Barack Braveheart Strikes Again

Barack Braveheart Strikes Again

Recently we were treated to an “open mic” moment during which President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that if Russia could just be patient, after his reelection, the American president would have more maneuvering room to “reach accommodations” with the former Soviet Union. Obama had already agreed to a nuclear arms reduction (likely to be unilateral) and cancellation of plans for a defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe (final agreement pending).

Obama has now been confronted with a fact that anyone with the least sense of history knows—but which he apparently does not. When dealing with autrocratic rulers like Medvedev (and soon his predecessor and successor Vladimir Putin), gestures of good will and offers of compromise are treated as weaknesses to be exploited. At an international conference in Moscow, attended by American State Department officials, General Staff Chief Nikolai Makarov responded to Obama’s overtures with a serious threat that indicated what the Russkies would do if Obama reneged on his cancellation of the missile defense shield.

Said the general of the potential missile defense shield: “A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens.” Translation: “If you do anything to protect yourselves and your European allies via missile defense, we will commit an act of war by destroying your sites.” In just a few decades we have gone from Ronald Reagan standing up to the Soviets in Berlin and saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to an American State Department spokesman saying: “We will rebouble our efforts to seek common ground and to seek understanding.” If you can’t get your enemies to love you, at least you can make them fear you. They feared Ronald Reagan. They laugh at Barack Obama.

In an effort to tamp down the shock and anger felt by a large number of Americans at the Obama administration’s constant capitulation to a resurgent [Soviet] Russian empire, the same State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, attempted to make light of the Russian comment: “I’m aware of this kind of rhetoric being thrown around. [But] I would also just point you to the fact that outgoing President Medvedev also addressed the meeting that was taking place in Moscow, and he expressed confidence that despite differences, we’re going to be able to resolve those differences on missile defense.” Check out your history, Mr. Toner: “There are no offensive missiles in Cuba.”

“This is my last election,” Mr. Obama whispered to Mr. Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.” This development alone points out that America must make this his last election and his first big electoral defeat. In fact, I’m hoping we give him enough flexibility to perform a physically-impossible act on himself. It’s bad enough we have a huge modern Caliphate to face in the years to come, but now we have a president who thinks that Neville Chamberlain did a dandy job of bringing peace for our time at Munich and wishes to accomplish the same kind of peace in Eastern Europe.

Any American general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired. Any Russian general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired on (as in “firing squad”). If Obama’s amateur diplomats genuinely think this is “just rhetoric” they have no idea of what incoming President Putin has engineered in the past, most particularly as head of the KGB. One has to wonder if the equally naïve and vastly more dangerous weak-spined President of the United States is acting out of foolish trust or merely simple fear.

Recently we were treated to an “open mic” moment during which President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that if Russia could just be patient, after his reelection, the American president would have more maneuvering room to “reach accommodations” with the former Soviet Union. Obama had already agreed to a nuclear arms reduction (likely to be unilateral) and cancellation of plans for a defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe (final agreement pending).

Obama has now been confronted with a fact that anyone with the least sense of history knows—but which he apparently does not. When dealing with autrocratic rulers like Medvedev (and soon his predecessor and successor Vladimir Putin), gestures of good will and offers of compromise are treated as weaknesses to be exploited. At an international conference in Moscow, attended by American State Department officials, General Staff Chief Nikolai Makarov responded to Obama’s overtures with a serious threat that indicated what the Russkies would do if Obama reneged on his cancellation of the missile defense shield.

Said the general of the potential missile defense shield: “A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens.” Translation: “If you do anything to protect yourselves and your European allies via missile defense, we will commit an act of war by destroying your sites.” In just a few decades we have gone from Ronald Reagan standing up to the Soviets in Berlin and saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to an American State Department spokesman saying: “We will rebouble our efforts to seek common ground and to seek understanding.” If you can’t get your enemies to love you, at least you can make them fear you. They feared Ronald Reagan. They laugh at Barack Obama.

In an effort to tamp down the shock and anger felt by a large number of Americans at the Obama administration’s constant capitulation to a resurgent [Soviet] Russian empire, the same State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, attempted to make light of the Russian comment: “I’m aware of this kind of rhetoric being thrown around. [But] I would also just point you to the fact that outgoing President Medvedev also addressed the meeting that was taking place in Moscow, and he expressed confidence that despite differences, we’re going to be able to resolve those differences on missile defense.” Check out your history, Mr. Toner: “There are no offensive missiles in Cuba.”

“This is my last election,” Mr. Obama whispered to Mr. Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.” This development alone points out that America must make this his last election and his first big electoral defeat. In fact, I’m hoping we give him enough flexibility to perform a physically-impossible act on himself. It’s bad enough we have a huge modern Caliphate to face in the years to come, but now we have a president who thinks that Neville Chamberlain did a dandy job of bringing peace for our time at Munich and wishes to accomplish the same kind of peace in Eastern Europe.

Any American general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired. Any Russian general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired on (as in “firing squad”). If Obama’s amateur diplomats genuinely think this is “just rhetoric” they have no idea of what incoming President Putin has engineered in the past, most particularly as head of the KGB. One has to wonder if the equally naïve and vastly more dangerous weak-spined President of the United States is acting out of foolish trust or merely simple fear.

Barack Braveheart Strikes Again

View Detail

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

View Detail

Marine Jackass Poster Gets The Boot

Marine Jackass Poster Gets The Boot

This past Wednesday, Brigadier General Daniel Yoo accepted the recommendation of the Marine Discharge Board and ordered that Sgt. Gary Stein receive an other-than-honorable discharge for posting an unfavorable picture depicting Barack Obama on a doctored Jackass movie poster. I’ve been having mixed feelings about the discharge during the entire course of the proceedings.

Sgt. Stein was first demoted to lance corporal as a result of his activities on Facebook. That seemed like sufficient punishment to me. But General Yoo and the Board decided that was not sufficient. Even a Commander-in-Chief who is in a permanent Jackass hole has a right to expect that his own men won’t attempt to embarrass him publicly. It also seems to me that anyone using Facebook should know by now that there is no such thing as a “private comment” on a site which is the epitome of the very public social network.

Nobody is more of a First Amendment believer than I. But Sgt. Stein forgot that he is a member of the Armed Forces, and the rules are different for them. The Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts the rights of active-duty service personnel from making disparaging public remarks about their commanding officers, and Supreme Court decisions have upheld those restrictions. The First Amendment doesn’t even protect employees who publicly criticize their companies and their bosses in the private sector. You’re free to say whatever you want, but you can’t say it while you’re working for the person or company you’re criticizing.

Which brings me to the point of truly admiring Sgt. Stein while at the same time wondering what his motivation was. Oh, I know the obvious part. He thinks Barack Obama is a dangerous, weak-spined, dishonest politician who shouldn’t be the commander-in-chief of a boy scout troop. But why now? The sergeant was months away from having his full military pension kick in. With an other-than-honorable discharge, he loses those benefits. That seemed foolhardy to me. Discretion is the better part of valor, after all, and nobody knows that better than a Marine for whom honor is a basic belief.

But I kept thinking about it, and began to wonder if rather than foolhardy, his actions were actually a high form of valor. The presidential election is mere months away, and when we elect a president, we elect a commander-in-chief. Perhaps Sgt. Stein had the same thought as Obama—“we can’t wait.” The safe course would have been to wait, collect his pension, and then go public after retirement. But the safe course would have meant that Sgt. Stein’s views wouldn’t have been heard until after the elections. Surely he must have known that his actions were not going to go unnoticed and unpunished.

The rules about making disparaging remarks are sufficiently vague such that the Department of Defense will be revising the rules to clarify what can be said and what can’t. That does seem to mitigate in Sgt. Stein’s favor. But long-standing civil and military legal precedent says that making a correction after the fact does not prove that those who made the corrections were wrong in the first place. The law favors improvement, and therefore doesn’t allow it as evidence of wrongdoing.

Sgt. Stein has received support from many sources, some obvious, others less so. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California), who is a Marine Corps reservist, says that “there’s only one upside to this whole thing which is that the Marine Corps recognizes its guidelines are out of date and that they need to be updated.” But Sgt. Stein has also received legal advice and support from the ACLU, which believes that the First Amendment does apply to Sgt. Stein’s actions.

In the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over till it’s over.” I have no doubt that Sgt. Stein will not go quietly. There are still procedures for having the decision overturned. It also seems unlikely to me that a man brave enough (or foolhardy enough) to call Obama a “domestic enemy” on a site he created (while on active duty) called The Armed Forces Tea Party is suddenly going to go mum. After all, Obama is a disaster both as president and as commander-in-chief, and as a civilian Stein will have access to an even larger audience to address with that obvious truth.

Moreover, whether Obama and the political generals like it or not, Stein will now have the full protection of the First Amendment as to political speech which he lacked as an active duty Marine. Whether he comes off as a man who risked his career to point out that the government is rotting from the head down or simply an angry dissident is up to Stein himself.

Thoughts, anyone?

This past Wednesday, Brigadier General Daniel Yoo accepted the recommendation of the Marine Discharge Board and ordered that Sgt. Gary Stein receive an other-than-honorable discharge for posting an unfavorable picture depicting Barack Obama on a doctored Jackass movie poster. I’ve been having mixed feelings about the discharge during the entire course of the proceedings.

Sgt. Stein was first demoted to lance corporal as a result of his activities on Facebook. That seemed like sufficient punishment to me. But General Yoo and the Board decided that was not sufficient. Even a Commander-in-Chief who is in a permanent Jackass hole has a right to expect that his own men won’t attempt to embarrass him publicly. It also seems to me that anyone using Facebook should know by now that there is no such thing as a “private comment” on a site which is the epitome of the very public social network.

Nobody is more of a First Amendment believer than I. But Sgt. Stein forgot that he is a member of the Armed Forces, and the rules are different for them. The Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts the rights of active-duty service personnel from making disparaging public remarks about their commanding officers, and Supreme Court decisions have upheld those restrictions. The First Amendment doesn’t even protect employees who publicly criticize their companies and their bosses in the private sector. You’re free to say whatever you want, but you can’t say it while you’re working for the person or company you’re criticizing.

Which brings me to the point of truly admiring Sgt. Stein while at the same time wondering what his motivation was. Oh, I know the obvious part. He thinks Barack Obama is a dangerous, weak-spined, dishonest politician who shouldn’t be the commander-in-chief of a boy scout troop. But why now? The sergeant was months away from having his full military pension kick in. With an other-than-honorable discharge, he loses those benefits. That seemed foolhardy to me. Discretion is the better part of valor, after all, and nobody knows that better than a Marine for whom honor is a basic belief.

But I kept thinking about it, and began to wonder if rather than foolhardy, his actions were actually a high form of valor. The presidential election is mere months away, and when we elect a president, we elect a commander-in-chief. Perhaps Sgt. Stein had the same thought as Obama—“we can’t wait.” The safe course would have been to wait, collect his pension, and then go public after retirement. But the safe course would have meant that Sgt. Stein’s views wouldn’t have been heard until after the elections. Surely he must have known that his actions were not going to go unnoticed and unpunished.

The rules about making disparaging remarks are sufficiently vague such that the Department of Defense will be revising the rules to clarify what can be said and what can’t. That does seem to mitigate in Sgt. Stein’s favor. But long-standing civil and military legal precedent says that making a correction after the fact does not prove that those who made the corrections were wrong in the first place. The law favors improvement, and therefore doesn’t allow it as evidence of wrongdoing.

Sgt. Stein has received support from many sources, some obvious, others less so. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California), who is a Marine Corps reservist, says that “there’s only one upside to this whole thing which is that the Marine Corps recognizes its guidelines are out of date and that they need to be updated.” But Sgt. Stein has also received legal advice and support from the ACLU, which believes that the First Amendment does apply to Sgt. Stein’s actions.

In the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over till it’s over.” I have no doubt that Sgt. Stein will not go quietly. There are still procedures for having the decision overturned. It also seems unlikely to me that a man brave enough (or foolhardy enough) to call Obama a “domestic enemy” on a site he created (while on active duty) called The Armed Forces Tea Party is suddenly going to go mum. After all, Obama is a disaster both as president and as commander-in-chief, and as a civilian Stein will have access to an even larger audience to address with that obvious truth.

Moreover, whether Obama and the political generals like it or not, Stein will now have the full protection of the First Amendment as to political speech which he lacked as an active duty Marine. Whether he comes off as a man who risked his career to point out that the government is rotting from the head down or simply an angry dissident is up to Stein himself.

Thoughts, anyone?

Marine Jackass Poster Gets The Boot

View Detail

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

View Detail

Obama's 21st Century Navy

Obama's 21st Century Navy

Ever-vigilant about America's military power and the ecology, President Obama has rolled out his plans for the new energy-efficient Navy. Pictured is the brilliant innovation for battle cruisers and destroyers. Instead of using ecology-destroying fossil fuels, the new Navy has found a way to harness the wind.

They haven't quite figured out how to configure the wind-utilizer engines (aka "sails") on aircraft carriers, but just give them time and a few hundred billion taxpayer dollars. And if you think those wind-driven warships are brilliant, wait until you see the solar-powered versions. But until those ships are built, we'll have to make do with our present surface Navy. Still, this administration is not letting any grass grow under its feet in the area of green technology.

This past August, Obama announced his biofuel initiative for the military. It is budgeted at about $510 million over the next three years. He calls it an investment in the future. Of course, that's what he called Solyndra and LightSquared too. But let's not kick a dead horse. Congress has not yet funded this "investment" (read: taxpayer dollars thrown down another rathole). It's unlikely that it ever will. But that won't stop Obama.

Obama recently compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt, a fellow progressive. In 1907, Congress refused to fund a world tour of America's Great White Fleet. TR announced that he would send the fleet anyway--he had enough in his presidential contingency fund to get the fleet halfway around the world, and it would be up to Congress to get it home. Obama now wants to conduct the Navy's 2012 summer war exercises using the "Great Green Fleet" carrier strike force. Following in TR's footsteps, he has already made a deal with the Navy using $12 million in Defense Department procurement authority to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel.

Unlike those impure and un-green traditional fossil fuels, this fuel costs about $15 per gallon. It is the largest biofuel purchase in history, so you can imagine where most of the proposed $510 million will go if that "investment" is ever funded by Congress. Now this is an important military development. So who better than Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to make the first big public statement? Combining green-energy (?) with Obama's hurry-up play on the economy, Vilsack said: "This is not work we can afford to put off for another day."

The administration's idea of supporting the military during belt-tightening time is to spend $15 per gallon for biofuel that is questionably "green" in order not to spend $4 per gallon for the current JP-5 fuel. If Obama truly intends for the military to cut $1 trillion from their budgets over the next ten years, this is not an auspicious start. Paying nearly four times as much for fuel which may ultimately prove to be inefficient and more damaging to the environment than the old fuel is bad strategy. On top of that, the high cost of that fuel, in the midst of cutbacks, means less money for genuine military upgrades.

Now that I think of it, that is probably exactly what Obama intends.

Ever-vigilant about America's military power and the ecology, President Obama has rolled out his plans for the new energy-efficient Navy. Pictured is the brilliant innovation for battle cruisers and destroyers. Instead of using ecology-destroying fossil fuels, the new Navy has found a way to harness the wind.

They haven't quite figured out how to configure the wind-utilizer engines (aka "sails") on aircraft carriers, but just give them time and a few hundred billion taxpayer dollars. And if you think those wind-driven warships are brilliant, wait until you see the solar-powered versions. But until those ships are built, we'll have to make do with our present surface Navy. Still, this administration is not letting any grass grow under its feet in the area of green technology.

This past August, Obama announced his biofuel initiative for the military. It is budgeted at about $510 million over the next three years. He calls it an investment in the future. Of course, that's what he called Solyndra and LightSquared too. But let's not kick a dead horse. Congress has not yet funded this "investment" (read: taxpayer dollars thrown down another rathole). It's unlikely that it ever will. But that won't stop Obama.

Obama recently compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt, a fellow progressive. In 1907, Congress refused to fund a world tour of America's Great White Fleet. TR announced that he would send the fleet anyway--he had enough in his presidential contingency fund to get the fleet halfway around the world, and it would be up to Congress to get it home. Obama now wants to conduct the Navy's 2012 summer war exercises using the "Great Green Fleet" carrier strike force. Following in TR's footsteps, he has already made a deal with the Navy using $12 million in Defense Department procurement authority to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel.

Unlike those impure and un-green traditional fossil fuels, this fuel costs about $15 per gallon. It is the largest biofuel purchase in history, so you can imagine where most of the proposed $510 million will go if that "investment" is ever funded by Congress. Now this is an important military development. So who better than Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to make the first big public statement? Combining green-energy (?) with Obama's hurry-up play on the economy, Vilsack said: "This is not work we can afford to put off for another day."

The administration's idea of supporting the military during belt-tightening time is to spend $15 per gallon for biofuel that is questionably "green" in order not to spend $4 per gallon for the current JP-5 fuel. If Obama truly intends for the military to cut $1 trillion from their budgets over the next ten years, this is not an auspicious start. Paying nearly four times as much for fuel which may ultimately prove to be inefficient and more damaging to the environment than the old fuel is bad strategy. On top of that, the high cost of that fuel, in the midst of cutbacks, means less money for genuine military upgrades.

Now that I think of it, that is probably exactly what Obama intends.

Obama's 21st Century Navy

View Detail

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

View Detail

Our Overseas Military Presence

Our Overseas Military Presence

To give you a quick update on the 2012 election, Perry now claims he wants a flat tax at some unknown rate. Perry's supporters seem really blind to how poorly he’s coming across. Cain says he will go on the attack in the next debate because the other candidates “are getting on my last nerve.” Palin thinks Newt won the other night. And Politico wants to convince us that the race is between Perry and Romney. But the guy I want to talk about today is Paul.

In the last two debates, Paul has said the US has 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries. This struck me as likely true, but also highly misleading, as I will explain.

Looking this up, I found the US actually has military personnel in 148 different countries. That doesn’t surprise me. We also have 662 installations outside the country. That doesn’t surprise me either. And I’m not going to quibble about 900 versus 662: either number is huge and within the same order of magnitude.

So Paul is correct, right? Sort of. He is technically correct about the numbers. But I think he is implying something much bigger than the reality. When Paul says the military has bases in these countries, it sounds a lot like we have an active military presence sitting on self-contained “bases” in almost every country. In effect, it sounds like we have occupied every country in the world.

But that’s not really what is going on. The truth is that only 13 countries host more than 1,000 troops: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Most of the rest have only a handful of troops, typically in single digits.

So what are they doing? That’s impossible to determine for sure, but most likely they are guarding embassies. There are about 30 Marines at the embassy in Moscow, plus some other officers from the other services. So let’s exclude any country with fewer than 40 military personnel from this list on the assumption they are just embassy staff.

Suddenly we are only in 19 countries, 13 of which are in Europe. . . where we are part of NATO.

The 662 bases is misleading too. All but 32 of those bases are either small sites or owned on paper only. For example, some of these sites are apparently nothing more than unmanned radio towers. One site listed in Canada is only 144 square feet -- a 12x12 room, just like our “base” in North Korea is just a room with two guards assigned.

Thus, when Paul says we have 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries, he is technically correct (give or take). But what he’s really should be saying to not be misleading is: we have 32 military bases overseas in 19 countries. That doesn’t quite have the same punch.

I don’t subscribe to isolationism at all. Isolationism is a horrible policy because it eliminates your ability to control your destiny and it turns you into a victim of circumstance. And ignoring a bully never works.

But I do agree with Paul to this extent -- I would like to see a stronger analysis on why we are in each region. I get Asia, for example. If we pulled out of Asia, China would dominate the region, Japan would re-arm and go nuclear, and war would probably break out in the Koreas, between China and Taiwan, and between China and Vietnam. That would be very bad for the US. And I understand we’re in Europe mainly to keep bases needed to transport troops. But why are we in Africa, South America or throughout the Middle East?

I think those are valid questions.

To give you a quick update on the 2012 election, Perry now claims he wants a flat tax at some unknown rate. Perry's supporters seem really blind to how poorly he’s coming across. Cain says he will go on the attack in the next debate because the other candidates “are getting on my last nerve.” Palin thinks Newt won the other night. And Politico wants to convince us that the race is between Perry and Romney. But the guy I want to talk about today is Paul.

In the last two debates, Paul has said the US has 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries. This struck me as likely true, but also highly misleading, as I will explain.

Looking this up, I found the US actually has military personnel in 148 different countries. That doesn’t surprise me. We also have 662 installations outside the country. That doesn’t surprise me either. And I’m not going to quibble about 900 versus 662: either number is huge and within the same order of magnitude.

So Paul is correct, right? Sort of. He is technically correct about the numbers. But I think he is implying something much bigger than the reality. When Paul says the military has bases in these countries, it sounds a lot like we have an active military presence sitting on self-contained “bases” in almost every country. In effect, it sounds like we have occupied every country in the world.

But that’s not really what is going on. The truth is that only 13 countries host more than 1,000 troops: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Most of the rest have only a handful of troops, typically in single digits.

So what are they doing? That’s impossible to determine for sure, but most likely they are guarding embassies. There are about 30 Marines at the embassy in Moscow, plus some other officers from the other services. So let’s exclude any country with fewer than 40 military personnel from this list on the assumption they are just embassy staff.

Suddenly we are only in 19 countries, 13 of which are in Europe. . . where we are part of NATO.

The 662 bases is misleading too. All but 32 of those bases are either small sites or owned on paper only. For example, some of these sites are apparently nothing more than unmanned radio towers. One site listed in Canada is only 144 square feet -- a 12x12 room, just like our “base” in North Korea is just a room with two guards assigned.

Thus, when Paul says we have 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries, he is technically correct (give or take). But what he’s really should be saying to not be misleading is: we have 32 military bases overseas in 19 countries. That doesn’t quite have the same punch.

I don’t subscribe to isolationism at all. Isolationism is a horrible policy because it eliminates your ability to control your destiny and it turns you into a victim of circumstance. And ignoring a bully never works.

But I do agree with Paul to this extent -- I would like to see a stronger analysis on why we are in each region. I get Asia, for example. If we pulled out of Asia, China would dominate the region, Japan would re-arm and go nuclear, and war would probably break out in the Koreas, between China and Taiwan, and between China and Vietnam. That would be very bad for the US. And I understand we’re in Europe mainly to keep bases needed to transport troops. But why are we in Africa, South America or throughout the Middle East?

I think those are valid questions.

Our Overseas Military Presence

View Detail