There was an error in this gadget

Friday, January 29, 2016

The Original Safe Zones

Civilization is like a walled city.  We are safe on the inside from the danger and barbarity that is outside, only under certain conditions.  If those in the city wish to keep what we have – our wealth, our way of life – if we wish to remain safe and wish for our women to remain safe, we must maintain those conditions.  There are reasons our forefathers built the walls around the city, and if we don’t want to experience firsthand what those reasons are, we need to maintain the habits and character traits of a people who are willing and able to defend the walls of our city.

Or we can be like Cologne.  Evidently the Germans imagine they can create "safe zones" for their women to keep them from being robbed, assaulted, and raped at public events by the hundreds of thousands of young Muslim males the Germans allowed into their country.  

Right.  Viel Gl├╝ck damit.  As Sarah Hoyt put it so succinctly at Instapundit: "Europe used to be the safe zone."  Now the walls are broken; the marauders run rampant inside, and the fools that (for the moment at least still) run the joint think they can create – what? – temporary  redoubts to which their women can flee during holidays?  This is deeply, deeply stupid, and it signals an amazing lack of will to do what they need to do to in order to protect themselves. 

There’s another proverb the German’s need to keep in mind, 18:11: “The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it a wall too high to scale.”  That is, there’s a difference between being rich and being strong.  The Europeans are still rich, for now, but they better remember how to get strong again, fast.  And they need to see to their walls.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

What really happened to our sailors?

These are patches I received in the Navy in the 1980’s.  The bottom one is for Special Boat Unit 20, where I was stationed in 1986/87, and the one on top is for SERE (Survival, Evasion,Resistance & Escape) School which I attended in – it must have been - October of 1986.  

The Navy sent us to SERE School because as members of a small boat crew, our odds of being captured by the enemy are higher than if we were, say, on the crew of a destroyer.  The Navy also used to send all flight crews through SERE training for the same reason, and I presume it still does.

That brings me to the incident this week with the Iranians.

Allen West is starting to ask the right questions:
First of all, I find it odd that these Riverine craft were operating on an excursion from Kuwait to Bahrain. Why were they not hugging close to the coast line? Now, I also find it perplexing to be told that the engines of the boats malfunctioned. If that were the case, an immediate call should have been made and at least, aerial surveillance and support should have been dispatched. The next thing would have been immediate dispatching of a recovery vessel to support these two boats. Regardless of one or two boat engines malfunctioning, what should have happened after a distress call was all hands manning the boat weapons. They should have been in an immediate defensive posture to secure themselves until recovery was complete — or they were back underway. 
I find it rather disturbing that any Iranian watercraft were able to approach these two heavily armored assault boats. My question would be, was the on-board radar equipment operable? If so, then the approaching enemy craft would have been detected. That being the case, the officer in charge should have reported contact, verified that they were not friendly, and taken action to defend his position, his boats. That means warning shots should have been fired, if not heeded, and then the full power of these assault boats levied against the enemy watercraft — with situation reports being sent to higher command. We need to know why exactly those actions were not taken — and if the young officer in charge was told to not take any action. And if so, by whom.
Read the whole thing.  Especially note the Code of Conduct for American military personnel (which is also repeated at the SERE School link above).  Allen West is right.  There is nothing about this incident, as portrayed so far, that makes any sense whatsoever.  I take it as a given the Iranians are lying about it.  But I would really like to know why our own Navy is lying.  The story cannot be what we have been told so far.

For what it’s worth, the story is evidently no longer interesting enough to even be on the Washington Post home page this morning, and the New York Times imbecilicly reports it as some sort of diplomatic success.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

It already is worse.

Breitbart London reports that German police are ordered to under-report or misreport the extensive criminal activities of the invading Saracen hordes (drolly referred to as “refugees” ) who are sweeping over what used to be the heart of Christendom.  A sample: 
“The officer told the paper the public do not get an accurate idea of what is really happening in the migrant crime wave, because events are mis-reported by police to prevent outrage.”
 “If a refugee wants to escape our control, we can’t even detain him. This is dictated from above. To do so would be physical violence”.
 “Bernd revealed “95 percent of refugees are single men”.”
The entire piece is worth reading.  A lot of us on the right have been predicting this is going to get much worse.  I’m now starting to think it already is much worse.  We just don’t know the extent of it yet.  I wonder if we are going to see European politicians hanging from lampposts before 2016 is out?

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Here's your chance, Ladies. Start in Cologne.

Chris Muir was positively brutal in his Day By Day cartoon from couple days ago.

It’s the only place so far where I’ve seen these thoughts expressed and that kind of surprises me.  Sometimes it seems white men are blamed for all the problems of the Earth.  And some of that blame has been loudly and continuously shouted by white women.  We don’t let women have the freedom they feel they should have.  We hold them back from the good jobs.  There is no traditional male role that should be reserved for men.  Anything men can do women can do.

Okay.  If that is the all true, here’s your chance ladies.  Start in Cologne.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

The German Cover Up Of the Saracen Attacks

This is a follow up  to my post yesterday about the Saracen sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany.  Or, rather, the sexual assaults in several cities, including Cologne.

Much more information has come out, and the more that comes out, the worse it is.  Eye-witness accounts make it clear the police were aware of the level of the attacks as they occurred.  Despite initial denials, the police now concede the attacks were carried out in large part by recently arrived “refugees" from the Middle East.

Some German government officials seem to be still trying to get away with accusing their countrymen of bigotry and hoping that makes the complaints stop. This must be panic on their parts.  I don’t see how it can continue to work but it’s as if they don’t know what else to do.  The Gods of the Copybook Headings are attacking and the German government is, momentarily at least, unable to deal.  What do you do when your people learn you have been allowing the Saracens to rape your women in your streets?

This will not end well.

Breitbart London is all over this story and may be coming to own it.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Some questions about the attacks in Cologne

The American Interest relays a report on the New Year’s Eve assault of a large number of German women by Middle Eastern men in the middle of downtown Cologne.

Migrants Molested Women in Cologne on NYE
“A mob men (sic) of reportedly North African and Arab origin assaulted women in downtown Cologne on New Year’s Eve, in attacks Mayor Henriette Reker characterized as “monstrous” and “lawlessness.”
 “Some 90 criminal complaints, including one allegation of rape, have been brought to the Cologne police department after women said they were molested by a crowd of men who had gathered in the city’s famous square between its central train station and towering Gothic cathedral.” (emphasis added)
Further details...
“City police chief Wolfgang Albers said the crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men who gave the appearance of being “Arab or North African” in background.”
But recall also that on that day there was other news concerning famous German cities, train stations, and crowds:  New Year's Eve attack planned in Munich: police

So on New Year’s Eve, all of Germany was preparing for attacks on crowds in public places such as, say, train stations.  All things considered, it is not unreasonable the authorities should have considered that the famous cathedral in Cologne might also be a potential jihadi target.  Knowing this, we are now told that a crowd of 1,000 frick’n Arabs sexually assaulted scores of German women in those very places.  Considering the security concerns in Germany that night, I don’t see how it is reasonable that there were no police around.  Cops were there.  They had to be.  They were waiting for terrorist attacks in every major city in Europe.  Is it even possible that police in Cologne did not see these sexual assaults carried out by Arab mobs?  Did these attacks not occur right in front of the police's eyes?

Scores of German women being assaulted in front of them, and no  mounted troops charged in?  No water cannons, no tear gas?  Not even a couple beat cops swinging batons to protect women who were being attacked wholesale right there in front of them?

Here are the real questions:
  1. Did German police witness these attacks as they occurred?
  2. If not, where the hell were they?
  3. If, as is far more likely, they were indeed there, who was the officer in charge?  What is his name?
  4. How is it he did not order this men to start kicking ass on the spot? 

I would really, really like to know the answers to these questions, and I’ll bet there are a whole lot of German citizens who want to know those answers as well.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

It's because I'm black, isn't it?

Kevin Williamson writes the best paragraph on the internet today:

The sage marketing wisdom is: “Under-promise and over-deliver.” That was hardly an option for Obama, who promised, quite literally (literally, Mr. Vice President!), a sea change. When you are billing yourself as the fulfillment of Hegelian capital-H history, as not only a redeemer of nations but a healer of planets, it gets a little awkward when you have to spend most of your administration explaining why the economy still kind of sucks and the secretary of state feels the need to lie about everything from the murder of diplomatic personnel to the fact that she’s storing state secrets in the crapper. If you had bought shares in Obama As Advertised and then had to sell them at the price of Obama In Fact, you’d know what it felt like to be running a mortgage-derivative fund back in 2008.

Read the whole thing here.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Trump vs. Krauthammer. Forget it Doc; you can't win.

At National Review, Charles Krauthammer excoriates the absurdity of Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entry into the United States:

“I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity.”

Leave alone the somewhat dodgy assumption the proposal is "un-American".  Is it important that the proposal is absurd?  It may be - may be - absurd.  But there are any number of non-absurd reasons to for Trump to have made the proposal.  To roll just a few off the top of my head, by making this proposal, Trump is at one stroke:

… channeling the outrage of a population that is being told to stop being bigots, when they are not in fact bigots and they are in fact the ones under attack.

… moving the entire range of debate terms onto ground that a few days ago was untouchable, sacred territory.  Territory where Trump dominates and all the others fear to tread.  We will now – finally - be discussing exactly which people we ought to be excluding from entry and we all know damn well they will be Muslims.

… trolling his opponents into making very stupid comments that signal to the public that Trump’s opponents have no real intention of addressing the public’s concerns.  That it is un-American to try to keep jihadis out of America is tough sale to make for Presidential candidates.  I look forward to hearing some of them try to make it.

Why does Trump do stuff like this?  Seriously?  If he wants to win this election, why would he ever stop?

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Paris, Coulter, and Trump

Last Friday night Ann Coulter reacted to the vicious razzia against Paris by declaring that Donald Trump had just won the U.S. Presidential election, which doesn’t actually take place for almost another year.  I think I understand what she means, she has a very good point, and she may well be correct.

Consider:  The Obama administration is actually accelerating the immigration to America of thousands of Syrian men, and the President is allowing the word to go out he may unilaterally close the prison at Guantanamo and, contrary to law, move a bunch of Islamic terrorists from the offshore military prison to places here on the U.S. mainland.  Immediately after the Paris attack, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, declared the EU would make no change to its current policy of letting unidentified young Muslims simply walk into Europe by the hundreds of thousands.  Twenty four hours after the Islamist carnage in Paris, the three politicians running for the Democratic nomination for President reportedly made it through an entire two hour debate without a single one uttering the word Islamist.

What people in the West are witnessing is an increasingly shocking divide between what we see with our own eyes, and what our so-called leaders tell us is happening.  Islamist forces have been making jihad against us for decades now, and have inflicted thousands upon thousands of casualties, yet the Western world is still led by people who refuse to acknowledge we are being attacked in a religious war.  This cannot go on forever and it won’t.  And as Mark Steyn has pointed out, if respectable politicians refuse to discuss what must be discussed, then unrespectable politicians will fill the gap.  The more the Western political class repeats nonsense such as that Islam is a “religion of peace”, or that we have no choice but to allow millions of “migrants” to come into our lands just because they demand it, the more certain it becomes that a Donald Trump will become President of the United States.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Planned Parenthood, Benghazi, and our Fourth Estate

The Planned Parenthood videos and the Hillary Clinton testimony in front of the Congressional committee investigating the debacle at Benghazi have things in common and those things are depressing.  In both cases the wrong-doing is inarguable.  The ghouls at Planned Parenthood were negotiating prices for pieces of aborted humans.  They were haggling over the sale of baby parts.  Hillary Clinton knew at the time our ambassador was killed that he was killed in an organized terrorist attack, yet she helped to hide that fact from the American public for as long as possible. 

A second commonality is that in both cases the perpetrating parties continue to deny what is plainly obvious from evidence available to virtually anyone on the planet.  It’s literally (Literally, Mr. Vice President!) right there on video.

The depression starts in the next couple things the cases have in common.  One of those things is that what we have come to call the mainstream media – also known as the place where most voters probably get their news – is helping the perpetrating parties get away with it.  Executives, former employees, and business partners of Planned Parenthood were caught on tape in sales negotiations for pieces of aborted babies.  But CNN, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, etc., allow their customers to believe that if anything happened at all, it was that some sneaky conservatives are trying to frame Planned Parenthood with “highly edited” videos in order to defund “women’s health”.  Those same “news” organs are today in full-throated, lock-stepping, lip-syncing mode with the breaking news that Hillary Clinton has survived the “partisan” Republican attack made on her over the unfortunate events in Libya a few years ago that the GOP just keeps banging on about.

The really, really depressing part is that in both cases, it may well work.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Putin prowls, so Obama seeks a safe place to pee. It figures.

Labor force participation is the lowest it’s been since Carter was president.  Vladimir Putin publicly humiliated Barack Obama and the United States, both at a major United Nations gathering, and, viciously (and absolutely brilliantly), in our own, yuuuge, white elephant embassy in the heart of the Middle East.  Cities are falling to the Taliban as we lose Obama’s 'good war' in Afghanistan.  

So until some nut shot up a community college in Oregon, what was the top White House priority yesterday?  Naturally, like a laser-beam, it was focused on the burning issue of public transgender urination.

We are doomed.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

“Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”

There was an “anti-war” poster in the 1960’s that read:  “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”

On the long list of deeply stupid, Communist-approved, academically encouraged, hippie bullshit from the Vietnam era, this one really stands out for its full-frontal mental retardation.  The point of the poster is that if nobody shows up to fight, you can’t have a war.  Deep man, pass me the joint.  The problem of course comes if you think about it even a little bit.  What can it possibly mean that somebody “gave a war”?  Doesn’t it mean that somebody has started fighting somebody.  Somebody has invaded somebody else?  Somebody has started shooting somebody else?  Somebody has started bombing somebody else?  That is, if somebody “(gives) a war” there will be other somebodies who don’t have the option to not come.  They are already there.  Being shot at.  Being invaded

This is so obvious one wonders show much dope people had to smoke in the 60’s for that poster to become popular?  “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”  The answer is simple: The invader wins.  Ask ISIS.  Ask Russia.  But don’t ask Barack Obama or the U.S. State Department.  Evidently they’re still rolling doobies in the dorm, talking deep talk.

Friday, July 10, 2015

CNN: Just Another Day at the Hack Factory

You may be aware it is believed that Chinese Communists hacked the US government's Office of Personnel Management's files and and copied personal background and security information on what is currently estimated to be 21 million people.  These seem to be mostly people who work for, or did work for, or even who frick'n applied to work for, the U.S. government.

The woman in charge of the agency responsible for not allowing that to happen has finally resigned today.  She had no qualifications for the job other than that she is a Latina and she worked hard for the Democratic party, and perhaps Barrack Obama, in various political roles.  Got that?  Barrack Obama put a completely unqualified affirmative-action political hack in charge of safeguarding the personal information of every single man and woman who has applied for a government security clearance since Bush the Elder was Vice President.

How does CNN cover this nuclear-grade incompetence by this serially-incompetent Democratic administration?

Exactly. By claiming it's the GOP's fault.  Truly stunning.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

One does not...

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Unicorny Nuclear Deals

Jeffrey Goldberg posts at the Atlantic Danger Ahead for Obama on Iran:
“The perverse genius of Benjamin Netanyahu and his aides (and their Republican handmaidens) is that they have managed to turn a moment in which President Obama should have been busy defending his pursuit of a nuclear agreement with a dangerous adversary into a stress test of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
He asserts that American Republicans, Israeli hawks, and Benjamin Netanyahu are willfully distracting Obama from the hard work in which he is honorably engaged: “defending his pursuit of a nuclear agreement”.  Got all that?  Our president is not, nor does Mr. Goldberg seem to believe he should be, defending a good agreement.  Nor, according to Mr. Goldberg, should he be pursuing a good agreement, or even, come to think of it, should he be trying to figure out whether a good agreement can even be had at this time.  No, what our President is currently doing and, according to Mr. Goldberg, what he should be doing, is “defending the idea that he is pursuing” an agreement.  There is so much wrong here it is hard to know where to begin.  How does Mr. Goldberg know any agreement being pursued here is or even could be defensible?  He himself concedes the agreement – as far as any of us know from reports – evidently  will involve allowing Iran to enrich uranium and, after a while, build nuclear warheads.

Indeed, Mr. Goldberg immediately admits the following:

“Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition.”

Just so.  In fact, there is actually no agreement that can be made with Iran under the current circumstances.  They want to make nukes and we don’t want them to.  Somebody wins, somebody loses.  Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t make up those rules.  It’s the way the situation happens to be.  Which is I suppose rhetorically convenient for Mr. Goldberg’s case since as far as I can tell, his closer argument ( which he refers to as “dispositive”) is that Netanyahu doesn’t have a better idea for an agreement than Obama does.  No kidding.  Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a better idea for a deal with Iran for the good and obvious reason that Iran will accept no deal that doesn’t allow them to develop nukes, and we are theoretically opposed to them doing that.  Exactly what sort of deal is possible here?  Unfortunately, only one sort: an imaginary one.  This seems to suit the purposes of our President just fine, but I for one think it’s forgivable Mr. Netanyahu disagrees quite strongly.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Sure it's photo-shopped. But it's perfect.

The stupidities in our time are starting to cross like the energy streams in 'Ghostbusters'.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Kingsman, 50 Shades, and Acedia

It being Valentine’s Day this weekend, and not coincidentally the opening of the movie Fifty Shades of Greyit’s also not coincidental our pastor at church mentioned the movie in this week’s sermon.  He guessed that many in the congregation had already read the books, and many more would see the movie.  The congregation laughed because it was of course true.  Then he mentioned something called acedia.  I had never heard the term. According to one definition I found, acedia is ‘a state of languor or torpor, of unconcern or dissatisfaction with one's condition or action in the world’.  The pastor pointed out that some of the reason we get excited about things like the weird S&M in '50 Shades' is that we are, well, bored.  Spiritually, experientially, emotionally.  We want more.  And then still more.  And we want it because we’ve forgotten the basics like God, right, wrong, love; the list goes on…  When we no longer know what the basics are, when we don’t know where we’re supposed to be going or what we’re supposed to be doing, we can fall into the trap of continually searching for novelty.  Continually hotter peppers (big in the 90’s), more hops in the beer, more jolt in the espresso, more sea salt in the chocolate.  Novelty and more novelty.  And when you’ve got it floored in the fast lane on Novelty Highway, you just might miss the sign that says “Welcome to Frick’n Depraved. Population Growing.”  I quote the pastor from memory and Jack certainly didn’t say this last part in his sermon.  But that’s where my thinking went.

Because I didn’t see '50 Shades' this weekend (and doubt I ever will).  I saw a different stupid move: Kingsman: The Secret Service.  Apparently it’s based on comic books, which I think we’re supposed to call graphic novels now, but give me a break.  Campy.  Over-the-top.  Dumb but fun.  And then, ten minutes from the end of the movie, two characters who were both stand-up, ethical, rock-solid good guys make a completely gratuitous and raunchy sexual agreement.  Out of nowhere.  The plot didn’t require it.  The specific act didn’t need to be mentioned.  It was just thrown in.  Novelty.  More.

And it made me rethink the movie.  I had been mostly enjoying it.  I was perfectly okay with it being just a CGI-dominated hodgepodge of plots, gags, and gear stolen from 007 movies and The Avengers  (the old TV series)  I was okay with Samuel L. Jackson overacting in the usual way.  Hey, it’s why we go see Samuel L. Jackson.  I was okay with the fawning emphasis on sharp threads ( I think it’s about time more people moved away from pants hanging down below their ass, and bespoke suits are fine with me.  I want to be able to get one, one day.).  I knew what most of the movie would be like when I bought the ticket.  But I didn’t expect the punchline from a Hustler cartoon as the payoff for the hero.  Novelty.  When you’re a Kingsman but it’s no longer fashionable to fight for God & King, how do you wrap up your movie?  With the basics gone, all you’ve got left is novelty, and apparently novelty has now become the damsel and the woodsman working out their deal the way I imagine it’s done in discount trailer-park bordellos in Nevada.

We’re bored. Give us more.  We need another shot of the juice.  Acedia.  

Friday, December 12, 2014

Global Warming and the Name of the Rose

I heard a BBC report on NPR this morning about the international global warming summit being held in Peru.  As the BBC reporters discussed arguments by the representatives of various countries over which countries were allowed to “produce” certain amounts of carbon, partially based on the “historical advantage" Western countries have had in the use of fossil fuels, I was struck by how medieval it all sounded. And I was reminded of a movie I once saw.

The Name of the Rose is a murder mystery set in the 14th Century, at a remote monastery.  In the movie, various heavy-weight Church leaders and theologians all travel to this remote location for the purpose of settling an important theological question: does scripture support the belief that Christ owned his own clothes.


The global warming arguments about carbon credits are kind of like that.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Women In Combat, Sexism, and the NFL

A Facebook Friend called me “sexist” because I oppose putting women in combat.

Here’s an illustration of my reasoning.  No matter how technologically advanced a military is, or how much air and artillery support we can usually bring to bear during a fight, or what kind of electronics and optics our forces are using, it is an absolute certainty that sometimes things are going to go old school.  Some American combatant is going to find himself face to face with an enemy that is trying to kill him, up close and personal.  An American perimeter is going to be overrun, or one of the listening posts forward will be.  A Marine clearing a building is going to find himself bumping into a bad guy without enough room to shoot, or with his weapon misfiring.  Some jihadi is going to jump on a Ranger while he’s reloading.  It happens in Iraq.  It happens in Afghanistan.  It will happen wherever we send out forces.  If things go right, it will not happen often, but it will happen.

I oppose women in combat because when those things happen, when that jihadi jumps, I want that jihadi to find himself going hand-to-hand with Ray Rice. Not Ray Rice’s wife.  This does not make me a sexist.

Friday, June 27, 2014

The Sackett Who Would Be King - Review of The Naulahka

Just published a very brief review at Amazon.  The book is:

The Naulahka: A Story of West and East.

Here's the link to the review at Amazon.

The novel is a collaboration between Rudyard Kipling and Wolcott Balestier. It is essentially an American western story set in India. Think of a cross between Louis L'Amour and Rudyard Kipling: The Sackett Who Would Be King. It is the 1880's. Nicholas Tarvin is a resourceful, young mover & shaker in Topaz, Colorado. Possessed of a rather flexible moral disposition, he is already becoming a successful man. All that's missing from his life is marriage to the girl he loves, and a way to ensure the Three C's railroad runs through Topaz so the value of his town real estate holdings will skyrocket and make him rich. Kate Sheriff however has vowed to dedicate her life to bringing medical aid to suffering women in India, and is leaving for the princely state of Rhatore, known for little other than dust, a capricious and dissolute maharajah, and a mythical necklace of priceless value that may not exist. And as to the railroad, Nick learns it is likely to route through a different, competing, nearby town - a fact he learns during a chance meeting with the president of the railroad and the president's young wife. The young wife happens to be a lover of fine jewelry.

Did I mention Nick is a resourceful young man? If you've ever enjoyed a paperback western, or the writing of, say, Mark Twain, you should check this book out. I have read it now for the third time. I actually have a used, hard-cover copy but am placing the review here because the Kindle edition is only 99 cents and I want others to enjoy it as much as I did.