The Religion of Perpetual Outrage Perpetuates Outrage

Despite profuse apologies for the inadvertant burning of Korans at Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan, from the President of the United States, on down to senior Pentagon officials, the "usual suspects" are still baying for blood--our blood.

Two more Americans were killed as a result of the perpetual outrage.

We've apologized ad nauseum. In civilized society, even by 7th Century standards, apologies are to be graciously accepted. We're facing barbarians at the gates. And in Bagram--quite literally.

Comrade Karla hit the nail on the head with the following comments:

Time to go....I'm not sure I care anymore about people who care more about a stupid, accidental book burning but are quite happy to allow child rape and abuse of women in their "culture."

Our future policy should be, given the Taliban will likely be back in charge before too long, "Rubble Doesn't Make Trouble." Make it very clear to them--any trouble, and we pound you. Drones, aircraft, SOF. We'll find you and kill you in your bed.
Iraq might have worked...there was probably never any hope for this place.

I say it's time for some "Danger Close" missions.  (Fire support, or airstrikes within 600 meters of friendly forces).

 ...screw ups will happen--and there is NO justification whatsoever for this behavior. Whether cartoons or koran "mistreatment," it does not excuse the behavior of these people. Time to go. We can't make them live in the 21st century.

And they don't *wan't* to grow into the 20th century--that's the problem. Islam is a political ideology, not just a religion--we are still in full on denial of this simple fact and as long as we remain in denial, the problems will continue. We are not the problem. They are. Unfortunately, their pathologies are our problem, too.

...we will never be perfect enough for them and they will always find a reason to kill us, however irrational. The korans in question had been defaced by prisoners. Were they mad about that? Of course not! Only trumped up nonsense against the infidel will do.

This is all part of prepping the battlefield--they are chosing sides and have made it quite clear now.

PETA Irony

According to the Daily Caller, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), has in-fact, been running it's own slaughterhouse. 

I'd find the irony in this amusing, if groups like this weren't so militant.

I wonder if the protesters would be so willing to "take it off for the cause," if they knew the actual (non) survival rate of the animals in PETA's care. 

Tainting Special Ops with Political Correctness

See anything "wrong" with this picture of SEAL trainees? 

No? 

Well to the folks who regularly drink the bilge-water of political correctness (PC), there is something terribly wrong with the composition of our nation's top-rated special operations forces.

The SEALS are--gasp!--predominantly white! 

Whatever shall we do to fix this blatant disregard to multicultural diversity?

According to Time, via Yahoo News, the Navy is now going full-speed ahead to recruit minorities.

While this may sound dandy to the Diversity Enforcement Commissars, but it will most likely dull the keen edge of our special ops.

Comrade Karla put it best:

How do you force minorities to become interested? There are historical/social reasons they don't apply for this--they are similar to the ones that caused the squadron of 11th ACR I visited in the 80s do be maybe 1/4 minorities v. the Corps support units in the rear that had a lot more blacks--they wanted admin/computer training and you don't really get much of that in a line unit.



Of course, traditionally we lower standards to make this work...which would be a real disaster in more ways than one.

This story didn't spark much of a debate among us.  In fact it didn't spark one at all.  The most common comment was some variation of:  I have nothing to add.

In the long run, by shoving unwilling, or less-than-qualified minorities, on to the "tip of the spear," we'll be giving our special forces the shaft.

We Could Have Told Him This

What did our Apologizer-in-Chief's 3-page grovelling letter to Karzai do for America's image?

Why it incited calls for MORE violence. 

What gets me is the apology was 3 pages long.  Three pages!? 

Three words, I could maybe understand.  Like:  Yo, sorry dude. 

But 3 pages?  C'mon!  I'll take Dubya's "cowboy swagger" anyday.

Of course, the White House eunuchs are defending Our Dear Leader's action.  Be sure, though to check out John Bolton's and Newt Gingrich's slam.

Some Refugees More Equal than Others

Daniel Pipes exlains why granting refugee status to the "Palestinians," (Arabs), in perpituity is a bad idea.

This article earned the following praise from Comrade Karla:

This one really nails the invented history of the “refugee” problem.

Book Burning Brouhaha

A couple days back some workers at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan inadvertantly burned some Korans (or Qurans).  And yes, you guessed it, the predictable outrage erupted by the usual suspects. 

Our response was equally predicatble.  While the Pentagon is launching an investigation, its defending the 2009 decision to burn a batch of Bibles.  Of course, our Apologizer in Chief also put his literary skills to use and sent a a letter to Karzai.

Will our enemies now love us, since we've prostrated ourselves before them?

Of course not.  Robert Spencer and Clare Lopez discuss the impact of our moral cowering.

Avalanches Kill 3 Skiers and 1 Snowboarder

Our dayshift crew was busy coordinating assets for the rescue missions at two Cascade Mountain ski resorts.

The Seattle Times article and the local TV news networks have been making it clear that these groups were in out-of-bounds areas.  And today's tragedy serves as a reminder, why such areas are out-of-bounds.

Book Review: Currency Wars

James Rickards sounds the alarm on what may lay ahead in Currency Wars:  The Making of the Next Global Crisis.  The central theme is that nations deliberately devalue their own currency in order to make their trade goods more competitive.  Other nations, in turn, retaliate by devaluing their currency, thus establishing a vicious downward cycle until an economic crash, like the Great Depression, brings everything to a halt.

The book is divided into three parts.  In Part One, Rickards describes his role in Financial Wargame conducted by the Pentagon.  The US came in last place, in part, because the Russian players began buying-up gold reserves and refusing to accept dollars for trade payments.  The game ended before there was a collapse on the dollar, but enough of the "playing pieces" were in place to cause one.

Part Two discusses the history of the various monetary standards employed from the Classic Gold Standard (1870-1914), through "Currency Wars I, II & III," (1921-1936, 1967-1987 and 2010--, respectively). 

Then in Part Three, after discussing the technical and theoretical aspects of financial systems, Rickards speculates on what could happen next if the US continues on it's current financial course.  Basically, the three options are:  Another currency supercedes the dollar in international finance and trade, or the world goes back to some form of gold standard, or financial chaos.

I'm no economist, but I do see that our government's $15 trillion defecit, along with our trade defecit, is a danger to our economy and even our national security.  I'm also uneasy about the idea of vast amounts of money being printed, that is not tied to anything of intrinsic value, like gold.

Despite the dire possibilities of the future, I enjoyed reading the book and found it very informative.

Published just a few months ago (November 2011), 85 readers, posted reviews on Amazon.com.  An overwhelming 69 reviewers gave the book a 5-star rating.  The numbers fall off drastically from here, with 8 x 4-star reviews, 5 x 3-stars, 1 x 2-star and 2 x 1 stars.  One of the 1-star ratings was merely a ploy to get the author's attention, in order to pose a question.  I give the book a solid 4-stars.  If I knew more about economics, along with trade and finance, I'd probably give it a full 5 stars.  And maybe look into buying gold...

Liberal McArthyism

MSNBC dropped Pat Buchanan after putting him on suspension four months ago. 

His heinous crime? 

Writing Suicide of a Superpower, a book deemed racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, etc by the liberal thought police. 

Pat writes of this New Blacklist at Townhall.com and on his blog.

Obama's Fiscal Follies

Despite the hue & cry for cutting the budget, there is one sector that will be seeing an increase:  Federal workers.  Investors Business Daily (IBD), pointed out a couple days ago, that Obama has an ulterior motive for the pay raise:  To garner votes.

In the course of several hours, an extensive debate erupted between my friends over what departments and agencies should be cut and why.  The e-mail responses were so in-depth, that each one deserved to be a separate blogpost.  Since I merely want to provide thumbnail sketches of event that concern us, I've decided to leave out all the crossfire.

Meanwhile, our deficit continues to grow by the minute.  Here's some scary facts, provided by Yahoo News.

And of course, Mark Steyn does a brilliant job of tying the budget to the condom controversy.

So Much for Seperation of Church and State

Several days ago, the first shots of the Catholic-Obamacare War were fired, when it came to light that Catholic organizations will be forced to provide services contrary to Catholic doctrine.  Kate Hicks, Web Editor of Townhall, writes about the War on Religious Freedom now underway.

Even NPR, normally one of Our Dear Leader's courtiers, published an in-depth Obamacare vs Catholics article on the sudden controversy.

Finally, Mark Steyn rolled-in with Obama going Henry VIII on the Church.

As the NPR article noted, most American Catholic leaders are liberal and most Catholics voted for Obama.  Now they're learning the dire warning of being careful what you wish for...

So Much for a World Without Nukes

(Image by Ramirez)

A regional arms race may erupt once (not "if") Iran develops nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia threatens to go nuclear if Iran does.

Meanwhile, here in the Land of HopeAndChange, Obama wants to cut our nuclear arsenal by "80%."  At least the GOP is trying to forstall our unilateral disarmament.

Very little is dearer to the heart of us Live-By-The-Sword Types, than defense of the realm.  This double-whammy of bad news prompted a lengthy discussion.

First regarding our Dear Leader's utopian vision:

I’m sure he plans to go much further than this, living in an1980s undergrad dreamworld as he does.

We are going to go quickly from living in a dream world to living in a nightmare world.



An now, for what a reality-based future may hold:
 
I am concerned about a missing element in the whole Iran discussion. Overall it is broken out in two camps:

1. Sanctions and diplomacy are working at isolating Iran, military action is not only not necessary, it will make things worse.
2. Sanctions and diplomacy are not working at isolating Iran, military action is necessary before things get worse.
There is a third (and in my opinion possibly the most likely) possibility:
3. Sanctions and diplomacy are working at isolating Iran, and Iran will get desperate and take action before the US or Israel does.

Some of the sanctions being put in place now have real teeth because they are making it harder for Iran to sell crude and import refined product. Members of the "sanctions crowd" seem to believe that Iran's leaders will see that the stability of their regime is at stake so they will come to the negotiating table. That's all well and good but what happens if Iran's leaders see that the stability of their regime is at stake and decide that it is time to get ugly?

I see your #3 as a very possible scenario. The massive instability in Iran's only real state ally in the region, Syria, may make things more likely to get nasty. Losing Syria will have a tremendous impact on their other regional ally, Hizbollah. With them cut off, who does Iran have left? Russia (too far), China (too lukewarm and oil-focused)

Not to be a peacenik, but #1 has some validity, too. The regime is starting to fray around the edges. Attacking them would generate huge support, at least in the short-medium term. Of course, #2 also seems to have validity. Nothing has happened to make Iran open up its program to prove benign intent, which is as good as an admission of guilt, and nothing has proven they will do so under any sanctions regime.

I would add in #4. Sanctions/diplomacy not working and things will get worse, but we (i.e. the U.S.) don't spend the political/diplomatic capital to stop them with military action. That leaves Israel faced with ultimate choice between long term survival and short term chaos. I'm with Krauthammer on that one. The most basic IR/Poli Sci rationale for a state is the safety and survival of its people. No other interest, concern, or morality trumps it.

I am very concerned about #3 happening and us not being ready for it when it does because the conventional wisdom is that sanctions and diplomacy are an alternative to or a way to avoid armed conflict. What happens when the sanctions and diplomacy work so well that the other side sees no alternative than armed conflict? Will we be ready for it when they decide to start taking shots?

I read earlier today that law enofrcement has quietly stepped up protection of Jewish sites in CONUS [Continental US]. Somebody is paying attention.

Yes, at least someone is paying attention.  The question is:  Will it be enough?

No Matter How You Slice It...

...we're still in trouble.

The image above is an "old school" pie chart of the 2010 Federal Budget.  Two days ago, the New York Times came up with a cool, interactive graphic for the proposed 2013 Federal Budget.

Computer graphic coolness notwithstanding, our defecit issue is a looming danger.  Unfortunately, the $16 trillion+ is so large it's almost beyond comprehension.

Someone at MrConservative.com got smart and boiled down our defecit issue, in a way that even a liberal can understand.

At a glance, you can see that a household operating on this kind of budget is racing towards bankruptcy and foreclosure. 

And speaking of liberals, at least one someone at the WaPo isn't happy with the on-going shell-game.  We may be working for the Chinese long before 2030. 

Happy Valentine's Day!

Apocalypse Pin-Ups

Counting down to the Mayan Calendar Apocalypse?

Geek Tyrant suggests you enjoy your "last days" with Andrew Tarusov's latest piece, the Apocalypse Tomorrow 2012 Pin Up Girl Calendar.

Sea World: Today's Slave Owners?

A San Diego judge will decide if animals have Constitutional Rights against slavery.

 

Talk about elevating stupid to a new level...and wasting tax dollars. It's also insulting. Slaves are people; animals are not.

A federal judge ... this has to be some PETA wack-job lawyer thing ... I guess this means you can't stop your dog from going out and you can't have it neutered without it's express consent. Leashes? How barbaric !!! Dog food? That's for animals !!!

The twisted logic is that if you treat animals as if they're people, people will treat their fellow humans in a kinder/gentler way. Historically, this has not always been the case. When animals are elevated to the same level as humans, then human beings become de-humanized. Nazi Germany had the most stringent laws against animal experimentation--but they had no qualms about conducting medical experiments on Jews.

 

Other reactions to this impending landmark case:

 

Argentina to Make a "Big Announcement" Regarding the Falkland Is.

At 5 PM EST, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, will make a major announcement on TV, regarding the Falkland Islands. 

Argentina has resurrected claims to the islands, which Great Britain has staunchly defended since the Falkland Island War.  Her Majesty's Government is dispatching its newest destroyer, HMS Dauntless to the Falklands. 

Several days ago an author acquaintance of mine, Piper Bayard, posted this Wash, Rinse, Repeat article on her blog.

We'll see what "Evita 2.0" has in mind in the next 45 minutes, or so...


Update:  5:10 PM PST--this just in from a friend--

 Yawn. Evita 2.0 is going to whine to the UN about the "militarization" of the South Atlantic.

Hmm, wonder why it is "militarized!"

And Comrade Karla Senior put things in a witty, historical perspective:

What a giggle. The argies have been mumping about the Falklands off and on since WW2, maybe before. I remember reading articles about it in the Illustrated London News as a boy, and later, off and on, in Britain. Interesting is the date cited as the islands having been a possession of Britain: 1833. The US has only 'owned' California and the Southwest since 1846. Texas broke away from Mexico in 1836, was annexed by the US in 1846, left the Union in 1861, retaken in 1865 and rejoined a couple years later. Considering how the US acquired California and the Southwest, and when they did, what kind of precedent will it be if Mexico starts making noises? Texas would probably be another matter. I guess the fact that Mexico may be re-acquiring areas of the US near the border, it could beg the question. I have friends in El Paso who assert the 'reconquista' has already taken place. Interesting times we live in. This stuff is more fun that all the s*** in the Near-and-Mid East.

Obama's "Truths" vs Reality

Today's Patriot Update contains this article comparing Our Dear Leader's ideology vs reality.

Here's something else to keep in mind:

Community Organizing in Afghanistan?

Now that the US military, but not other agencies and contractors, are out of Iraq, how is the war in Afghanistan going?

According to Lt. Col Daniel Davis, all is lost.

After reading the article, I was reminded of the pacification policy used during the Vietnam War.  I posted a comment on a friend's Facebook page, that we needed a clearer war-winning strategy than having our troops play "Live Fire Whack-A-Mole."

But Max Boot says, whoa! Hold on a moment!  Maybe things aren't as bleak as Davis says it is.

In short, it's anybody's guess as to how Afghanistan will turn out.

However, when an administration, such as Obama's, continues to talk about "exit strategy," my confidence in a happy ending for Afghanistan isn't all that high. Especially since, according to Max, we're pulling out too much and too soon in Iraq.

Not a Good Framework for Government?

Several days ago Justice Ginsburg travelled to Egypt, where she recommended they not use the US Constitution as a foundation for modern law. 

Why would a justice of the US Supreme Court say such a thing to Egyptians, who will possibly be governed by the Muslim Brotherhood?

Because the original drafting of the US Constitution doesn't pass Ginsburg's liberal sniff-test, due to the "...original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans."

Her comments don't surprise me.  I've encountered this attitude in my personal dealings with liberals.  Anything that doesn't measure-up to their secular-progressive sensibilities is to be completely discarded.  To liberals, "dead white guys" have nothing to offer today's chic, 21st Century society.

The Komen Controversy

I haven't paid any attention to the controversy swirling around the Susan G. Komen Foundation until I read the latest commentary by Mark Steyn in the Orange County Register.

Mark's comment below gets to the heart of liberal "tolerance:"

But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn't it?...Dream on.

Israel: America's National Security Threat?

According to Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran, "...could spell trouble for America..."

Really?

This gem promted the following comments:

But Iran getting nuclear capability is no big deal, I guess. These people are true, strategic geniuses. To quote the character in the western Bad Company:   “You have some real thinkers in your outfit…” 

Personally, this is tough - the U.S. COULD live with a nuclearized Iran as they would not be an existential threat, though it would be a really crappy situation given the inevitable proliferation break-out that would follow. Israel, on the other hand, is too small and vulnerable to do so. Three nukes (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa) and they cease to exist. Add a couple more to eliminate their nuclear weapons facilities, and a surprise attack starts to look like a reasonable and achievable option for Iran. The world would be angry, of course, but the Iranians know that sooner or later the Chicoms and Russians would forgive them, followed by everybody else, especially when the Iranians claimed it was preemptive self-defense. Add in all the crazy Twelth Imam, apocalyptic stuff they are steeped in and it starts to get very scary for Israel. They have no choice but to attack. Sometimes I wonder if the real debate on their end is nuclear versus conventional attack.

...what we have been seeing out of DOD and DOS (let alone the administration) has been pretty much “amateur hour.”

That's since day 1 of this Administration!

I'm sure the Israelis are "hoping for change" this November.

Breaking News: Josh Powell's House Explodes

Earlier today, we received the call that Pierce County Emergency Management was deploying its mobile command post to coordinate the investigation of the explosion at Josh Powell's home.  The Seattle Times also has the story.

Even the national networks, like Fox News, have immediately picked up the story.