noticed the fact that their previous governor stepped down? President Trump was dead right about these guys, just as he was about his criticisms of other countries' leadership.

Joe Jagunich: Almost none of these leaders can trust him. 

The recent G-7 summit counters that assumption. The mainstream media didn't accurately report what occurred during that summit, just as they failed to accurately report what happened in Iraq during the Iraq War.

The fact that they still would attend meetings like the G-7 meeting in France, with President Trump there, proves you wrong. These meetings aren't events where people just get together to watch slide show presentations. Many deals are made during these meetings.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that these guys are politicians. They will say things to garner support back home and to hopefully leverage things their way during these meetings. President Trump secured some agreements during this meeting. President Trump wouldn't have accomplished this if "none" of these leaders trusted him.

Joe Jagunich: He has alienated most of his self-appointed cabinet members, 

You mean, like how a supervisor would "alienate" a substandard performer for calling him out for his substandard performance? Like how a leader would "alienate" someone in the team who was not performing in a way that positively impacted the team's performance?

I put "alienate" in quotation marks, as these are examples of things that a leader would do. A leader has a goal to accomplish. If those under him refuse to support him or refuse to take the actions needed for him to accomplish his goals, then that leader has every right to provide constructive criticism.

That's what President Trump is doing. He's providing constructive criticism. If you've been in leadership positions during your career, you'd recognize this. I do; I've been in leadership positions in the military. 

Joe Jagunich: any and all political opponents.o 

Yet, no complaint on your part about his political opponents disparaging him first? This is the same pattern I see elsewhere. Certain "favored" people attack President Trump. He holds fire, and they continue to attack him. Then, "wham", President Trump hits back and he hits back hard.

Do those who attacked him get told, "That's what happens when you keep poking the bear!"? No, your side of the argument chooses to demonize President Trump and act like those that he fired back on were initially "innocent".

Up to 90% of the media coverage on him is negative. They amplify his opponents' and detractor's voices. They refuse to report accurately in situations involving President Trump. Do you honestly believe that President Trump would just sit there and take it? Negative. He will go to twitter. President Trump does and says things in a way that exposes his enemies and adversaries for who they really are.

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 6

Joe Jagunich: He has paid off women so they don't 'talk'. 

The fact that he has paid money to certain people does not indicate guilt. If the accusers are so sure that they could win big in court, why even bother with a settlement that pays less? One reason is that the probability of getting something for less, in a settlement, is greater than the chances of getting more in court... A possibility that wouldn't even be a consideration if this were a "slam dunk" case.

The fact that they did not go to trial speaks volumes to the fact that the claims are nothing but BS. In fact, one of them tried to sue President Trump for statements about her. Her case got thrown out and she had to pay President Trump's legal fees.

We are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. If you're willing to label President Trump as guilty in this case, with zero evidence to support such a label, then you are just as bad as the despots and dictators that your side of the argument lambastes.

Joe Jagunich: You, my friend, have been wrong on every point you've made. 

False. I've been correct with every point that I have made. This is true on this thread; this is true with everything I've said in the debate against the left over the past almost 16 years.

First, in order for me to engage in these kinds of debates, two criteria have to be met:

1. I have to have extensive first-hand experience and/or extensively studied/research experience on the topic.

2. The opposition clearly does not know what they are talking about, they are clearly wrong on the topic being debated.

Both of these criteria have been met on this thread. As you have seen with my rebuttals, it is you that is wrong. You and others that I've rebutted here have been wrong on every point. This is why I can easily dismantle your arguments. I easily dismantle your arguments on the topic as well as your arguments on what I am doing.

I dismantle your arguments, as well as that of others because you guys are wrong. If you guys were "right/correct", I wouldn't be able to reply to you guys the way I'm replying to you guys here. The more wrong you guys are, the longer my replies generally are.

Second, as with the others on this thread, you have consistently failed to prove your argument "correct". All you have done is to advance an opinion as well as advance a leftist set of talking points. Anybody could provide an opinion. However, there is one set of facts. Your replies lack the facts. They're absent from the opposition's replies. They're absent from the replies that I rebutted on this thread.

Joe Jagunich: Trump is a despicable man. 

Based on what? If you're simply going by the "orange man bad" mainstream media narrative, then that "would" seem to be the "case". However, when it comes to his actual actions, your statement is wrong.

The majority of people that work with him, for him, for his organizations, as well as those who came across him, described him as something else. Not as a despicable person, but as an actual leader who cares about the people that work in his organization.

Joe Jagunich: He has no empathy toward anybody.

False. President Trump can't help it if, in the execution of his leadership responsibilities as well as his enforcing the laws, if certain people are not going to benefit from it. His putting up walls to serve as a barrier that prevents people from coming in? Who are trying to escape certain conditions in their home countries?

There is a legal way of coming to the US. It's not done by simply crossing into our border uninvited and without authority. They made the decision to cross. They and they alone bear the responsibility and risks of such a decision.

Going after the people who don't have America's best interests at heart? That does not make President Trump someone who "lacks empathy". What I see, with regards to his actions? Things that need to be done to improve our situation. His actions make sense economically, strategically, and politically.

As with your prior point, his actions do not show the actions of someone who "lacks empathy". Don't mistake his refusal to be a doormat, or his refusal to abandon his position in relation to the opposition, as his "lack of empathy". It isn't.

Joe Jagunich: He doesn't read his briefings and reports; 

And you say this based on what? I highly doubt that you are in the room with President Trump when he received these briefings and reports. In fact:

Are you in the same room as President Trump every time he receives his briefings and reports? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste this question, and the yes/no options to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to provide related to this question. I will be looking for this in your response. If you do not answer this question per the parameters that I set, I will ask it again in my counter rebuttal.

Otherwise, you are not in a position to say, with certainty, whether he reads his briefings and reports or not.

Joe Jagunich: has discontinued daily press conferences, 

As he should. The mainstream media has abdicated its journalistic responsibilities. The job of the journalist is to gather information. Not just the information that favors their argument, but relevant information. Their job is to provide us with actual news, not to choose what the audience receives for the purpose of deceiving the audience to reach a specific conclusion.

These daily press conferences have become a joke. "Journalists" are acting more like pundits serving an audience sharing a specific opinion. This isn't how journalists should behave in situations like this. If they're going to use it as a platform to attack the president, and not focus on actual issues, then there is no reason to why these press conferences should be held.

They do nothing constructive, especially when we have access to information not related to what the press corps could provide us. If they're going to take him out of context, instead of reporting what happened, the President isn't obligated to give them a platform.

Note: This response, as with the rest of the Joe Jagunich posts in this series, occurred during the summer of 2019. Notice how the press reacted to the daily COVID-19 briefings this year. One of their arguments was that these briefings should discontinue. This is a contradiction to Joe Jagunich's argument. It would not surprise me if he concurred with the latter argument. 

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 7

Joe Jagunich: and has only visited war zone troops once in his term. 

As someone who has combat deployed to Iraq, this is irrelevant. I didn't see any politician, let alone the last president when I was deployed. And, this isn't something that is on our minds when we are out there.

It doesn't matter if someone makes multiple trips to the combat theater or not. If they don't do their jobs that we expect them to do as commander-in-chief, that is what we are going to be focusing on.

Understand that when word goes out, among the military community, that President Trump is coming to speak on the base, many military personnel want to be there. This was also the case when Bush Jr. was president. When Barack Obama was in office? Leadership eventually had to "scrape every nook and cranny" to get servicemembers out to become an audience.

You could tell, by the looks on the faces of the service members at these speeches, that they were happy to be hearing President Trump first hand. When President Obama was speaking? They didn't look like they wanted to be there.

The troops have a rapport with President Trump. They had one with George Bush. It wasn't always there with Barack Obama. Let that sink in. This is what matters, not the number of times they've visited the combat theater.

Joe Jagunich: He has criticized Gold Star Moms and Dads (you should be aware of this). 

First, yes, I am aware of this and good on him for doing so. The father, Khizr Khan, attacked Donald Trump with a straw man argument.

Then Candidate Trump argued for a solution to help secure the United States with regards to radical terrorism. This included putting a halt to immigration from certain Islamic countries until a better vetting system is in place. This made sense considering the problems that Europeans are facing dealing with people escaping from Syria.

However, instead of focusing on that one topic, Khan made it about the Constitution and people's freedom of movement. That wasn't the point or intention of Donald Trump's recommended solution. Khan's argument deliberately missed the point.

Naturally, Donald Trump fired back. Khan's status as a Goldstar parent does not make him immune to criticism.

This is a big complaint that the mainstream media has. The left tries to roll out certain people that, if we criticize them or fight back, we are given one sort of label or another. They had these two individuals up on stage in an attempt to argue against Donald Trump.

As with the conservative base, he did not buy into that "speaker immunity" nonsense. It's one of the things that the left does to make up for the fact that they can't win an argument based on fact, reason, and logic. The guy was clearly wrong, and Donald Trump called him out for it. The mainstream media went overboard with their anti-Trump propaganda.

Despite accusations of how he approached other Goldstar parents, Goldstar parents have stepped forward and described how President Trump actually is when interacting with them. Nothing like how the media portrayed him.

When I was in Iraq, I told family and friends that if I were to die there, anybody that used my situation in an argument against the Iraq War, would not only be arguing against something that I strongly believe in but would be considered as disowned.

My requirements were clear. I strongly believed in what I was doing (still do), I knew what I was getting into, and if I die doing it, anybody that attempts to use that as an argument against what I believe in was to consider themselves "disowned."

Debunking Joe Jagunich's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 8

Joe Jagunich: You say you're a news junkie? Every point you've made is from the far-right news sources. Even Fox News reports lately are more critical of him, and have done polls that show his support among voters to be around 40%.....not good news for Trump. Your newsgathering efforts need to be more inclusive.

Yes, I am a news junkie. No, I do not watch Fox News. They have drifted from what they did that attracted me to them in the first place. If I tune in, it would only be for specific hosts. Likewise, I have not watched either cable or network news.

Heck, I don't even watch TV.

As with others who have made assumptions about me, you are wrong about where I get my news and with regards to where I need to get my news.

My "reading of the news" involves Internet searches surrounding specific topics and issues. The Paris Climate Accord? I didn't just go by the reports that I came across. I downloaded the text of the treaty and read it for myself. Collusion? I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. I didn't just go by what the media said. Climate change? I go straight to the websites that track raw data. I also went straight to the studies.

In every instance where I come across a study or the text of a treaty, it didn't support the media narrative that talked about that study or treaty.

The information that I argued above is based on this extensive research. I look for information that could be substantiated. I don't just trust what people say at face value. I go straight for "Tier 1" information sources.

The conclusions that I come to are based on that research. If it happens that my points are consistent with what you identify as "far-right news", then that is just a situation where two different people made the same or similar conclusions based on a review of the same information.

Also, given the track record of the polling of the 2016 presidential race, do you honest to God think that I will trust polling data that you throw around? Remember, Donald Trump was supposed to lose in 2016. This was based on polling and on pundit analysis. He was polling poorly, even into election night. That night, he started with a high probability of losing the election.

Well, we know how that turned out, don't we?

Don't make an assumption about what I'm doing with regards to information gathering, and what I'm not doing. I've yet to have someone make a negative assumption about me and be correct. They've always been wrong.

Contrary to your erroneous assumption, my news gathering is extensive and includes far more sources than what you assume I'm using. If by being "inclusive", you want me to include the propagandist sources of information that you follow, I would say, "No thanks."

Let's take CNN and MSNBC for example. They hammered the drum hard about Russian Collusion. I downloaded the Mueller Report and went through it. Nowhere, in that report, did it say that President Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians. Nowhere in that report did it say that anybody involved with the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with the Russians.

Yet, far left/radical left/leftwing news sources like CNN and MSNBC pushed that narrative as if "there was" collusion. The report disagreed with their hyped narrative, and it disagreed with the "obstruction" nonsense that these media sources were peddling.

The 97% "consensus" on climate change? I downloaded that study and went through it. It turned out that this "97%" is based on 32% of the papers downloaded out of over 11,000 papers downloaded. They focused on the abstracts. I'm sorry, but "97%" of "32%" does not constitute a "consensus" among the scientific community.

But wait! There's more! They only read the abstracts for these papers. The meat and potatoes are actually in the paper, after the abstract, not in the abstract. This was a sham study that disregarded scientific research principles. Yet, the leftist propaganda media harped this "consensus" as if they were quoting the Bible.

These are the information sources that you want me to "be inclusive of". I'm sorry, but I will reject propaganda. My primary MOS in the Army is Psychological Operations (PSYOP). One of PSYOP's duties, while combat deployed, is to counter enemy propaganda. A look at leftwing news like CNN, MSNBC, New York Times et al. shows an example of textbook propaganda.

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

It appears that Gery Carson relocated Strong Future International's headquarters. As with the previous location, SFI is portraying an entire building as its "headquarters".

The impression here is that they are "so successful", that they have taken up a larger building to accommodate the larger leadership and staffing required to run a growing business. This is what they have on their website as their headquarters:

The angle that the photograph was taken, given where the sun was located at, was an attempt to make it more difficult to read or make out the words on the building. However, by searching their address on the Internet, and zooming in on the resulting map, you can get more details on what the building says:

Details, not available on SFI's  website, become available here. You can make out the following: New Horizons, Grand Central Court, and Konica Minolta. Going around the side, and looking at the building from the street, you get the name of a different organization.

"Liba" as seen from the street, and then turning left from the street, you can see both "Liba" and the front of the building that SFI insinuates is their "headquarters":

You can see the "New Horizons" and its symbol on the corner. Going around the building, via "street view", does not provide a hint that SFI is there. However, that doesn't mean that SFI is "not" in that building. It's just an indication that SFI is not as big as it insinuates itself to be. Otherwise, as a big-name organization, with lots of money to spare, SFI would be able to get its name displayed on the side.

Chances are that as with the previous headquarters location, SFI is renting an office inside Grand Central Court. An Internet search for "Grand Central Court" leads to a rental listing for office space.

Office space, at Grand Central Court, rents for $6.00 through $12.00, negotiable. Granted, this could simply be advertising the two available spaces that they had as of the search for this facility. Thompson Realty Group had two offices available for renting, one was at a $12.00 rate, and the other was at $6.00 rate. Looking at the floor plans, they had different office sizes, which would command different rates.

For an organization that insinuates having lots of wealth to distribute to members, SFI appears to be cutting corners real steep with regards to costs. Or, this arrangement may be perfect for an organization like SFI, where the main thrust of operations is multilevel marketing. One would think that given how SFI portrays itself, they would have a headquarters building to themselves.

Dennis H Chevalier Arrested for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Dennis Howard Chevalier a.k.a. Denny H Chevalier, was arrested on February 27, 2018, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

"This man, as those of us on This Ain't Hell have suspected, is unhinged. The chances are strong that he's going to send his next date to the emergency room... Or to the morgue." - thebesig

        Be taken to justice for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?
Or will it take a woman being beaten or shot?

As a recap, he's a phony veteran. He is also a phony Gulf War veteran, a phony retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, a phony police SWAT veteran, and a phony PhD holder. He only did short stints with the police force. He did most of his "law enforcement" as private security such as guarding ATM operations.

If you are reading this, chances are you have questions about him and subsequently ran a search. Trust your gut feelings, here's why.

He has anger, control, and narcissistic issues

Dennis Chevalier is driven by anger issues, control issues, stress issues, narcissism, etc. Things have to absolutely, positively, go his way. His modus operandi starts "innocent", then builds up.

He will start by being "nice" and saying the right things to you. Denny Howard will make you feel like "you are finally the one". It won't be long before he talks you into getting married, even though you have been in a relationship for a short period of time.

The first signs, substantiating your gut feelings, may come from friends and family. Listen to them.

Should you marry him, the gloves come off. His true colors will rapidly come out. He will go from being your "Mr. Right" to being the epitome of the very guy perfect for, "Who the (Bleep) Did I Marry?"

As soon as that wedding ring comes on, he will have his profile back up on dating sites. He has to have women "on the side". It's about conquest and control.

He has a plan that involves him using you, while he indulges with other women. Dennis will guard that plan like a mother hen guards her eggs. He acts like he is entitled to this arrangement.

You will suspect things going on, and your confronting him will enrage him. He will even engage in "gas lighting" and make you think that you are the problem. Never mind, that with his previous relationships, he was the cause of the problem, and the problem itself:

"I watched him sit on the couch play with loaded guns pretending to shoot things around our living room. He becames violent when he gets exposed like this. He was throwing things screaming at me like I was the one that caused his problems. - fedupexwifeofdhc on This Aint Hell

When you question his actions and motives, he feels like he is losing control. It gives him a sense that his plan is about to fall apart. His sense of control kicks in. He will get confrontational when you decide to leave him. 

He pulled a gun on a woman, and on his son, when his ex-wife wanted to leave him:

"I kept questioning him on why his son, who is 16 years old, would need his mother to stay with him when he would visit. I did not know at the time, the divorce decree states Dennis (Denny) Chevalier's visitation has to be supervised due to the fact he held a gun on his ex-wife and his son." - fedupexwifeofdhc on This Aint Hell

"She said she tried to leave and he pulled a gun on them." - fedupexwifeofdhc on This Aint Hell

If he could do this to his own son, he won't have qualms about treating you the same. He even threatened to put a round into an ex-fiancé's head when she left him.

If you have that creepy feeling about him, listen 

Trust your instincts. His ex-wives, ex-fiancé's, and ex-girlfriends describe him as having charisma and a charming character. They compared him to a salesman that could sell blocks of ice, to an igloo neighborhood in the far north, in the middle of winter.

If you have that creepy feeling when interacting with him, or reading about him, or have your doubts... Run. Do not continue with meeting him. If you have met him, and get this feeling, disengage... Leave.

Your subconscious senses the danger, hence your doubts

If you are religious, just see that gut instinct as your guardian angel steering you away from him.

If you're not religious, but believe in spirits, then see that gut instinct as your soul guide and members of your soul group guiding you away from him.

If you believe in things like karma, your gut instinct about him has pass karmic implications... Meaning Dennis Howard Chevalier and you are not meant to fulfill your long-term companionship or marriage hopes.

If you do not believe in any of these, then simply trust your gut instinct, your intuition, your "sixth sense", your family, and your friends. If you don't, you will regret not doing so.

Trust the reason that you're reading this

Did you land here because you googled "Denny Chevalier" or "Dennis Chevalier", or something similar?

Know that we are telling the truth and that we are right. He will attempt to tell you that we are out to get him, that we are "terrorists", "bullies", or that we have some other issues. He will tell you that a disgruntled ex-wife, ex-fiancé, or ex-girlfriend is trying to destroy him. He'll explain that they are spreading misinformation against him. He will tell you that we are all "lying".

Don't believe him!

These women had the same doubts about him that you are experiencing now. They had their gut instinct say, "No." But, they disregarded that instinct. Against their gut feelings, they gave him the benefit of the doubt. They believed his claims that everybody else was lying about him.

Denny Howard ended up putting them through living hell. Some left fearing for their lives.

His descriptions of his ex-wives, ex-fiancé's, ex-girlfriends, and of those of us that hammered him on This Aint Hell, ended up being perfect descriptions of who he is.

He squeezes out of most police involvements

Dennis has a track record of being controlling toward his women. He has a track record of women complaining about him committing assault and battery against them. He also has a track record of police complaints made against him.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive was done. Just as he can convince you to disregard your gut feelings about him, he can convince law enforcement not to carry through with either arresting him or charging him. But, even they can't ignore his growing history of assault.

Consequently, we have Denny's February 27, 2018 arrest

Dennis Howard Chevalier's being arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon comes as no surprise.

Listen to your gut instincts. Do your research. Google his name, as well as the other names that he uses. Contact his ex-wives, ex-fiancé's, and ex-girlfriends. Collectively, they've advanced very similar complaints about him.

Each new relationship that he gets into could be the one where he finally snaps. If this happens, the woman, possibly you, could either end up in the emergency room, or worse... In the morgue.

Do not become that statistic 

It's better to listen to your instincts, intuition, doubts, etc., with regards to Denny Chevalier. Those previous women were lucky. The next one that makes the same mistake that these previous women did, regarding disregarding their gut feelings, risks becoming a statistic.

Changing his outer appearance instead of changing his character.
He may grow out additional hair, wear a cap, use hair dye, etc.

Other names used:

Denny Howard
Howard Chevalier
Chevy
Doc Chevy

Memorandum, Retired Reserve and IRR Transfer

Soldiers requesting transfer from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), Standby Reserve, Retired Reserve, etc., must include a memorandum with their transfer packet.

This post lists examples of Soldier memorandums requesting transfer to the IRR and to the Retired Reserve.

Select transfer scenarios are addressed; however, there is a common theme that's included among all transfer request memorandums. One of these is the need to reference the applicable sections in AR 140-10, Army Reserve Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers regulation.

Representative Memorandum Samples

You can adjust these examples for a packet requesting transfer to the Standby Reserve, transfer to another Troop Program Unit (TPU), or transfer to the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA). These examples can also be utilized, and adjusted, for other justifications for transferring into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). 

Bracketed Information for Changing Information

The bracketed statements below are variable information. Replace what's listed in brackets with the information that's required, and drop the brackets.

Since the Soldier is applying to transfer to another reserve component, the transfer packet must persuade the reviewers and signers to support the transfer request... And ultimately to get the packet approved.

You have to include documentations to support the justifications that you list in the memorandum. It's best to have affidavits from professionals relevant to the justification for the IRR or Standby Reserve transfer. For example, if you're applying to transfer to the IRR due to dependency hardship, you want to include affidavits from doctors, social workers, members of your chain of command, members of your NCO support channel privy to your hardship, and a statement from your dependent.

Generally speaking, federal statute, or Army regulations, specifically identify situations that allow for transfer. Examples include 6 x 2 initial enlistment contracts, and transfers to the Retired Reserve.

Refer to AR 25-50 for specific memorandum formatting and for including and annotating enclosures.

Sample IRR Transfer Memorandum, 6 x 2 Enlistment Contract

In this scenario, a Soldier completed his or her six-year drilling reserve obligation. The Soldier wishes to transfer to the IRR for the last two years of his or her eight-year obligation.

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, [Soldier's unit]

SUBJECT: Individual Ready Reserve Transfer Request for [rank and name for Soldier requesting transfer]

PURPOSE:  Request Transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve for Completion of Contractual Agreement.

1. Per AR 140-10, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-9d, completion of contractual agreement to serve in a TPU on initial enlistment in the USAR under a 6x2 option, request transfer from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). I've completed my 6-year contractual obligation and wish to transfer to the IRR for the remainder of my Military Service Obligation (MSO).

2. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at [phone number including area code] or [Soldier email address].

Note: see below on details for the signature block.

Sample IRR Transfer Memorandum, Pregnancy

In this scenario, a Soldier is pregnant, and desires transfer from the TPU to the IRR. This Soldier isn't within 3 months of her ETS, she's credited with IET completion, and she has an MOS.

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, [Soldier's unit]

SUBJECT: Individual Ready Reserve Transfer Request for [rank and name for Soldier requesting transfer]

PURPOSE:  Request Transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve Due to Pregnancy.

1. Per AR 140-10, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-9g, and Paragraph 4-14, voluntary reassignment for pregnancy, request transfer from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Per Paragraph 4-14, I've completed IET, have been awarded an MOS, and am not within 3 months of ETS.

2. [Doctor affidavit 1], [doctor affidavit 2], [Soldier, officer affidavit], and [Soldier, other relevant unit Soldier affidavit], are included as supporting documents in my IRR transfer request packet.

3. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at [phone number including area code] or [soldier email address].


Note: affidavits must come from both doctors and Soldiers in the unit privy to the soldier's pregnancy. Unit soldiers, in this situation, substantiate the need for the pregnant soldier to transfer to the IRR. Ideally, these Soldiers should include the first commissioned officer in the Soldier's chain of command, as well as a senior NCO in the Soldier's NCO support channel.

Sample IRR Transfer Memorandum, Employment Conflict

In this scenario, a Soldier has a valid employment conflict that prevents him or her from participating in the TPU or IMA. This soldier has an MOS, has completed IET, and isn't within 3 months of ETS.

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, [unit]

SUBJECT: Individual Ready Reserve Transfer Request for [rank and name for Soldier requesting transfer]

PURPOSE:  Request Transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve Due to Employment Conflict.

1. Per AR 140-10, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-9a, unresolvable employment conflict, request reassignment from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). I've completed IET, have been awarded an MOS, and am not within 3 months of ETS.

2. Employment conditions have changed since enlistment [or reenlistment], this employment condition is permanent. My job relocated me to [geographic location], and there are no Army Reserve TPU within reasonable commuting distance. [Or, the nature of my new job prohibits effectively participating in the nearest TPU] or [the nature of my new job prohibits effectively participating in the TPU].

3. My specific employment conflict involves [detailed, concise, explanation of hardship, without providing sensitive or privileged information. Include potential hardship to the Soldier if employment is lost].

4. I attempted to resolve my employment conflict using the guidelines for attempting to resolve dependency hardship per Paragraph 4-13b(1)(a)-(c). Per Paragraph 4-13b(1)(d), reassignment to the IRR is the only available means to alleviate the unresolvable employment conflict condition.

5. [Affidavit from (name and title of professional), (professional's specialty)]; [affidavit from (name and title of additional professional) (additional professional's specialty], [additional affidavits individually listed as first two examples], and [final affidavit, listed similar to previous examples], are included as enclosures to document the nature of the employment conflict [or employment hardship].

5. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at [phone number including area code] or [soldier email address].

Note: guidelines for affidavits are similar to those listed for Soldier pregnancy above.

Details on the signature block are listed below.

Sample IRR Transfer Memorandum, Dependency Hardship

In this scenario, a Soldier is dealing with a dependency hardship issue, and is not able to resolve the hardship while remaining in a drill status. Consequently, the Soldier is requesting transfer from the TPU to the IRR, to alleviate the hardship. This Soldier isn't within 3 months of ETS, has completed IET, and has an MOS.

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, [Soldier's unit]

SUBJECT: Individual Ready Reserve Transfer Request for [rank and name for Soldier requesting transfer]

PURPOSE:  Request Transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve Due to Dependency Hardship.

1. Per AR 140-10, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-9f, Paragraph 4-11b(4), and Paragraph 4-13, voluntary reassignment for dependency or hardship, request reassignment from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Per Paragraph 4-13b(1)(e), I've completed IET, have been awarded an MOS, and am not within 3 months of ETS.

2. My specific hardship involves [detailed, concise, explanation of hardship, without providing sensitive or privileged information].

3. I have attempted to resolve my hardship per Paragraph 4-13b(1)(a)-(c). Per Paragraph 4-13b(1)(d), reassignment to the IRR is the only available means to alleviate the dependency [or hardship] condition.

4. [Affidavit from (name and title of professional), (professional's specialty)]; [affidavit from (name and title of additional professional) (additional professional's specialty], [additional affidavits individually listed as first two examples], and [final affidavit, listed similar to previous examples], are included as enclosures to document the nature of the dependency [or hardship] and the need for my assistance. Additionally, I have also included a statement from [name of dependent affected by Soldier's absence, or a representative for the dependent].

5. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at [phone number including area code] or [soldier email address].

Note: guidelines for affidavits are the same as listed in the scenarios above, as well as in AR 140-10. This regulation provides detailed requirements for what needs to be included in the affidavits.

Sample Retired Reserve Transfer Request Memorandum

In this scenario, an enlisted Soldier is requesting transfer to the Retired Reserve. The Notice of Eligibility to Retire with Pay at 60 Letter (20 Year Letter), is one of the supporting documentation that's included with this packet.

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, [Soldier's unit]

SUBJECT: Retired Reserve Transfer Request for [rank and soldier name]

PURPOSE:  Request Transfer to the Retired Reserve.

1. Per AR 140-10, Chapter 6, Section I; and AR 600-8-7, Chapter 9, Paragraph 9-10, request transfer from the Troop Program Unit (TPU) to the Retired Reserve. I am in receipt of my Notice of Eligibility to Retire with Pay at 60 Letter (20 Year Letter).

3. My 20 Year Letter is included in this request. My latest DA Form 5016, Retirement Year End Date [date], reflects [number of years] good years of military service.

4. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at [phone number including area code] or [soldier email].

Signature Block

Refer to AR 25-50, Preparing and Managing Correspondence, for composition and placement of signature block.


Example:

[First Name] [Last Name]
[Rank] [Enlisted branch official abbreviation]

JOHN DOE
MSG PO

References

AR 140-10 Army Reserve Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers
AR 25-50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence

Dennis Howard Chevalier (Denny H Chevalier) Phony Military Claims April 2016

Dennis Howard Chevalier (Denny H Chevalier) Continues to claim to be a service member, as of April 2016.

Military blog "This Ain't Hell but You Can See It from Here" called Dennis Howard Chevalier, or Denny H Chevalier, out in four different threads. In 2014, he was featured in an article exposing his claims of being a retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. He attempted to backtrack from those claims, accusing somebody else of hacking his accounts and making these claims.

As he attempted to downplay these claims, someone came forward and contradicted his attempts to deny claiming military service. She observed him telling his students that he flew C-130s in Iraq during the Gulf War.

He adamantly denied claiming to be in the military. He insisted that he was in the Texas State Guard, was a retired Civil Air Patrol Lieut. Col., and was a reserve police officer. When someone presented Dennis Howard Chevalier (Denny H Chevalier) with evidence of his military claims on the Internet, Dennis went to the applicable profiles and changed the claims. This destroyed his "a hacker did it" claim.

On April 25, 2016, Dennis Howard Chevalier (Denny H Chevalier) posted on the Facebook page for All My Sons Moving & Storage (Fort Worth, TX). In addition to the negative review he provided, he identified himself as a disabled service member, a service member, a policeman, and a handicapped elder.

On the This Ain't Hell threads dedicated to him, he insisted that he had clarified his claims to differentiate himself from being an actual service member. Yet, here he was on this April 25, 2016 post, identifying himself as an actual service member, not a veteran.

He claimed to be in the military in a way that would allow him to backtrack and explain that he meant something else. He did this with his flight instructor claims with regards to his qualifications. For example, he initially left out the "ground" part of his title, using a term that would easily cause somebody else to think that he was in the air teaching people to fly.

By stating that he was a "service member", without clarifying information, it was clear that he wanted people to think of him a certain way. He wanted them to think that he was in the military. Had someone replied to his review by pointing out the stolen valor articles on him, he could've easily backpedaled and talked about how he meant he was Texas State Guard. However, he didn't identify himself as a veteran of the Texas State Guard. Anybody reading his statement would walk away thinking that he is currently in the US military.

In the same post, he identifies himself as a police officer. It was already established, based on documents that he provided, as well as statements by those who knew him, that he only did a few short stints as a police officer. These happened a long time ago. He was a reserve police officer. Most of this "security" experiences consisted of projects like guarding ATM personnel as they put money in ATM machines.

In the same post, he identifies himself as a "handicapped elder". When most people, in the Western world, think of "elder", they think of a senior citizen. Public records have Dennis Howard Chevalier (Denny H Chevalier) as being born in 1961 or 1962. This would make him either 54 or 55. Not an "elderly" by Western standards. It's possible that he may have a disability. But, if it's one that is not easily detectable, and the movers were not able to identify that, he can't use that against them. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Falsely Claims Valor Award

Post award ceremony photo shoot. Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier is patting the awardee in the back as a congratulations gesture. 

In November 20, 2015, Denny posted a "Forgotten Friday" event. In this post, he claimed that he was receiving his valor award at a 1989 event at Mansfield Business School, Fort Worth, TX.

When he argued with us on This Ain't Hell, he insisted that he received the police version of the Purple Heart. On his This Ain't Hell claim, he stated that he earned that award as a result of his actions during a school siege. He claimed that he got shot in the hands. In this recent claim, he claims that no shots were required.

A look at the picture that he posted contradicts both his claims on This Ain't Hell and on his Facebook wall. In the photograph, he is the only one in a security guard uniform. Everybody else is in formal civilian attire. Had this been a police award, awarding him a police valor medal, the people doing the presentation would have been in police uniform. He would be standing behind the written award citation, not the man in formal civilian attire.

In the photo, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier is on the side, with his hands behind the man to his left. This man has an open award citation in front of him, being held by the man standing to his left. Immediately to that guy's left is a woman, standing on the leftmost side of the front row picture.

Dennis gives the appearance that he was walking up to accept the award. However, a look at the picture, relative to other award ceremonies, whether in the military or anywhere else, indicates that the posted photograph shows people in a post award photo pause.

The man, standing behind the open citation, appears to be the one that received the award. Dennis Howard Chevalier is patting that man behind the back. This indicates that Denny Chevalier was giving a congratulatory pat on the back to the man standing behind the award citation.

Look at the row behind him. The man that is most visible in the back is looking at the man standing behind the award citation. Again, this is an indication that Dennis Chevalier did not receive the award. If Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier has no qualms about lying to his friends and family on Facebook, he would not have any qualms about lying to anybody else.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier isn't a Mistaken Phony Veteran Case

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier implies that his personal situation is similar to that of this veteran. On his own blog, Denny argued that he only did 20 days in the Texas National Guard.

In this Facebook entry, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier laments that those that post on This Ain't Hell should be "shot". The man, in the photo, is an actual Vietnam War veteran. A couple of Marines confronted him and accused him of being a poser. When Dennis expressed outrage, he wasn't doing it on behalf of the man in the photo. He was doing it for himself.

Although the man in the photo was an actual Vietnam War veteran, he did not properly place his awards on his suit. For example, only one award needs to be displayed in cases where a veteran has received that same award multiple times. Also, you don't wear medals and ribbons at the same time.

Usually, during an award ceremony where the awardee is in uniform with ribbons, they would have the medal pinned underneath the ribbons. This is only acceptable during the award ceremony. On conclusion of the award ceremony, the medal must be removed and placed in a safe area.

The applicable ribbon would be added to the ribbon rack. If this is a subsequent award, the appropriate service device would be added to the ribbon that's already on the rack. The Marines were not in the wrong in suspecting that he was a poser given that simple mistake. However; they errored in the way they handled the situation.

Too many veterans don't realize this, but if they put the uniform on, or place awards on formal civilian attire, they are still subject to the applicable uniform regulations of their parent service.

At least this guy was an actual veteran who served in Vietnam. When Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier expressed outrage over this, he was attempting to put himself in the same category. He was implying that he too was an actual military veteran who served in war, who "mistakenly" was called out a poser. Using this inductive fallacy, he erroneously labeled those Marines as "This Ain't Hell" posters.

His goal was to insinuate that he was also falsely accused of being a phony veteran. Not only is that insinuation wrong, he is doing it in a way that is deceiving towards his friends and family on Facebook.

Even on his own blog, Denny Chevalier argues that he only did 20 days in the Texas National Guard. The document that he posted indicated that he was discharged for fraudulent enlistment. He didn't even make it to One Station Unit Training/Basic Combat Training. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Lies About His Discharge from the Texas State Guard

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier edits a message to fit his argument. Note that the date on the letter is May 4, 2014.

Denny attempted to deflect rumors that he got kicked out of the Texas State Guard (TSG) with a blog post. In that blog post is a screen capture of an alleged email from his then Commanding Officer, COL Howard N. Palmer, TSG. The date of this message was on May 4, 2014.

In the body of the email, Mr. Palmer "assures" Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier that he had not made a decision on Denny's discharge. That, once he made a decision, he would notify Denny of his decision. If anybody says otherwise, they were "spitting in the wind".

However, in the discharge letter that he received from Mr. Palmer, Dennis Chevalier is informed of his general discharge. The date on that discharge paper is May 3, 2014. This letter is a formal letter informing Denny that he was officially discharged. It also informed him that he was permanently barred from rejoining the TSG.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier officially notified of his discharge from the Texas State Guard. Date on the letter, May 3, 2014.

How could Mr. Palmer not know of his decision yet, when he had already generated an official letter informing Denny that he was no longer in the Texas State Guard? The reality is that Mr. Palmer had made a decision, and would have already had that letter in the mail.

What actually happened is that Denny Chevalier forwarded a message that he got from Mr. Palmer to one of his commercial emails. Then, going into the sent folder, he edits the message to make it look like Mr. Palmer said something else. The original message may have informed him that his discharge was official. This message took place on May 4, the day after Dennis Chevalier's official discharge from the TSG.

Fort Polk, Disregarding OPSEC while Harping OPSEC

Street names deliberately changed, based on a true story

Every morning, at a certain time of the day, an event happens on most Army posts. Soldiers stationed at the majority of the Army units located on an Army Post conduct physical fitness (PT).

At Fort Riley, most of the infantry units are located on Custer Hill. Before PT, Custer Hill's roads are blocked off. The roads rounding "The Hill" are now available for soldiers to conduct different kinds of physical fitness. Mostly, it's running.

The civilians that worked on Custer Hill arrive later in the morning, after PT is over.

On Fort Polk, it's a different story. Part of their morning PT is conducted on "N 59th Ave. W" and on "N 58th Ave. West" This area is not sealed off. Incoming traffic arrive largely through Grand Avenue. Grand Avenue intersects both "N 59th Ave. W" and "N 58th Ave. W".

The result?

Increasing their own vulnerability

Traffic transiting Grand Avenue is stopped before "N 59th Ave. W". Traffic ends up getting backed up towards the West. Traffic coming from further inside Fort Polk headed west on Grand Avenue is stopped at "N 58th Ave. W". Traffic ends up getting backed up towards the east.

Right when you enter Grand Avenue, you'll see signs directing you not to take photographs. This is based on an actual experience; however, this experience will be altered in a way that the concept remains the same. Let's imagine a fictional scenario were somebody enters the base with a personal dashboard camera video recorder.

This guy enters the base, with the MPs at the gate not catching his use of this dashboard camera video recorder. He drives further and then gets stopped at the line of cars waiting for PT to end. Another MP, within the area, notices the dash cam. He goes up to this driver, and tells the driver that he has to fork over the video.

For his explanation, the MP informs the driver that he is violating OPSEC. By videotaping the runners, he was putting the soldiers at risk of harm. He was possibly putting their lives at risk. The MP informs the driver that by having a dashboard camera, he was going to get people "killed."

Although the MP thinks that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he is actually missing the point about OPSEC.

OPSEC in a nutshell

OPSEC is "Operations Security". A basic concept of operations security goes like this.

Let's say that you, during the winter, plan a trip to go to Florida. You live in Minnesota, and are tired of the excessive snow showers and snow cover. You want a change of pace. Your flight leaves early in the morning. You decide to load your luggage into your car the day before.

In order to impress security at the airport, you have colorless/see-through luggage. Your see-through garment bag has short sleeve collared shirts, with tropical scenes. Your see-through luggage also contains short pants, slippers, and other items that you would normally take to a tropical or semi tropical area.

You go on to social media and brag about your upcoming trip to Florida.

Prior to your even hopping into your car to drive to the airport, you provided information to complete strangers. They know that you're going somewhere with summerlike weather. A look at the content of your bags, sitting in your car in the late afternoon and evening, tells people that you're going somewhere where it's nice and warm.

If you do not have your settings on Facebook to "friends only" or "me only", total strangers can look at your Facebook account and know that you plan on going to Florida.

Now, how could you, in this example, apply OPSEC?

Use regular luggage instead of "see-through" luggage. Position your luggage in the room in your house nearest to the door. You can also simply set your privacy settings on your Facebook to "friends only". Better yet, no need to update your friends about your upcoming trip until you are safe at your destination.

The same concept applies in a military operation. If the unit is about to go on a major combat operation, one simply doesn't go on Facebook to talk about it. One doesn't talk about it to anybody without a need to know. One doesn't go on Facebook and say the things that one normally says when one's about to do something major.

Also, one doesn't just do things, externally, that hints to others that the unit is about to move out until it's time to roll out and it's needed.

In this scenario, those involved with the combat operation would scrutinize what they plan to do so as not to provide hints to onlookers on what's going to happen.

Now, back to our Fort Polk example

In reality, locals who come in from Leesville, LA, and the surrounding areas, on a daily basis would know that PT takes place at a certain time in the morning. How could they not know? If they do not transit Grand Avenue before PT starts, they will be stuck. This is the fact that they inform other people in their friends and family circle who need to access the base.

What do these people do when a new person comes in town saying that they have business to conduct on Fort Polk? The locals will tell them to get to the base before a certain time, or get stuck waiting until after PT.

Why? Well, they have soldiers conducting PT on "N 59th Ave. W" and "N 58th Ave. W". A large segment of the people living in Leesville and the surrounding area would know that PT takes place at a certain time in the morning. They would also know that there is a traffic backup, on Grand Avenue, in both directions.

Based on this, claiming that videotaping the backed up traffic violates the well-being of the runners, and their safety, would be as pointless as trying to continue to hide when the person looking for you can see you.

Our military appearance clinches us as being military or veterans within the community

The MP, in our example, could turn around and explain that recognizable faces, in the video, will put the soldiers at risk. There are people out there who would like to do harm to these soldiers. Well now, why even have the soldiers abide by military standards if they are concerned about them being recognized as being in the military?

It doesn't take that much to look at a group of people and to get a good idea of who is in the military, or who are veterans. Those currently in the military have a certain appearance about them. So, even without the help of the video, or a photo on Facebook, as soon as the service members leave the post without their uniforms, people in the community would still look at them and recognize them as being service members.

The community already knows about organized on-post PT

Now, here's a really big weakness in the flaw of Fort Polk's security plan in this example. It doesn't matter that the MP in our example is getting wrapped around the axle over someone's dashboard video camera. The knowledge is already out in town that there is a traffic backup during certain parts of the day.

It's only logical for locals to advice newcomers to go to Fort Polk extra early or they will have to wait till later in the morning.

That's enough information to let someone, with bad intent, know that if they wanted to commit harm, they have a bunch of cars in line, drivers unarmed, who are simply sitting and waiting for PT to clear. These people, waiting in line, become juicy targets for acts of violence involving firearms which could result in mass casualty.

The soldiers on the base, who have combat deployed, would have to notice this weakness. The leadership on the base, with the ability to change these physical fitness routes, have to know about these security weaknesses. Yet, they choose the easy or convenient way to do things.

This threat extends to any where there is a traffic backup at the entry, or within the base. This problem/issue repeats itself across busy military installations across the United States. Backed up traffic at the entrance is the most visible to the public.

 Unit commanders must mitigate exposed vehicle waiting lines

Terrorists, downrange, have persistently attacked waiting lines.

OPSEC, as misunderstood by the MP in the above example, simply doesn't represent reality. In order to establish the applicability of OPSEC to this scenario, leadership on the base has to figure out a way to remove the cause of traffic backup on Grand Avenue during the same times of the day during the weekdays.

In fact, Fort Polk leadership must take a comprehensive, big picture/map look at all of their traffic in different parts of the day. All military bases, with traffic congestion's based on poor planning, need to do this.

One major solution is to redirect the PT route so that it does not cut off Grand Avenue, or any other, traffic. There are plenty options, on the base, that could afford the soldiers the same value of physical fitness without creating vehicle waiting lines.

What if traffic were to flow smoothly instead of being backed up? The risk, that the advice to be given, not to enter the base at certain times a day, would be removed.

Consequently, less people will be made aware that there are vehicle traffic wait lines on Grand Avenue, or elsewhere in the post. No vehicle or wait lines on a regular basis reduces the chance that someone could come in and commit a crime against the waiting line. It would be hard to plan against something that does not happen at the same time or location, but happens randomly.

Another option available, to reduce the risk against the soldiers, is to provide different PT areas for smaller groups of units. This would spread PT activity throughout the base instead of concentrating it in local areas. Smaller crowds, smaller signature, less casualties should a terrorist attack happen. Designated, cordoned off areas, out of the way of main traffic, could offer an area, for street PT, that's safe.