Liars and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

Some of you may have already heard the rather disturbing news about the The United States Coast Guard issuing this statement:

"The U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols".

Original sources stated that the "Updated Policy Guidelines were set to take effect on Dec.15, 2025. The new definition of these controversial symbols would make both hateful symbols considered as only "potentially divisive" in nature. What the...?

Almost immediately Coast Guard acting commandant Admiral Kevin Lunday tweeted that the claim was "categorically false". Late Thursday night it seems that this egregious new policy was reversed and once again these racist symbolisms would be considered "hate images".

The Justice Journal Blog™ doesn't know what you think about this, but interjects that this news ranks amongst the saddest and most pitiful pieces of information that has ever been shared with the public.

To display a swastika symbol anywhere is clearly saying that the displayer hates Jewish people, Jewish culture, and Jewish sentiment. It is of little surprise as well, that these two symbols are targeted together in this overtly racist, and hate filled policy change initiative.

The swastika in America today re-symbolizes, and re-promotes the original ideals of its design. The American "skin-head" culture who have claimed, and proudly display the swastika flag believe in the superiority of their ethnicity over all others. This entangles the use of that symbol directly to the current narrative use and intended meaning of noose symbolism.

In regards to that second policy choice the noose, well that image directly reflects the callous, and malicious lynching of black people in America which began for black folk when slavery did. This White American atrocity only became recorded history in the early 1800's (officially) however. This dehumanizing act is said to have ended in the 1920's. The true data on this is skewed however by modern reports of black people being found hanging from trees in 2025. Clearly any nation of people who accept this type of, or prescribes to this malicious propaganda narrative of hate has serious racial issues.

Here is the Justice Journal Blog™'s take on the whole matter. Simply put: Someone wrote the policy change initially. That means there was motive and intent. Its well and good to report that the policy change was reversed, but that action, in our opinion, does not address the core meaning of this narrative.

What of the person(s) who wanted to make these hateful symbols okay to display? That is the real question here. America has a very long history of avoidance, and or the pacification of the true meaning behind a story such as this. The Justice Journal Blog however, will not.

Mainstream media refuses to report the true facts of the matter in this, and in many stories like this. And that fact is that there are thought processes, and even concerted efforts here. Efforts to push hate out of it's secret confinements and into the open spaces of everday America. This is unacceptable to say the very least, and one the stories that need to be spoken, exposed and fully addressed.

This publication will put that realization into context and use this news story as the point of reference for the context reveal. Firstly, the Policy Change on hate symbolism, which was reversed Thursday, was indeed written. We should not, and TJJB will not, overlook that singular fact. Not today. Not tomorrow, and not ever. The policy change, although reversed, that would allow the racist associated with the United States Coast Guard in this country to proudly wear their symbols of hate, WAS WRITTEN, and what's absolutelyinsane is that it was proposed as policy in one of this countries oldest and trusted Armed Uniformed Services.

According to sources this foul, disgusting policy change originated from one of the eight Federal Uniformed Services of the United States.

These are respectively 1. The U.S. Army 2. The U.S. Navy 3. The U.S. Marine Corps 4. The U.S. Air Force 5. The U.S. Coast Guard 6. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

7. The U.S.Space Force 8. The NOAA Commissioned Officer Group. The report states that the policy change reportedly came from the Coast Guard branch of these U.S. service entities.

The Coast Guard protects our borders and certain interest abroad. It Safeguards the sea lines of communication and commerce. So the question becomes: Why in the world would this branch of our Uniformed Services want to change the swastika, and the noose from hate symbols into "potentially divisive" symbols? Why is this even on their radar? What makes this policy a consideration for even review, much less for revision?

Well the answer, in this publications humble opinion, is simple. People! People make the world go round. People regardless of where they work, or are responsible to, are at the end of the day just people. People love. People hate. People laugh and people cry, but mostly people hate.

That simple conclusion brings up the optimal question. The question that is not being asked by Mainstream media, or White America. The question that everyone should be asking, and since they are not, The Justice Journal Blog™ will! Who are the (people), that tried to pass this irresponsible policy change amongst it's internal ranks?

The Justice Journal Blog™ will tell you exactly who they are. Not so you can hate them, or love them, but, just so they and others like them, are exposed and will know that they alone are responsible for the choices that they make. The news media only wants to share infotainment news stories in their relentless overtone of "getting a hot story", while protecting their investors, and contributors beliefs. TJJB doesn't have those concerns nor does it care about any backlash. This publication focuses on truth, plain, simple and unfiltered.

So here they are, Under the leadership or lack there of of Kristi Noem, the people who are most likely responsible for this seemly racist, or white nationalist at least, policy change attempt:

1. Ms. Michelle R. Godfrey

   • Rank: Senior Executive Service (civilian)

   • Position/Dept.: Director of Civilian Human Resources, Diversity and Leadership (CG-12)

   • Authority: Directs service-wide civilian HR and diversity policy; issues civilian HR policy notices.

2. Rear Admiral Brian K. Penoyer (in that role at the time referenced)

   • Rank: Rear Admiral

   • Position/Dept.: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources (CG-1)

   • Authority: Responsible for all military and civilian personnel management and workforce policies.

3. Rear Admiral Charles E. Fosse

   • Rank: Rear Admiral

   • Position/Dept.: Deputy Commandant for Personnel

   • Authority: Oversees policy development and execution for Coast Guard human resources, training, readiness, etc.

4. Vice Admiral Thomas G. “Tom” Allan Jr.

   • Rank: Vice Admiral

   • Position/Dept.: Acting Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

   • Authority: Advances the Commandant’s vision and directs internal governance; can oversee and bless enterprise policy.

5. Admiral Kevin E. Lunday

   • Rank: Admiral

   • Position/Dept.: Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

   • Authority: Overall head of the Coast Guard; final approval authority on service-wide policy.

The Justice Journal Blog is not accusing all, or any of the aforementioned service members of any wrongdoing. What this publication is saying is that these named individuals are the only people in the Coast Guard capable of writing and approving policy changes. Since this conclusion is drawn from their very roles in the Coast Guard, it is more likely than not that at least two or more of them had strong and vital input roles into the policy rewrite and the attempted approval there of.

If the Washington Post article had not shown a light on this, it is possible that the policy change would have been set for a Dec 2025 activation. The Justice Journal Blog™ is only recanting the facts, and using deductive reasoning to make the point. White Nationalist in The United States of America are seeking to turn this country into a place where hate for anyone that is not like them is the norm. That isn't happening however. As long as publications like this one speak the truth about WHO and not just WHAT a thing is, everyone can see and expose those who directly are responsible for the overwhelming problem of hatred, bigotry, supremacy, fascisms, and racism that we all face today.