Growing up in Oceanside and being a Marine Corps brat I can remember the Cold War only too well. I remember being taught about spent munitions and more importantly what not to do if you happened to come across, say, a mortar round that failed to detonate. If Merry reads this I’m sure she too will remember the class. We did not however, do the celebrated “duck and cover” drills. They would, after all, be useless if indeed we were hit with nuclear weapons.
At North Terrace Elementary School, we had more immediate problems to worry about. We had, as do most schools, bully’s. How to deal with a bully was a lesson that most of us learned the hard way. In a nutshell though, the solution was to place a fist deeply and squarely in the bully’s face prior to him gaining some advantage over you. This is called a preemptive defense, and generally was good for at least a swat from Mister Trainer (sp?), the Principle. A sore butt was well worth having the bully off your back seemingly forever. Perhaps that was my introduction to political economics? The point though, is that it worked.
What does this schoolyard scenario have to do with North Korea? The analogy should be easy to define. North Korea is a bully nation. North Korea is also now a bully that has a big stick called nuclear weaponry. The United Nations is much like the teachers that used to insist that you “talk things out” with the schoolyard bully’s. Talking things over with North Korea only embolden ‘s them, just like it would embolden the bully in the schoolyard. Not to mention that this bully has a few friends called China, Iran and Syria. Not real friends of course. They just want a big stick also, or, in China’s case it’s more like an errant cousin that you’re stuck with defending even when you know that the cousin is an insane jerk.
Preemptive defense got a bum rap when George Bush sent the United States into an unneeded war with Iraq that we are still entangled with. That however, is not a problem with the doctrine. It is the result of some very poor judgment on the part of the powers that be at the time it was used. That very same doctrine may be what is needed to tame a tiger before it grows to large to tame. The use of surgical strikes that are so devastating that the North Koreans will never again be a threat to anyone beyond it’s borders may be the only solution for a world that is weary of the games being played by others with the lives of others. Simultaneous actions toward Iran and Syria might get the attention of the various up and coming would be world conquerors as well.
Will that happen while we have as President a man that would rather talk than fight? Who refuses to defend the nation from criminal invaders and blames another nations inability to control it’s criminals on the people of the United States? For some reason I am thinking that a man that bows to Kings will not have the honor or integrity to stand up to a schoolyard bully. One that threatens the entire world… Indeed, he would much rather disarm the very people that he swore an oath to defend.
I’ve been holding off a bit with regards to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. As noted in a previous entry I favored Ken Salazar for the position. Nevertheless, I feel that a few things need to be addressed with her selection.
Certainly everything that noted barrister David Kopel in his short assessment, found HERE should be looked over closely. As should the many concerns and comments there as well as over at my good friend TexasFreds.
In various places around the Internet I saw references to “reverse racism.” That, in and of itself is “bass ackwards” to quote an old Marine that I knew when I was growing up. Racism is racism. End of discussion. Same thing with sexism. Ms Sotomayor appears, at least from her history as reported too widely to cite, to have more than a bit of racist and sexist in her. I’d hoped that we as a nation had grown beyond all that sort of thing. Yet, in the last election cycle we were inundated with being told that it was not about race at all, but “change.” Then no sooner than the ballots were counted all that could be heard was how the United States had elected it’s first “Black President.” So much for a nation outgrowing it’s past like an adolescent outgrowing poor social skills. Not to mention that the man is half white, and half Arab… I suppose some things never do really change.
Also, having read the quotations from the Kopel piece I have to seriously wonder about the woman’s grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yes, I read her bio, and what came immediately into my mind were the words of a Professor Emeritus said to me many years ago. I shall repeat them here; “Never, young man, confuse education with intelligence.”
I shall leave me readers with that tiny bit of wisdom that I was blessed to be able to learn in years gone by.
Out of respect for those that have given all in defense of the freedoms and liberty that I enjoy as well as those that defend those things today I will not be posting today, other than this.
Click on the categories Valhalla, and Profiles in Valor on the sidebar.
As I have posted elsewhere, Ken Salazar is a nice guy. He appears to work very hard at pleasing as many people and causes as he possibly can. That, however, is not leadership. Leadership is about making hard choices based upon personal beliefs and solid ethics. It’s decidedly not about pleasing groups or popularity. That is “leading” by way of polls and political correctness. Soon, the impostor in chief will submit a nominee for the Supreme Court. The obama has a lot of political debts left to be paid off. Not the least of which is the Latino contingent. So will obama toss the Latinos a bone or continue to hold them out in front of a bus where they will be easy to toss under as a matter of political expediency? The obama also has some real serious debt politically in Colorado. Two birds with one stone perhaps? As much as I disagree with obama I’m not about to call him stupid when it comes to obfuscation and related “skills.”
I’m thinking that the heavy hitters in Colorado may have hit a home run on this one. After all, being a Justice on the Supreme Court isn’t at all about intestinal fortitude, and hasn’t been for quite some time, if indeed it ever was. It is about turning any argument away from the true issue at hand. Witness the recent decisions in the Heller case, and another having to do with domestic violence that was really about ex post facto law. The Supreme Court was at best disingenuous, and in the worst sense kowtowing to political correctness.
Based upon the preceeding realizations of truth I whole heartedly support Ken Salazar for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He would fit right in.
In a swiftly changing political climate that seems to be affecting nearly every aspect of American life, switching from the news channel to, say, a documentary on Antarctica or a sermon by your local televised church on PBS is a good way to drown out the incessant babble. Or at least, it was.
The word is that PBS is living up to its company motto to “Be More” by threatening to yank its association with stations that broadcast “sectarian” content. Sounds like “Be Less” to us. Back in 1985, PBS enacted a policy of “Three Nons,” meaning PBS affiliate stations could only air material that met the following criteria: noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian. Noting the irony, Newsbusters reports, “PBS routinely fails at nonpartisanship, and its programs have long been a commercial bonanza for savvy ‘nonprofiteers.’ The ‘sectarian’ use of PBS, by comparison, is quite rare and localized.”
So what’s the focus of this action? Apparently if PBS enforces the “Three Nons,” a station that airs religious material, such as WLAE in New Orleans, which has broadcast its Catholic Mass for 25 years without any viewer complaints, would lose its affiliation.
The Washington Post reports that the number of affiliate stations carrying religious programming is small — PBS isn’t even sure of the number. But “religious services of faith-based groups” will be barred, said Jennifer Lawson, chairwoman of the PBS committee that is scheduled to vote next month on enforcing the “Three Nons.” But lest readers be confused, “The intent is for [PBS stations] to show editorial independence,” Lawson added. So censoring religious programming is meant to be a show of “editorial independence?” Thanks for clearing that up.
The next time that a Vice President needs a hidy hole the terrorist will know exactly where to find him…
Joe Biden is at it again. Known for his loose lips, Biden is constantly in the position of issuing clarifying statements regarding some off-the-wall comment. The VP has outdone himself this time, though. At the recent Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, Biden informed his companions of the secret bunker where the vice president remains if he needs a secure location — it’s under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now home to the vice president. A spokesperson did clarify later that Biden meant the “upstairs workspace.” Sure. We can only imagine that Biden was thinking, “I’ll show Cheney. I’ll tell everyone where he was hiding, that slime ball.” The only problem is the next time the vice president — which would be Joe Biden — needs a secure location, everyone knows the first place to look. For his slack jaw, Biden was sent on a super secret mission to the Balkans, where he claimed that he came under sniper fire in 1993. The gift that keeps on giving…
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) won a victory on his 1,000-page cap and trade (read: cap and tax) bill Thursday when it passed his committee on a party line 33-25 vote. The bill ostensibly tackles global warming by creating a system in which industrial producers of greenhouse gas emissions would be required to meet a government-imposed cap on their emissions, but would allow them to purchase credits that cover emissions exceeding the cap.
Initially, Obama wanted the credits to be auctioned off, with the estimated $629 billion in proceeds to go to other government-subsidized programs, of which he has no shortage. Congress thought otherwise, though, and instead will allow the EPA to dole out 85 percent of the credits for free to various energy producers and states. The remaining 15 percent would be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to low- and middle-income families hardest hit by the inevitable rise in electricity costs that will come after the program is in place.
This brings us to why Waxman is in such a hurry to get this bill through the House. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of Americans can expect a rise in their energy bills and a reduction in real income because of the cap and trade bill. What amounts to a national energy tax also will cost jobs, as the bill itself admits. Part 2, section 426, states: “An eligible worker, specifically workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure, may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks.” That’s three years for those educated in public schools.
Unfortunately, consumers know very little about the cap and trade legislation (and as seen in this video, neither does Waxman. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 24 percent of voters know what cap and trade is; 29 percent thought it was related to Wall Street and 17 percent thought it was related to health care reform. Fully 30 percent didn’t have a clue what the term even meant. And that fits perfectly into the Democrats’ plan.
While this will apply mostly to Colorado the information is both timely and appropriate all across America, if not the world.Keeping yourself, family, and loved ones safe starts with you, it is your responsibility, not the governments. They all act “after the fact,” and you “the people” voted in measures that have resulted in little or no fear of humans by dangerous wildlife species.
BE ‘BEAR AWARE’ WHEN CAMPING
WESTCLIFFE, Colo. – Memorial Day Weekend marks the traditional start to the camping season, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife reminds campers to be “bear aware” when enjoying the outdoors. Campers should keep their campsites clean to avoid attracting bears, or other wildlife.
Bears go into campgrounds because food is often available around tents, camp trailers, and dumpsters. The potential for conflicts increases when food brings bears and humans come into close contact.
“Bears are built to eat and their sense of smell is incredible,” explained Justin Krall, a district wildlife manager in the Westcliffe area. “They can smell food from miles away and they’ll travel to find it.”
In a natural setting, bears would just as soon avoid people, but bears that learn to associate humans with food begin to lose their natural fear of people. “Food Conditioned” bears are the most dangerous kind. They usually end up being euthanized.
“It is unfortunate, but bears get into trouble because humans leave food around,” Krall said.
“Bears are not naturally aggressive toward humans, they are actually very shy creatures,” Krall said. “However, bears are on a mission to find food. Campers need to take precautions to avoid problems for you and your family, but also for the campers who use the site after you. Do not leave food or garbage behind. Always pack out your trash.”
Here are a few tips for campers in bear country:
* Keep a clean site and clean up thoroughly after every meal;
* After grilling, allow the fire to continue until food scraps and grease are burned completely off the grill.
* Do not eat in your tent or keep food in your tent;
* Do not leave pet food outside for a long period of time. Any uneaten pet food should also be stored in a secure container.
* Store unused food and garbage in secure containers out of the reach of bears and away from your sleeping area;
* If you see a bear in a campground, report it to the local DOW office as soon as possible.
* If you come in close contact with a bear, talk to it firmly and make yourself look as large as possible. Back away slowly, but do not run.
* Teach children and others who might be unfamiliar with bears about bear safety.
For additional information on how the public can do their part to keep Colorado’s bears wild please visit the Division of Wildlife’s Living With Wildlife web page at http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/ and click on the “Living with Bears in Colorado” link.
Across the country, ammunition prices are soaring and many guns are in short supply as weapons fly off the shelves at stores. This is a telling economic indicator about consumer confidence as many Americans stock up for fear that the end is nigh. It’s also a logical reaction to gun-owner fears that Democrats will implement far-reaching new gun controls. There is cause for concern. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress have stated that they plan to limit what guns Americans can buy and that guns should be registered.
There is one thing that can be said of President Obama with certainty — his election has had a phenomenal effect on gun sales.
Across the country, ammunition prices are soaring and many guns are in short supply as weapons fly off the shelves at stores. This is a telling economic indicator about consumer confidence as many Americans stock up for fear that the end is nigh. It’s also a logical reaction to gun-owner fears that Democrats will implement far-reaching new gun controls. There is cause for concern. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress have stated that they plan to limit what guns Americans can buy and that guns should be registered.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Feb. 25 that, “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi poured fuel on the fire five weeks later by admitting that Democrats want to register guns. “It’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”
The gun controllers are at odds with public opinion. Despite Americans constantly being bombarded with attacks on guns by an anti-gun media, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, notes that “Attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative, people not wanting gun control.” A Gallup poll released April 8 shows that only 29 percent of Americans support banning handguns. According to Gallup, “the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.”
Popular support for the Second Amendment isn’t lost on all congressional Democrats. On May 12, 27 Senate Democrats voted with 39 Republicans to end a ban on law-abiding citizens carrying legal firearms in national parks. The amendment was attached to unrelated legislation to regulate credit cards. The same tactic was used Feb. 26 when an amendment striking down most of the District’s gun-control laws was attached to a Senate bill giving the District a vote in Congress. Twenty-two Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted for this amendment, which passed 62-36.
It’s too early to celebrate Democratic respect for gun rights. Some Senate Democrats who voted for the national park amendment complained that they were painted into a corner on the issue. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, the party’s chief vote counter, told National Public Radio last week that they were concerned about “how many more times they’d have to face such votes.” Democrats are torn between their constituents’ support for gun rights and an Obama administration committed to gun control.
Dick Cheney fired back again at the impostor in chief today. This never ending chorus of “torture” has become so old it is pathetic to say the least. Mind tricks are not torture. Protecting the nation is a good thing in my opinion. But, then again I am tossed into that terrorist grouping that the DHS published.
Who wants to bet that if there had been another devastating attack here in the United States the same people that are whining about waterboarding would be wringing their hands, and blaming the Bush administration for not having protected the nation..?
Bush and company made more than enough mistakes. The border is still porous while Mexican drug gang activity is on a rather steady increase here in the U.S. Americans still are not, in general, allowed to properly prepare and be appropriately armed to fend off the invasion.
The present administration wants to disarm Americans even more as well as bring terrorist to the mainland. I have a question for gun hating N.Y.C? After what happened earlier today do you still think the rest of the nation should be as powerless as you are?
I don’t care if it is Drug Gangs, or jihad’s, they need to be stopped in their tracks, period.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 