Here's what's happening in the world:
-MSNBC is the all white/GOP racism, all the time channel. But racism on their part is wholly acceptable because in their fetid minds, only conservatives can be racist.
-The NY Times is looking to 2016 and they are going full-bore for Hillary. They start with revisionist history on Benghazi.
-The political winners and losers of 2013. They sprinkled in a few Republicans as losers but it was a particularly bad year for the Donks.
-Someone with a hell of a lot more time than I have added up the body counts in movies and out it in graph form.
-Of course they did: NY Times and CNBC wish the killer of 70-million happy birthday on day after Christmas.
-The Pittsburgh Steelers got screwed. Too bad for them but the Chargers are sure happy.
-I can't believe they whittled it down to only ten: Media malpractice in 2013.
-This ought to give me a few more years: 3-D printed livers.
-And finally, Fly, Eagles Fly:
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Here's what's happening in the world:
Naval warfare seems a thing of the past. When one thinks of great naval battles, one thinks WWII and the genius of Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance. They think of the battles at Midway and Leyte Gulf.
But since then, what major battles have occurred? Some skirmishes during the Korean War and the war in the Falklands maybe but nothing of any major consequence. The US became the baddest mofo's on the water and our supremacy has never been challenged except for attempts by Russia to keep up, which ultimately and spectacularly failed (although they are spending more money to get some of their past glory back with mixed results).
So naval warfare now has become the projection of power by the US as a means to prevent war. If China and Japan start getting antsy, we send a carrier battle group to the region to keep an eye on things and settle it down before they come to blows. If Iran threatens the straits of Hormuz, we station an LHD in the area to make them think twice. And if a natural disaster occurs anywhere in the world we can send help.
Until recently, the US was the only game in town.
But now China has joined the game and they expect to be admired as more than just a "brown water" navy, they want to be known as a "blue water" navy, capable of projecting power farther from their shores. They've built up their capabilities steadily over the years by buying older equipment with the jewel being the carrier Liaoning (formerly the Soviet carrier Riga). The capabilities of the carrier will be at least 20 years behind the newer US Nimitz Class (and more behind the forthcoming Ford Class) models with less than 25 pilots actually qualified to land on her deck.
Japan has built up their naval forces as well in recent years--doubtless because of the direct threat from China. China has some scores to settle with her eastern neighbor and memories last a long time in that region. Japan has a sizable submarine fleet but only can deploy helicopter carriers versus fixed wing on the surface.
Australia, South Korea and Canada can also bring some force to bear if needed. A breakdown of current and proposed carrier forces can be found here.
Here's a breakdown of what each nation has currently available:
The Chinese have built mobile missiles including the HQ-7 that could be a major threat to our carriers and have them deployed defensively and offensively all along their coast. Another major concern would be asymmetric warfare including disruption of our Internet and satellite communications, which the US Navy heavily relies on. China has deployed several missiles and possibly lasers with the major targets being command and control satellites in all orbits. For more on this I highly recommend this paper written by the good folks at the Heritage Institute.
Based on available information and using the chart above, the US could bring roughly 24 submarines to bear at any one time within the Pacific theater. Add to that two Canadian, and possibly 15 Japanese subs versus 46 Chinese vessels. I've used roughly 2/3 of the above total availability taking into account maintenance and stand downs. That's about an even number but the US would be forced to work with different partners while China would be working with their own forces using their own doctrine. Add to that that submarine warfare is generally not a team effort. Call it a slight US advantage since the PLAN have been training heavily for years and have made some progress (and haven't been shy about showing it according to some reports). The progress they have made is unknown at present.
But when it comes to actual naval superiority, it comes to aircraft carriers, the aircraft and armament they carry, their defensive capabilities and vessels accompanying them. Here the US has a vast advantage. In any engagement with the Chinese, the first thing they would attack would be our carriers and our first priority would be stopping them. Do we have the capabilities to do so? That is a question that has no answer at this point. The Chinese claim they've had great success with the DF-21D missile that is solely designed to take our carriers out. But in this world of new technology becoming obsolete due to improvements by the other side, we may now have a solution. Call this a major US advantage.
And finally, what about troop landing capabilities?
The US LHD fleet including the WASP and Tarawa classes are highly-equipped troop transports with their own air wings. The air wing includes Harriers and Osprey's (and hopefully the USMC F-35) while also carrying anti-submarine helo's and additional troop transport aircraft. Tanks and Marine AmTracs can be put ashore quickly to project a large amount of power in a short time. The WASP class can carry and land a complete Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and supply that unit for extended periods while in battle. This is all contingent on the ability of air assets in locating and neutralizing Chinese missile batteries and aircraft that could harass any such landing.
In conclusion; a large sea battle between the likely belligerents would result in a US win but potentially at heavy cost. The US would move assets from the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic if needed but based on current readiness levels, the US would neutralize and beat any adversaries within a short period.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
I find it infinitely amusing that the mainstream media is shocked whenever Christians and other conservatives flex their muscles. From the success of The Passion of the Christ to the success of movies that make America out as heroic, the MSM uses words like "unexpectedly" or "surprising" to describe their success. They seem equally befuddled when movies that pan Christianity and show America as inherently bad tank.
Take the success of the aforementioned "Christ", when Mel Gibson made that movie, he could not get a studio to back him and did it on his own. It was a mega hit. While Bill Maher's anti-religious (read anti-Christian because he doest have the balls to be anti-Muslims) Religulous was released, critics loved it and were stunned it wasn't the hit they expected. Another example; when In the Valley of Elah was released showing the US as bad and had overtly anti-war and thus anti-Bush themes, it was a complete and utter flop while war movies that showed our cause as patriotic and right were hits. Media pundits loved Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon because they portrayed America as evil and that fit into their paradigm.
So where am I going with this?
This morning I read on the front page of the Inquirer an essay about the Phil Robertson fracas. The author wrote these words:
A & E's Duck Dynasty was the unlikely TV megahit no one understood.
No one understood how popular it would become, setting records for nonfiction cable shows and becoming the No. 1 nonfiction show on cable, No. 2 overall (to AMC's The Walking Dead).
No one understood how closely audiences would identify with the Robertson family of West Monroe, La., and their conservative Christian values.And there you have it.
Of course people understood it. A & E most-likely did not, this was a show that to them was more of a joke. Let's look at the bearded redneck in hillbilly Louisiana with their camp clothes and goofy religious beliefs and laugh at them. Kind of a latter day Beverly Hillbillies without the bubbling crude. It was supposed to be a show to fill time and show these idiot southerners in their natural habitat. A Real Housewives of New Jersey set in the bayou.
But something happened that they didn't expect; people identified with the real life cast. They are unapologetic Christians and live their lives by Christian values. People watched them, listened to them and agreed. Of course, A & E being in business to make money used them to make healthy profits and pad their ban accounts but they never, ever ventured past the jingoistic side of the Robertson clan. They sold shirts that were patriotic because the characters are but did not venture into the Christian values of the family.
And it bit them in the ass.
People watch because the Robertson's are what they wish themselves to be. Individualist, patriotic, self-made and familial. They are what a large portion of this country is: moral. They represent those of us who believe that we have gone way off the rails both morally and spiritually. I saw it when watching It's a Wonderful Life last night, we want a simple life where we make enough to raise a family, own a house and take a vacation without having pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality propaganda constantly bombarding us. We want to live by our own values and not have values we disagree with thrust upon us. The Robertson's are many of us.
So A & E has themselves a dilemma. If they opt to allow Phil back on the show, they will have GLAAD and every other pro-gay group boycotting them. If they choose to not bring the show back, they will never be watched again by a group that is approximately 150,000,000 people storming. The advertisers who paid to hawk their products on the network will bolt for the exits because they don't want the bad press and a thriving network will be watched by a whole bunch less people.
This is the culture war that will have a long-term effect. Christians and those who are just plain sick of all the PC bullshit will rally and the left in this country isn't ready for it.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Today on The Five, Bob Beckel driveled about healthcare being a civil right. His specious argument consisted of his contention that it was guaranteed by the Constitution under the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause I guess. I chuckled at the idea that he's turning twisting himself up like a pretzel trying to make the case it's in the Constitution but denies that the Founding Fathers expressly considered gun ownership a right even though it says it clear as day...but I digress.
This is not a new tack by the left who are pro-Obamacare. they make this argument but generally in comfortable settings where they will never be called on it; places such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc. There's absolutely nothing in the constitution about healthcare and was it was never intended to be.
You have a right in my opinion to stabilizing treatment and basic care but nothing gives one the right to have all healthcare costs covered. Health care came about as a perk for companies to offer employees when hiring and for unions to bargain for. Then the lawyers entered the picture and drove up costs for medical professional by suing over every supposed instance of malpractice thus causing doctors to get insurance for malpractice and raising their fees and it became a downward spiral.
But we haven't seen anything until O-care kicks in. The lawyers--major backers of Obama and the Democrats--will have a field day because they just got 30-million new potential clients.
So back to the argument about health care being a right. If someone refuses to take care of themselves--say they are obese--is it a right for them to get treatment for a condition wholly caused by them? No. What a bout a sick child, is it a right for their parents to have insurance to pay for the child? No again. There are options currently out there but they require one to get and hold a job. In other words, a perk offered by their employer that is part of the benefit package. And enough of the argument about people being without insurance, Medicaid was the last great healthcare debacle and it ended up being a mess that forced Obamacare on us. But Medicaid is out there and is an option.
This is nothing but a step towards universal healthcare along the Canadian model. The days of seeing a doctor the day you need one, getting a knee replacement without prior consent and charging the best pharmaceuticals to your insurance are over. Sarah Palin was belittled by saying we'd see "death panels' but indeed we will someday and that day gets a lo closer when O-care kicks in.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Yesterday we saw another Islam-inspired attack on civilian, non-Muslims in Nairobi, Kenya.
The big, audacious attacks like the embassy bombings and 9/11 are still the dream but are harder to execute. These smaller attacks are easier to plan and supply so now have become the norm. It's easier to take five or six young men, fill their minds with jihadi bullshit, teach them basic guidelines of where to attack for massive effect then set them loose.
As seen in Mumbai where LeT hit several sites throughout the city, this was an attack that had but one goal and that was to terrorize the local population. Al-qaeda and al-Shabbabb know exactly what they are doing: enter a populated area, secure it from escape, instill panic, allow Muslims to leave and then kill as many people as possible in the short time they have until security forces arrive.
These attacks are cheap, effective and will continue unless we change our tactics once again.
So what can be done to stop these types of attacks? A good question and one without easy answers. Short of arming and placing police and other security within every potential attack area, we have to be smarter before the attacks occur.
There were warnings in Mumbai and information will come out that warnings were received in the case of Kenya. These warnings will have to be investigated--and 95% will turn out to be a dead-end--and every one will have to be run down with old fashioned detective work. A colossal feat but cheaper and easier than placing armed security forces in every mall and sports arena in America. We have a large apparatus in the Dept. of Homeland security and FBI who can handle this challenge--if we change how we do business.
The Obama administration is loathe to be accused of racial profiling and thus has essentially been bullied into not investigating cases that could lead to sopping an attack. We need to get past that. There's history to support using profile-like tactics. During WWII, German and Japanese agents and those who supported the cause of their former homelands were rooted out by good detective work. And for the record, I am not even remotely suggesting we inter those of the Muslim faith like that great liberal hero FDR did with the Japanese. What I am saying is that we have to get over our national hang up of questioning those who may be most suspect but belong to a group that is most capable of causing harm. Every time the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issues a letter condemning the profiling of Muslims, we need to hit back and tell them that they need to do more to stop it within their community. Instead, we allow them into the highest places of power and scoff at laws that ban their involvement in government. Every time CAIR accuses us of racial profiling or files a lawsuit, we need to remind the world just who they are involved with.
Until we change our tactics and--within the confines of our legal system--look long and hard at who wants us dead, we will continue to be a ripe target. We've been lucky, and thanks to the diligence of those in law enforcement and the intelligence community we have not been hit in an attack of this type. However, our enemies are changing tactics regularly and probing for weak spots.
We continue down the path we are on at our own peril.
Update: Or we can do what the Israeli's are doing in Kenya. Imagine if a rapid-reaction force of special operators was dispatched to the scene of every one of these attacks (think Rainbow 6) and exterminated the perpetrators then tracked down the planners and liquidated them as well. I would guess these cowardly attacks would be fewer.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Ran 4 miles today for the 2nd day in a row. Going for five this weekend.
Anyway, here's what's new:
-Are there any bigger douchebags on the right than David Frum and David Brooks? Guys, get over your egotistic, solipsistic selves and help us win back the White House and senate. Or better yet, take your elitist asses over to Media Matters.
-Last night on liberal TV and media (but I'm redundant) it was all about the AR-15 and banning it because another killer used it. Today when it was revealed that the killer didn't have one but only had a shotgun and two pistols he allegedly took from the security guys he shot it was crickets. As Ace notes, there was indeed an AR-15 there, it was used by the responders in taking out the killer.
-Heritage breaks down the latest long-range CBO report and finds that taxes do not need to be raised...again. Kinda wonkish but worth a read.
-Fox News is changing the lineup. Megyn Kelly goes to 9 and Hannity to few with Greta going to Shep Smith's old spot at 7. Kelly will kill in that spot.
-West Virginia is in play for the GOP.
-Obama waived two key components of a ban on arming terrorists so he can arm the Syrian rebels. If he couldn't keep the guns that he allowed to walk in Fast and furious out of the hands of the cartels, how the hell does he expect to keep the weapons we're sending to Syria our of the hands of al-Qaeda or it's allies?
And in honor of Megyn Kelly moving to prime time, I give you this:
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Every so often we see a political earthquake that changes the landscape for years or even decades. We saw that last week in Colorado.
|Angela Giron is not smiling anymore|
But Giron was a different story; she was elected in a district that voted for Obama over Romney by 20%--a blowout in any election. She made the mistake of acting as if her constituents views did not matter when they were not in line with her own. She did the same thing that liberals always do when they are trying to legislate on decisive issues such as abortion or in this case gun control; she shut their voices out...literally. Now on an issue such as drug laws or highway spending, this would have been forgotten quickly and nothing would have come of it. But Giron treated men and women who wanted to discuss her trampling of the US Constitution and wanted to be heard. It turns out, they were heard loud and clear by the voters.
A coalition was formed and some diligent folks got the signatures needed to force a recall election. Money poured in from gun control advocates such s Mayor Michael Bloomberg's misguided organization. The National Rifle Association assisted those on the side of freedom and rights and the fight was on. And it wasn't even close. Giron lost by close to 12%. This in a state that is notoriously liberal on rights such as gay marriage and legalizing weed. The classless Giron, as is to be expected when liberals fail, blamed something that has absolutely nothing to do with her getting ousted.
How monumental was this? this was supposed to be a testing ground for more stringent gun laws in other states that are split ideologically. This occurred in a state that suffered through a recent mass-shooting in a movie theater. This was a slam-dunk if ever there was one in the view of gun-grabbing leftists. Except it wasn't. The governor heard the people loud and clear on this and is living in fear (and denial) right now since the coalition has tasted blood and his head hanging in their proverbial den would be the next logical step.
There's a lesson here for those who run for office and win: don't ignore your constituents when they have a grievance and sure as hell don't mess with their rights. Rural Coloradans are itching to secede and the primary reason is the usurpation of their rights as Americans.
This is a huge victory for 2nd Amendment advocates and advocates of the Constitution in general. politicians who wish to impinge on these freedoms granted us by a power higher then them do so at their own peril. many states are jumping on this band wagon and we will see a revolution sooner rather than later if this continues.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Let's look at presidential history through the years, shall we? First we had Harry Truman who understood full-well how evil communism and by extension the Soviet leadership was. He stood up to them where he could including sending our troops to fight a war against their proxies in Korea.
Dwight Eisenhower checked them where he could and the Soviets knew the old warhorse was not one to be trifled with.
Kennedy stared down Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis and reinforced the standing of America in the world. When their East German proxies built a wall in Berlin, he flew food in.
Johnson fought communism in Vietnam as did Nixon, however Nixon didn't quite have the balls call them out as often as he should have. He settled for some amorphous thing called "detente".
Ford was a lame duck from the beginning and doesn't count.
But Carter does and he was one who believed all the hype about Soviet power. He gutted the intelligence services thus leaving us blind to the fragility of the Soviet scheme. However, when pressed, he stood up to them for the most part.
Reagan? Well we all know that Reagan knew all along they were a house of cards. He tricked them into spending untold billions they didn't have (SDI comes to mind), backed the Mujahideen against them, gave them the finger at Reykjavik, called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" and generally made a nuisance of himself whenever it concerned issues Soviet.
George H. W. Bush cheered on Lech Walesa when he rose up in Gdansk, celebrated when the wall came down in Berlin and watched with glee as satellite after satellite broke away and the USSR was reduced to the CIS and then just Russia.
Clinton had it kind of easy trying to usher the new Russia into the democratic and capitalistic world. He didn't back down often.
George W. Bush tried to get friendly with Putin and his butt-buddy Medvedev and generally checked Russians power.
But now we have Nobel Peace Prize winner and the Smartest Guy to Ever Become President in office. He of the mis-translated "reset" button and off the record comments about appeasing Putin when he got in his second term dutifully "transmitted" to Vlad by Medvedev. Obama was the man who was going to change the world just by the force of his sparkling intellect and personality. Except for a few things; he was a community organizer in Chicago (and based on the sad state of that city did a pretty fucking shitty job of it), a state senator who voted present a lot, a senator who took a stand on excatly nothing (or anything he now believes) and has completely fucked up our entire foreign policy (with help from Hillary and Kerry).
His latest foreign policy foray has to do with chemical weapons supposedly dropped by Bashar Assad on his own people but there's no definitive proof. Obama went right to the bomb them from long distance card (learned from the master; Slick Willy). But Congress didn't agree and the world didn;t agree and the American people sure as hell didn;t agree. So Obama joined up with...France. The Bestest President For Ever & Ever couldn't even cobble together a coalition that included Nicaragua and Burkina Faso.
So his great foreign policy led us to the point where bombing were threatened including threats of the genius 'constitutional law professor" plowing ahead without congressional approval. But an off-the-cuff remark by that other liberal genius John Kerry was pounced on by the Russians and now they've not only marginalized Obama but have taken over the role of strong nation in the Middle East. Hell, we are at the point that Putin had an open letter to the American people published in the NY Times (about time a fucking Soviet actually got to put their name on the byline instead of having to use pseudonyms). Putin belittled Obama and called out American exceptionalism. In other words, Putin made Obama and by extension all of the US his bitch.
I don't like being Putin's bitch. I like beating Putin at spycraft and watching as his navy rusts on the shoreline. Instead he's gained back a good amount of power Russia lost when the Soviet Union was swept into the dustbin of history. All because Obama is soft and is hell-bent on making America in the glowing image of 1970's France.
Watch this video of Obama when he thinks he's not on mic. What message do you really think Medvedev "transmitted" to Putin? I'm guessing it's something akin to "damn comrade, if this guy was around in the 80's instead of Reagan, we'd still be the Soviet Union and own half of eastern Europe still.