Archive for the 'Humor' Category

Jesse Jackson:

“Bang! Bang! Bang!”

Hear that? It’s the sound of an assault weapon in the hands of a rogue individual, taking down an airplane flying overhead.

At least, that’s what the Reverend Jesse Jackson thinks assault weapons can do. The Reverend’s misinformed assertion that assault weapons are capable of shooting down airplanes came during a Fox News appearance yesterday.

“These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapons, can only kill people, and in fact, they are threats to national security … the young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado … he could shoot down airplanes, so this is a matter of homeland security as well,” he said while speaking about gun control with anchor Martha MacCallum on ‘America’s Newsroom.’

How about a different challenge.  If anyone takes 800 meter shots trying to knock off that clown nose you’re wearing, instead of 5.56 mm ammunition with an AR (because we aren’t Travis Haley), it’ll be the boys with scoped .27 or .308 bolt action rifles.

What a parasitic moron.

TCJ readers, listen up.   We have had a major, strategic breakthrough in the War against Islamofascism.

It is so unexpected and so unconventional, so inadvertent that it can only be considered something of a Divine intervention.

America has stumbled upon the Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction against the Islamist foe:  cheezy, low-budget films with horrible production and grade-school dialogue launched via that irresistible weapons delivery system known as “YouTube.”

Yes, I am referring to that military masterpiece unleashed upon the unsuspecting Islamists called, The Innocence of Muslims.

Consider just this one example in al Jazeera of its destructive power:

At least one person has died as demonstrations against an anti-Islam video erupt across Pakistan, a day after protesters tried to storm the US embassy in the capital, Islamabad.

Angry demonstrators set fire to two cinemas in the northwestern city of Peshawar, police and witnesses said on Friday, as the country began a day of protests.

One protester was wounded when a cinema guard opened fire as crowds armed with clubs and bamboo poles converged on the Firdaus picture house, “smashing it up and setting furniture ablaze”, according to Gohar Ali, a police officer.

Witnesses said a separate rampaging crowd stormed the Shama cinema, notorious locally for showing films considered to be pornographic.

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis were expected to take to the streets across the country after the government called an impromptu public holiday to let people protest.

****

Friday was designated a “day of expression of love for the prophet” by the government, which called for peaceful protests against the Innocence of Muslims video produced in the US.

All the major political parties and religious groups announced protests, as did many trade and transport organisations.

Large crowds were expected to turn out after Friday prayers.

The previous day, the US embassy became the latest target of protesters angry at the YouTube video. The total number of protesters touched 5,000 with the arrival of protesters carrying the flags of anti-American Islamist groups.

At least 50 people were injured as police fired tear gas and live rounds towards the crowds.

This New Secret Weapon, according to the article, has the mysterious ability to induce widespread madness in the Islamist population, compelling them to irrational behaviors like attacking porno theaters and embassies that are merely obscene for their obsequious behavior.

What’s more, the U.S. government is augmenting the frightful power of this new weapon with a psychological campaign of such cruel calculation that it is almost a crime against humanity.   It’s true.  The Islamist will soon be begging for the merciful Drone Strikes before too long.  Consider this diabolical game of deception and denial waged by the Administration as quoted in the al Jazeera article:

Against this tense backdrop, the US has bought time on Pakistani television stations to run a series of ads in an effort to assuage Muslim feelings of hurt.

The US hopes the ad would show that the country had no involvement with the controversial internet video.

The US embassy in Islamabad spent about $70,000 to run the announcement, which features clips of Barack Obama, the US president, and Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, underscoring US respect for religion and declaring the US government had nothing to do with the video.

Obama is shown saying: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Clinton then says: “Let me state very clearly, the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

“In order to ensure we reached the largest number of Pakistanis, some 90 million as I understand it in this case with
these spots, it was the judgment that this was the best way to do it.”

Addressing a media briefing on the ad campaign, Victoria Nuland, state department spokeswoman, said the aim was “to make sure that the Pakistani people hear the president’s messages and the secretary’s messages”.

The announcement aired as the US asked its citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Pakistan.

Oh the savagery!  Oh the mental ruin this will visit upon the poor, helpless Islamists!

Imagine the Islamists, weary from the YouTube Bomb-induced fury against porn theaters and embassies, seeking some solace in their television re-runs of “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” only to be bombarded– yes! bombarded!– with relentless messages from Barack Hussein Obama that the U.S. loves and respects all faiths, especially ones that do not have a crucifix that can be plunged into urine or a virgin mother that can be smeared with elephant feces.

This, my friends, is the ultimate in psychological whiplash!  A veritable jiu-jitsu of mental pain!  Surely, the Islamists will think, the President of the United States has the power to stop this horrible YouTube Bomb if he chooses.  But he does not!  Instead he claims respect for Islam while insulting its Prophet!  And, to add injury to insult, he allows the horrible Clinton woman– a woman of all things– to deliver the one-two punch:  the U.S. had nothing to do with the video (when it clearly did) and America believes in “religious tolerance” (when those very words are a red-hot poker in the Islamist soul).

But you may well be asking, How can we be sure that the normally spineless suck-ups in the Obama Administration and the Pentagon will find the courage to continue using a weapon of such fearsome, destructive power?  There is evidence of more bombs in the making.

The U.S. government cleverly brought in the filmmaker for “questioning” based upon “parole violations.” Uh huh.   Wink, wink.  Nudge, nudge.   That ought to throw the Islamists off the scent, eh?  No one suspects (but we know better) that this was a clever ruse for the government to plan and coordinate the next series of YouTube Bombs that will continue to drive the Islamists over the cliff.

Victory is at hand, friends!  All the U.S. need do now is just let the YouTube Bombs wreak their radioactive havoc upon the Islamists until their societies are so riven with mad self-destruction that they collapse in upon themselves like a laptop computer placed upon a wet, cardboard box.  Yes, we here in the U.S. may be called upon to make sacrifices: exposure to these YouTube Bombs has been known to cause fits of derisive laughter and mild nausea in infidels, but we must not shrink back from even these sufferings.

Instead, let us console ourselves with the magnificence of this new Wonder Weapon.   This is the evil genius of the United States of America at its finest.  Stand in awe and fearful amaze.

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan went on the Sunday news shows last weekend to preview Republican plans for the 2012 Federal Budget (not to be confused with the current combat over the 2011 Budget that Democrats refused to pass last year).

Ryan made it clear that the 2012 Budget sets out on a very ambitious path to cut over $4 Trillion from Federal spending over the next 10 years in an effort to reduce the size of the Federal government and get spending back in line with revenue.

My concern here is not to talk about the specifics of Ryan’s budget ideas.  Afterall, the proposed budget is not expected to be released until later this week.  Instead, I want to highlight the preliminary salvos being fired by Democrats attempting to “prepare the ground” for the Budget Battle of 2012.

Here is the Associated Press reporting on Rep. Ryan’s remarks as well as the Democrat response:

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Ryan said budget writers are working out the 2012 numbers with the Congressional Budget Office, but he said the overall spending reductions would come to “a lot more” than $4 trillion. The debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama recommended a plan that it said would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction.

Ryan said Obama’s call for freezing nondefense discretionary spending actually locks in spending at high levels. Under the forthcoming GOP plan, Ryan said spending would return to 2008 levels and thus cut an additional $400 billion over 10 years.

Ryan tells the interviewer, in general terms, that the proposed budget will include things like premium supports for Medicare and Medicaid, a bifurcation of treatment for those 55 and older who would continue under the present approach and those younger who would be put under a new, cost-savings approach.   Ryan previewed ideas such as block grants to the States for Medicare/Medicaid to allow each State to decide how to deal with their citizens on a local level;  a statutory cap on discretionary federal spending;  a revision of the tax code to broaden and simplify its implementation; no new tax increases.

The reaction by Democrats?  About what you would expect:

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, slammed Ryan’s plan in a press release Sunday. “It is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans,” Van Hollen said.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia was skeptical that Ryan’s proposal could achieve its targets without damaging social programs. He also questioned whether reductions in defense spending and seeking more revenue through tax reform would be part of the plan.

“I don’t know how you get there without taking basically a meat ax to those programs who protect the most vulnerable in the country,” Warner said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I’ll give anybody the benefit of a doubt until I get a chance to look at the details,” he said, “but I think the only way you’re going to really get there is if you put all of these things, including defense spending, including tax reform, as part of the overall package.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., part of a six-member group of Republicans and Democrats forging their own budget proposal, said that the lawmakers would be looking for “real balance” in Ryan’s plan and wanting all options considered.

“I think we’ll come at it differently,” Durbin said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “The idea of sparing the Pentagon from any savings, not imposing any new sacrifice on the wealthiest Americans, I think goes way too far. We have got to make certain that it’s a balanced approach and one that can be sustained over the next 10 years.”

This knee-jerk reaction by Democrats– that “the Rich” are not paying their “fair share” and must be subject to “new sacrifice” — puts me in mind of that classic scene from Monty Python And The Holy Grail:

Democrats have the very same kind of medieval thinking when it comes to economics and tax policy.  Just as the villagers in The Holy Grail are determined to have their “witch” to burn, even if it means dressing someone up to look like a witch and making the most absurd claims of the woman’s evil deeds, Democrats in Congress are determined to burn the Rich regardless of the efficacy or, indeed, the great harm that it causes to the economy.

In this video by The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Dan Mitchell explains how this type of witch hunting is so wrong-headed and, ultimately, damaging to our economy:

One thing to highlight in this excellent video is the fact that we live in a global economy that will always favor those who can move their capital elsewhere.   Professor Paul Rahe, in volume 1 of his book series, Republics Ancient & Modern, he notes that eighteenth century writers recognized that, “the invention of the bill of exchange [was] a turning point in world history.” (page 47).  The French philosopher, Montesquieu, noted that the effect of the bill of exchange was to allow the merchant class to avoid the arbitrary and confiscatory policies of the monarchical rulers of Europe by sending their assets to other, less oppressive states.  As a result, a veritable revolution in politics occurred because, for the first time, rulers’ decisions were checked by the ability of these merchants to vote with their movable assets.  (Ibid).

The same phenomenon applies today, but Democrats (and protectionist Republicans) just don’t get it.   They look at factories and jobs moving overseas and, rather than look squarely in the mirror at our anti-business, anti-manufacturing policies fomented by left-wingers still living in the 19th Century as the cause, they vilify the owners as “un-American” or unpatriotic or just evil.   The reality is that America will continue to shed jobs and capital until we stop demonizing “the rich” and start implementing policies that make it easier for businesses to stay in the U.S. and thrive.

Democrats in Congress, if the AP article is any indication, seem prepared to continue on their idiotic quest to “burn the witches” of our economy, not because there are witches, but because they know it offers a grotesque but satisfying spectacle to a constituency that they have carefully cultivated to feed upon envy, hatred, resentment and victim-status.

Congressmen like Paul Ryan and his colleagues in the Senate must not for one moment give in to this vile practice when it comes to hammering out the 2012 Budget and beyond.

from Herschel Smith to markos@dailykos.com, dailykos@gmail.com date Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:23 PM subject Assistance mailed-by gmail.com

Markos,

Regarding this:

Truth is the first casualty of Kos

I had initially taken some degree of pleasure and humor in reading the exchange.  But then I felt some degree of guilt.  I am certain that you don’t actually intend to come off as a thirteen year old girl hysterically text-messaging her enemies with run-on sentences.  I am certain that you wish to be seen as less effeminate and much more manly than this, but perhaps don’t know how.

Please allow me to assist you.  I am here to help.  I can hook you up with some hard core manual labor: ditch digging, shoveling gravel, bailing hay, etc.  I can even get you hooked up with training stud horses and ‘coon dogs.  Stud quarter horses are quite a handful when trying to break them, especially in the warm weather.  And there is nothing better than watching a ‘coon dog bite the eyeballs out of a Raccoon – or, watching the dog go limping away from being torn to shreds by the ‘coon.

I think you will feel much more manly after doing activities such as this.  Let me know when you want to come down and hang out.  BTW, I am assuming that at least right now you would disagree with my brand of counterinsurgency.

What we must do to win Kandahar

Maybe after we go ‘coon hunting you will see things my way.

Very Warmest Regards,

Herschel Smith

The Captain’s Journal

Jim White at the very liberal Firedoglake links and cites me concerning battlespace control and the associated response by General McChrystal’s Staff.  The tale is so twisted and unrelated to the subject of my two articles that I don’t even know where to begin to decipher what he is talking about, so I can’t copy any of his prose.  He fancies cover-ups, horrible secret things to which we aren’t privy, and all manner of malfeasance and misdeed.  He cites the very un-American Gareth Porter, and he charges deception at every turn.

It just goes to show that presuppositions mean everything.  You see a devil around every corner if you think that there is supposed to be one there.  And all of this time I actually thought I was talking about RC South battlespace control, appreciation for and full utilization of the MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) concept and organization, and matrix of SOF to regional command so as to ensure that there is integration, cooperation and full cognizance of parallel operations in the AO.

Stupid me.

UPDATE: Over at Firedoglake, Jim dropped a comment that said something like “Hey look.  Someone’s mad at me,” linking this article.  Then he conveniently turned off comments to the post.

No, Jim.  Not mad.  Humored and amused, but not mad.  That’s why this article was posted in the humor category.

Will the Marines’ relocation to Guam cause it to capsize?  “We don’t anticipate that … !”

UPDATE: So, the story line now is that Hank meant these words figuratively.  So how many readers think that Hank knows what the word figurative means?

UPDATE #2: This response from Hank Johnson’s office.

“I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which could adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and could overburden its stressed infrastructure. Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – could easily become overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do permanent harm to Guam.”

So we’re faced with the same question as earlier.  Does Hank really know what the word metaphor means?  Did he really author this response?

Jonah Goldberg remarks, from a reader:

My son is stationed on Guam, I just sent him the video and told him to run to the other side of the island. He said one of his shipmates showed up to work with  a life vest on!

Run to the other side of the island.  You know, that whole center of gravity thing?  Maybe that will keep Guam from capsizing into the sea.  Or did Hank mean sink rather than capsize?  We’re faced with a whole new set of problems if Guam sinks!

I have proven before that I am not at all above stealing good material.  Charlie at OpFor found this YouTube of some of our boys having a little fun.  I won’t title my post Ghost Riding HMMWVS like Charlie, because I think I saw an MRAP there somewhere. Yes – I know I did.  Besides, I have to call this something original to exonerate myself after I stole Charlie’s material.

And the winner of the dance competition?  It’s the soldier on the road at 1:10 into the video. The Captain’s Journal will speak on his behalf when he goes up for NJP.

In response to Marine Artillery Does Oakland and my plan for an amphibious assault on San Francisco, Arthur Kimes writes:

Oh sure you can conquer it. But holding it against the insurgents? What counter-measures do you have against the obvious threat of Road Side Mimes? What happens when the Starbucks barrista slips DECAF in a Marines cappucino? (I should have 4 or 5 more funny lines but my brain isn’t working now. Too early…)

In response to Warriors and the Oakland Airport: The Final Story, Daniel Jimenez sends a link, to which I responded:

Bull. The airport authorities know that weapons being on board the plane is no reason to bar the plane from entry. The weapons have their bolt removed and have no ammunition. This is done before they ever leave the theater. The airport authorities know this. I have covered this in my most recent post (followup to the one backtracked to Michelle’s site). Further, not having been screened by TSA is quite irrelevant, and the airport authorities know it. Customs does a more thorough job with them.

This story is crap. Sorry.

To which Mr. Jimenez then responded as follows:

So, the contractor who said he personally drove the troops waiting to meet family to the terminal? Also a liar? The Staff Sgt. who talks about the great reception he received at the airport? Also a liar? And the commanding officer who told the airport officials they didn’t need any other attention? Also a liar? The airport spokeswoman? Also a liar? (I’m CERTAIN you think she’s a liar, because, after all, she’s the one covering for the nefarious America- and troop-hating directors of the Oakland Airport.)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good “The Bay Area hates the troops” story, I suppose.

To which I responded:

I don’t mean to be rude, but you need to learn to stay on point and not get sidetracked by irrelevant things.  I never said anything about contractors trucking people around and such as that.  I stuck to a single point in both of my posts: weapons being on board causing a security concern, and this being the reason for stopping the aircraft.

Again, bull.  Period.  They have more muzzle discipline that an air marshal who also has a weapon, and besides, unlike air marshals, they have no ammunition.  There was and is no security concern.  Do they honestly believe that anyone would be stupid enough to allow the Marines to board the aircraft in the theater WITH ammunition?  No, they do not honestly believe that.  And that’s the point.

To which Mr. Jimenez responded:

I’ll go ahead and sidestep your faux courtesy and be rude.

Hey. A**hole. Spare me the smarm. The point about the contractor driving the 3 troops to see their loved ones, and the part about the commanding officer saying they didn’t need anything else, means that the entire incident was completely overblown. If the commanding officer says, (sic) we don’t need to go to the terminal, that’s fine. Then that’s it. End of story. But people like you and Ledeen and Malkin can’t resist the urge to bash the bay, even when the facts get in your way (go look up Tight Films’ statement on the Marine commercial in SF, schmuck).

The point about the Staff Sgt.’s comment about the 2005 arrival was that your assumptions about the Bay Area are, of course, wrong.

Your entire argument about weapons seems to come down to one crucial assumption: That the people who run the Oakland Airport openly hate the troops and, in fact, took this opportunity to stick it to them the only way the could. You understand why that’s ludicrous, right? Have you ever been to the Bay Area? Oh, wait, you would never come to the “Socialist Republic of San Francisco” without that amphibious assault squad, right? Read this:

“I have never had so many people in my 17 years of service stop and thank me for my service,” said Maj. Sean Pascoli, the officer in charge of recruiting for the Marine Corps in the Bay Area. Pascoli says he has exceeded his quota for Marine recruits in the Bay Area this year.

…and tell me the Bay still hates the Marines.

Well, frankly I had not considered the actual size of the assault team.  Mr. Jimenez recommends a squad (this is three fire teams and a squad leader, usually a Sergeant).  I think a fire team of four Marines might be sufficient, but based on Mr. Kimes’ concerns, the post-assault occupation might take a larger force size.  Or maybe not.

But while the first letter from Mr. Kimes brought a smile to my face, this last one brought a tear to my eye.  He favorably compared me to Ledeen and Malkin.  I am undeserving of such a compliment.  I expect a dinner invitation from Michael and Michelle soon.  I am in the club – I am one of you now. Thank you, Mr. Jimenez.

From time to time it pays to take a look at the keywords used to bring visits to a site (when those visits are neither direct nor referrals).  I use Google Analytics for this task, among other things.  The search word strings yesterday were typical of a Milblog site.

1. “Spartan body armor.”  A Google search on the words “Spartan 2 tactical vest” yields TCJ just below Tactical Applications Group, the company that produces the Spartan body armor system, because of our body armor coverage.  “SAPI plates” is also a frequent search word string (you may not become famous by being a Milblogger, but at least you get tired, the hours are long and the words sound important).
2. “Jaish al-Mahdi army.”  This makes sense, since a Google search puts TCJ third for our article The Rise of the JAM.
3. “Are soldiers allowed to buy their own equipment?”  This is understandable as well, since page two of Google results lists Gear and Equipment Problems for the Marines.  Of course, this reader would have left disappointed and perhaps perplexed, since the answer is an unqualified maybe but probably not with qualifications, caveats, and stipulations enough to drive the sensible person mad, as if a lawyer wrote the rules … Hmmmm … a new theory hatches!
4. Variations on “rules of engagement,” “rules of engagement in Iraq,” “rules of engagement causing casualties,” “rules of engagement a hindrance,” “cjcsi 3121.01b,” etc., for our rules of engagement coverage.  Of course, these hits also bring in the person who is attempting to find engagement cards for their loved ones.
5. “Ansar al Sunna,” for our equivalent category.  I might remark on how forgiving search engines are, since the dual spellings (Sunna vs. Sunnah) are irrelevant.

And so the list goes.  It becomes an interesting little exercise.  But once in a while I stumble on a word string that grabs my attention so thoroughly that I cannot stop thinking about it until I unravel the mystery (I have not yet).

“Why shouldn’t we lie to NCOs?”  Now, take note of the fact that this isn’t formed thusly: “Why we shouldn’t lie to NCOs.”  No, it reads just “[w]hy shouldn’t we …”  This is particularly problematic, since we don’t know the rank of the individual searching on this word string.  Perhaps the chap had one too many pints of beer before searching on these words (did I give the country away?).  Or perhaps not.  Perhaps he is UA and needs an excuse for coming back late for formation.  Or perhaps rather than an enlisted man, he is an officer and wants to talk himself into lying to his subordinates.  Or perhaps he is an NCO searching for a reason for his subordinates not to be dishonest with him (Based on what I know of NCOs, this theory makes the least sense. An NCO would not search for a reason for his subordinates to respect him – he would simply demand it.).

Until this chap tells us why he wants to lie to an NCO, we cannot help him with his problem.  And just to set the record straight, at TCJ we do not support lying to NCOs.

From time to time it pays to take a look at the keywords used to bring visits to a site (when those visits are neither direct nor referrals).  I use Google Analytics for this task, among other things.  The search word strings yesterday were typical of a Milblog site.

1. “Spartan body armor.”  A Google search on the words “Spartan 2 tactical vest” yields TCJ just below Tactical Applications Group, the company that produces the Spartan body armor system, because of our body armor coverage.  “SAPI plates” is also a frequent search word string (you may not become famous by being a Milblogger, but at least you get tired, the hours are long and the words sound important).
2. “Jaish al-Mahdi army.”  This makes sense, since a Google search puts TCJ third for our article The Rise of the JAM.
3. “Are soldiers allowed to buy their own equipment?”  This is understandable as well, since page two of Google results lists Gear and Equipment Problems for the Marines.  Of course, this reader would have left disappointed and perhaps perplexed, since the answer is an unqualified maybe but probably not with qualifications, caveats, and stipulations enough to drive the sensible person mad, as if a lawyer wrote the rules … Hmmmm … a new theory hatches!
4. Variations on “rules of engagement,” “rules of engagement in Iraq,” “rules of engagement causing casualties,” “rules of engagement a hindrance,” “cjcsi 3121.01b,” etc., for our rules of engagement coverage.  Of course, these hits also bring in the person who is attempting to find engagement cards for their loved ones.
5. “Ansar al Sunna,” for our equivalent category.  I might remark on how forgiving search engines are, since the dual spellings (Sunna vs. Sunnah) are irrelevant.

And so the list goes.  It becomes an interesting little exercise.  But once in a while I stumble on a word string that grabs my attention so thoroughly that I cannot stop thinking about it until I unravel the mystery (I have not yet).

“Why shouldn’t we lie to NCOs?”  Now, take note of the fact that this isn’t formed thusly: “Why we shouldn’t lie to NCOs.”  No, it reads just “[w]hy shouldn’t we …”  This is particularly problematic, since we don’t know the rank of the individual searching on this word string.  Perhaps the chap had one too many pints of beer before searching on these words (did I give the country away?).  Or perhaps not.  Perhaps he is UA and needs an excuse for coming back late for formation.  Or perhaps rather than an enlisted man, he is an officer and wants to talk himself into lying to his subordinates.  Or perhaps he is an NCO searching for a reason for his subordinates not to be dishonest with him (Based on what I know of NCOs, this theory makes the least sense. An NCO would not search for a reason for his subordinates to respect him – he would simply demand it.).

Until this chap tells us why he wants to lie to an NCO, we cannot help him with his problem.  And just to set the record straight, at TCJ we do not support lying to NCOs.