Provided without comment.
Man, 53, Calls 911 To Complain That His Girlfriend Will Not . . . Um . . . Er . . . Well . . . .
The idiot was apparently arrested for public intoxication shortly after police arrived.
Dumbcluck.
Provided without comment.
Man, 53, Calls 911 To Complain That His Girlfriend Will Not . . . Um . . . Er . . . Well . . . .
The idiot was apparently arrested for public intoxication shortly after police arrived.
Dumbcluck.
DPAA has identified and accounted for the following formerly-missing US military personnel.
From World War II
• Cpl. Roger K. Nielson, E Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, USMC, was lost on 20 November 1943 on Tarawa. He was accounted for on 24 September 2015.
From Korea
• CPL Robert V. Witt, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division, US Army, was lost on 2 December 1950 in North Korea. He was accounted for on 11 September 2015.
• PFC Frank Worley, 503rd Field Artillery Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division, US Army, was lost on 12 February 1951 in North Korea. He was accounted for on 19 September 2015.
• CPL Robert P. Graham, A Company, 13th Engineer Combat Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, US Army, was lost on 13 February 1951 in North Korea. He was accounted for on 22 September 2015.
• CPL George H. Mason, 2nd Reconnaissance Company, 2nd Infantry Division, US Army, was lost on 14 February 1951 in North Korea. He was accounted for on 8 September 2015.
You’re no longer missing, elder brothers-in-arms. Our apologies that your recovery took so long.
Now you’re home. Rest in peace.
. . .
Over 73,000 US personnel remain unaccounted for from World War II; over 7,800 US personnel remain unaccounted for from the Korean War; and over 1,600 remain unaccounted for in Southeast Asia (SEA). Comparison of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from recovered remains against mtDNA from a matrilineal descendant can assist in making a positive ID for unidentified remains that have already been recovered, or which may be recovered in the future.
DPAA’s web site now has what appears to be a decent “Contact Us” page. The page doesn’t have instructions concerning who can and cannot submit a mtDNA sample or how to submit one, but the POCs listed there may be able to refer you to someone who can answer that question – or may be able to answer the question themselves. If you think you might possibly qualify, please contact one of those POCs for further information.
If your family lost someone in one of these conflicts and you qualify to submit a mtDNA sample, please arrange to submit one. By doing that you just might help identify the remains of a US service member who’s been repatriated but not yet been identified – as well as a relative of yours, however distant. Or you may help to identify remains to be recovered in the future.
Everybody deserves a proper burial. That’s especially true for those who gave their all while serving this nation.
Well, Clintoon’s private email is in the news again. And not for good reasons.
1. It seems that, well . . . some people in other countries were interested in Clintoon’s private email server. Seriously interested.
As in, “people who appear to be linked to the People’s Republic of China”. That private email server was apparently targeted by malware operating from locations in China, South Korea, and Germany. The malware executing these attacks is reportedly linked to China.
Other attacks, for which more information has not been made public, apparently also occurred.
These attacks occurred during late 2013 and 2014. Those attacks were detected (and apparently blocked) by anti-malware software installed to protect the server in October 2013.
No such anti-malware software was installed on the server prior to 2013. It’s thus unknown if the server was targeted prior to October 2013.
However, were I a betting man, well . . . yeah, I’d guess it was. Some of our adversaries seem pretty damn competent when it comes to this kind of stuff.
2. Remember Platte River Networks and their lack of backups for Clintoon’s mail server? Well, it looks like maybe there’s an explanation for that after all. Apparently, a Clintoon family firm – Clinton Executive Service Corporation – reportedly asked Platte River to reduce the amount of time for which backups of the server were held on-file.
It appears Platte River originally had backups of the server from day one. Clinton Executive Service Corporation seems to have asked them to reduce that to 30 days – apparently after the FBI began looking into the matter. Don’t know about you, but that makes me wonder.
3. However, it’s not only Clintoon’s private server that’s an issue. Apparently the FBI recently impounded four servers from the Department of State in conjunction with the matter. Interesting.
4. And, finally: remember those claims by Clintoon that she never saw anything marked as classified in her private email? Well, apparently the lady has rather poor eyesight – or has either very poor reading comprehension or memory. At least 3 of the emails that the FBI received from her lawyer do indeed appear to be marked as being classified. And the total number of emails found to contain classified information – whether marked or unmarked – is now up to around 400.
Oh, and did I mention that one of those emails found to be marked as classified discussed the Iranian nuclear program?
. . .
But hey – what’s the problem? No foreign governments could possibly have any interest in Clintoon’s chit-chat with her aides. I mean, she was only the US SECSTATE. She couldn’t possibly discuss anything in those emails of interest to foreign nations, right?
Yeah, right. And I’m the rightful Emperor of China, too.
One of the common – and immensely frustrating – claims by military fakes is falsely claiming to have been held as a POW in Vietnam or elsewhere in Southeast Asia. It’s also one of the easier false military claims to disprove quickly. DPAA maintains a public list of POWs who returned from captivity during or at the end of the Vietnam War.
However, many individuals making a “Vietnam POW” aren’t content to merely claim they were a POW. Many have to claim to have been in a “tiger cage” temporarily, or to have later somehow escaped from enemy custody – or both. Hell, Jonn posted an article about one such fake claim earlier today.
Well, it turns out this kind of claim is also laughably easy to disprove. Turns out that DPAA maintains a second list – specifically, a list of those who successfully escaped enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.
This latter claim (to have escaped from being held as a POW in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam Conflict) is not only laughably easy to verify or disprove, it’s also is one that’s virtually guaranteed to be bullsh!t. Here’s why: Only a total of 37 individuals were captured in SEA and later escaped and returned alive to US control.
That’s right – thirty-freaking-seven. Total.
I haven’t counted. But I’m pretty sure Jonn’s busted more than that many here at TAH alone for falsely claiming to have been “Vietnam POWs” who “escaped from Charlie”.
The point? Such individuals are incredibly rare. They amount to a bit over 5% of all Vietnam POWs who returned alive – and according to DPAA, there were only a total 721 total POWs that returned alive, including civilians held captive. (37 who escaped plus 684 who were released during or after the war). Since approximately 3.1 million people served in the military in SEA during the war and only 32 of the escapees were military personnel, that means you’re literally talking about one Vietnam vet in about 97,000.
Rare? You betcha. Especially since a number of those bona fide escapees are no longer alive.
A few other interesting points about the successful escapees.
Still, we keep seeing this kind of bogus claim. So, in the interest of being a ready reference, here is the complete list of those individuals who DPAA recognizes as being successful escapees from enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.
| Branch of Service | Location of Incident | Name | Rank | Date Captured | Date of Return |
| USA | S. Vietnam | AIKEN, Larry Delarnard | E4 | 1969/05/13 | 1969/07/10 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | ANDERSON, Roger Dale | E2 | 1968/01/03 | 1968/01/12 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | BABCOCK, William H. Jr. | O2* | 1968/01/31 | 1968/01/31* |
| USA | S. Vietnam | BRASWELL, Donald Robert | E4 | 1967/08/23 | 1967/08/24 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | BREWER, Lee | E5 | 1968/01/07 | 1968/01/08 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | CAMACHO, Issac | E7 | 1963/11/24 | 1965/07/13 |
| USN | Laos | DENGLER, Dieter | O2 | 1966/02/01 | 1966/07/20 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | DIERLING, Edward A. | E5 | 1968/02/01 | 1968/02/23 |
| CIVILIAN | S. Vietnam | DODD, Joe Lee | Civ | 1965/10/10 | 1965/10/25 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | DODSON, James | E5 | 1966/05/06 | 1966/06/20 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | ECKES, Walter W. | E3 | 1966/05/10 | 1966/06/20 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | FANN, Jerry L. | E3 | 1967/03/21 | 1967/03/21 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | GRAENING, Bruce A. | E3 | 1967/03/09 | 1967/03/18 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | GUFFEY, Jerry | E4 | 1969/03/04 | 1969/03/04 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | HAMILTON, Walter D. | E2 | 1965/10/18 | 1965/10/29 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | HATCH, Paul G. | E3 | 1969/08/24 | 1969/08/25 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | HAYHURST, Robert A. | E5 | 1968/02/01 | 1968/02/23 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | HOLT, Dewey Thomas | E4 | 1967/08/23 | 1967/08/24 |
| CIVILIAN | S. Vietnam | HUDSON, Henry M, | Civ | 1965/12/20 | 1965/12/21 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | IODICE, Frank C. | E4 | 1968/05/30 | 1968/06/01 |
| CIVILIAN | S. Vietnam | JONES, Edwin D. | Civ | 1965/12/20 | 1965/12/21 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | KING, Everett Melbourne Jr. | E4 | 1968/02/01 | 1968/02/08 |
| USN | Laos | KLUSMANN, Charles F. | O3 | 1964/06/06 | 1964/08/31 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | MARTIN, Donald Eugene | E5 | 1968/03/02 | 1968/04/14 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | NELSON, Steven N. | E3 | 1968/01/07 | 1968/01/21 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | NORTH, Joseph Jr. | E2 | 1965/10/18 | 1965/10/29 |
| USAF | S. Vietnam | PAGE, Jasper N. | E6 | 1965/10/30 | 1965/11/04 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | POTTER, Albert J. | E5 | 1968/05/30 | 1968/06/01 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | RISNER, Richard F. | O4 | 1968/08/20 | 1968/08/22 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | ROHA, Michael R. | E1 | 1968/01/07 | 1968/01/21 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | ROWE, James Nicholas | O2 | 1963/10/29 | 1968/12/31 |
| CIVILIAN | S. Vietnam | SMITH, Linda | Civ | 1975/03/10 | 1975/03/27 |
| CIVILIAN | S. Vietnam | SMITH, Michelle L. | Civ | 1975/03/10 | 1975/03/27 |
| USMC | S. Vietnam | TALLAFERRO, William P. | E4 | 1968/02/06 | 1968/02/13 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | TAYLOR, William B. | E5 | 1968/03/20 | 1968/05/06 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | VANPUTTEN, Thomas | E4 | 1968/02/11 | 1969/04/17 |
| USA | S. Vietnam | WRIGHT, Buddy | E5 | 1968/09/22 | 1968/10/06 |
Note: for unknown reasons, the DPAA list does not give a rank or date of escape for Babcock. However, the Military Times Hall of Valor database lists his rank when captured as 1LT, and indicates he escaped from enemy custody/was rescued the same day. Other Internet sources also give Babcock’s rank as 1LT at time of capture; those sources further indicate he was captured and escaped/was rescued the same day. I have thus entered this data in the table above.
That’s the entire DoD-recognized escapee list. It may be verified directly from DPAA by following this link. All other Vietnam War POWs who returned alive did so after being released during or after the end of the war.
If someone’s making a “Vietnam POW” claim and isn’t on that list, well, personally I’d not believe a word they said. And I’d probably also leave the area immediately – before I lost my temper and did something stupid.
(A link to this article has been added to the “Military Records” button on the TAH site banner.)
Well, it looks like one or more of those “fine individuals” that we all “know and love” have been running their yaps. Once again, some Dorkish Royally Clueless tool has wrongly identified someone else as being me.
And just like before, I’m both honored and a bit peeved.
Again.
For at least the fifth freaking time.
Apparently, someone out there has determined that I am in reality Larry Bailey, former SEAL and CAPT, USN (Ret). Yes, THAT CAPT Larry Bailey.
Yeah, right. GMAFB.
Oh, don’t get me wrong; that would be quite an honor. Except . . . it’s a load of bullsh!t. It’s just not true.
To whoever is out there claiming I’m CAPT Bailey: listen up. I’ll make this simple for your benefit.
Given the above, even someone who’s a totally clueless fool should be able to figure out that I can’t possibly be CAPT Larry Bailey. That includes whoever is out there spreading the false rumor that CAPT Bailey and I are the same person.
Sheesh. Are you for real? Do you have enough common sense to p!ss in the toilet vice the trash can when you use the bathroom?
Let’s recap here. First, close to two years ago supposedly I was a retired and relatively well-known Army GO (don’t I wish). Then I was wrongly identified as being The Hair himself, Don Shipley; I’m not, of course. Or maybe I was supposed to be Don Shipley first, then the retired GO. Hell, those particular bogus claims were made approaching two years ago now, and the claims change so often it’s hard to keep them straight.
After that, I was allegedly a retired Special Forces Sergeant Major. Um, no. Not even close.
And a while after that, purportedly I was a serving Army CPT (or maybe by now MAJ) teaching ROTC. It would be nice to be that young again, but – no. Incorrect.
That’s only the four I’ve heard about and can think of off the top of my head. My guess is there are a few other similar false identifications out there that I don’t remember or just plain missed.
Give it up. You’ve been wrong every freaking time so far. This time around, supposedly I’m CAPT Larry Bailey – and guess what?
You’re wrong again. You’re still batting oh-fer-whatever. And based on what I’ve seen, that ain’t going to change any time soon.
Still: this foolishness is getting old, and I’m getting kinda tired of it. Maybe I should finally tell anyone who’s interested precisely where to go if they want to see Hondo.
(My apologies, Mr. Berra – wherever you are. But that quote was simply too perfect a title for this article.)
Long ago, an election was stolen.
It was stolen in a place that was effectively a one-party state at the time. Oh, yes, there was technically political opposition. But as a practical matter, the ruling party called the shots; its candidates always won. Elections were largely a formality, held for show.
But elections were held nonetheless. The standard tricks of the trade were used to affect their outcome: votes recorded that were not cast, dead people voting, bought votes, fraudulent totals – you name it.
However, sometimes the ruling party would squabble within itself, with no clearly “pre-anointed” victor. In those cases, the results might be close. And things could get . . . interesting.
In one such case, the results were close indeed. After a hard fight, one of the two indeed won. Then the election was stolen. And the results were so obviously fraudulent as to be nauseating.
In one location, dead people were documented to have voted. People who never voted during the election – and who were out of town on election day and thus unable to vote at all – were nevertheless counted as having voted in person.
The totals in favor of one candidate were nauseatingly one-sided – so much so, that it’s impossible to believe them: 408-110; 5,554 -1,179; 965-61 (or 966-61; sources differ); 711-158; 723-198; 2,908-166; and 4,195-38 (later “amended” to 4,620-40 – or an election “turnout” of 99.6% of registered voters in that locality).
All told, it’s estimated that tens of thousands of outright fraudulent votes were cast. They were overwhelmingly cast for one candidate. And when that wasn’t enough, days after the election one key result was “corrected”; enough names were added – alphabetically and in the same handwriting – to official poll lists as having voted for a single candidate to change the election’s results. Barely.
In short, the election was blatantly stolen. And though challenged, the challenge was unsuccessful. The beneficiary of the theft ended up keeping the stolen office – a high national office, at that.
Now, you might wonder why I’m writing this and posting it to a military blog. Well, the above is indeed true. But it’s not a story about fraudulent elections in some Third-World dictatorship or Communist nation during the Cold War – nations that were known to hold elections merely for show.
I’m also not talking about the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election that was stolen to put Al “Comic Relief” Franken in the Senate.
Rather, it’s the story of what happened in South Texas during the 1948 Democratic Senate Primary Run-Off election. That election was patently fraudulent – and blatently stolen.
That’s the election that sent LBJ to the Senate, saving his political career and setting him on the path to the White House.
Without that stolen election, LBJ isn’t Vice-President on the morning of November 22, 1963. And without LBJ as president, IMO Vietnam as a major land war either never happens at all or plays out far differently than it did. LBJ was terrified of being identified as being “soft” on Communism, and identified as having “lost” a nation to the Communist cause. IMO that’s the main reason he engineered our involvement there – and kept “upping the ante” when things didn’t go as planned.

If you’ve never read Robert A. Caro’s Means of Ascent, I’d strongly recommend you do so while you’re on this side of the dirt – regardless of your feelings about LBJ. In Chapters 13-16, Caro documents precisely how people working on LBJ’s behalf stole that election, and how they kept it stolen afterwards. And he makes a persuasive case that not only did LBJ know precisely what was going on, but also approved of it wholeheartedly.
Elections have consequences. Sometimes they’re not felt for decades.
Author’s Note: None of the ballot boxes produced in court during Federal Special Master Hearings investigating allegations of fraud during the 1948 Texas Senatorial Run-Off Election in late September 1948 were marked as was the one in the above photo. The ballot box depicted in the photo above was thus quite obviously not among those produced in court during that Federal Special Master investigation.
The box in the photo is believed to have been from Precinct 13 in Alice, TX, in Jim Wells County. That precinct was the one to which the 200 votes (some accounts say 201 or 202) that changed the election’s outcome were added days after-the-fact.
The individuals in the photo are known associates and political allies of George B. Parr, political Jefe of the local area. One of them is his cousin, Givens Parr.
Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County is known to have had two ballot boxes. Both were ordered brought to court during the Special Master investigation.
One box from Precinct 13 was indeed opened in court during the Special Master hearings. The second ballot box from Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County was either among those that remained unopened when the investigation was ordered halted – or was not present in court that day.
The ballot box in the photo above has never been located.
LBJ himself is known to have possessed a copy of the above photo. On at least one occasion during his Presidency, showed his copy of that photo to a journalist during an interview(1967).
Draw whatever conclusions from the above you desire.
. . . it looks like the “best and brightest” working for the VA were at it again.
It seems that some VA medical facilities recently distributed a flyer indicating prohibited items. Bring them to an exam, and you would not be seen.
The fliers were apparently mailed to some vets with appointment letters. The VA also posted similar signs at some medical facilities depicting those prohibited items.
Here are some pictures of the flier and signs:

No, you’re eyes aren’t playing tricks on you. For a while, in part of the US the VA actually was telling people that if they brought a smartphone or backpack to an appointment, they would not be seen. (The flier and signs actually depicted an iPhone, but presumably any smartphone – and probably, any cell phone – would have been similarly banned.)
The VA has since backpedaled, and has announced the policy was “ill advised” . The VA has also apparently cancelled the policy – though they did not explain why the policy was ever instituted in the first place.
Now, why might the VA do something like this? Well, it seems that at least one vet has used a recording device at a VA appointment – likely a cell or smart phone – to obtain a personal record of what was actually said at that appointment. They did so in Minnesota, which is a “one party” consent state regarding the recording of conversations (Federal law and 38 states require one-party-consent regarding the recording of conversations).
One plausible explanation is that the VA doesn’t want anyone else to have a separate record of what’s actually said in their appointments, so they tried to prevent that by banning cell phones. If so, that was indeed “ill advised”.
Now, I’m sure there are other plausible explanations. I just wish I could think of what one of those other plausible explanations might be.
The really sad part about all this? This whole idea was obviously utter and complete idiocy. Any one with enough common sense to p!ss in the toilet vice the bathroom’s wastebasket would have seen that immediately.
But coming from VA administrators? This doesn’t surprise me one bit.
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the VA is salvageable.
AUTHOR’S NOTES (IMPORTANT):
1. If you’re thinking about taking a smartphone/MP3 player/other recording device to your next VA appointment and recording it, please CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS FIRST. A number of states (11) appear to require the consent of ALL parties to a conversation before it may be legally recorded. If you live in one of those states, you cannot legally record your appointment unless you get the permission of all present to record.
2. While I believe the last link to the PDF document listing state recording laws (last link above) to be accurate, the document appears to be from 2013 – and laws change from time to time. I strongly recommend that you double check it against Lexis or another up-to-date source of state and local laws if you’re thinking about recording an appointment based on assumed one-party consent law in your state. It’s possible your state’s law has changed since that document was prepared in 2013.