Relabeling

What is relabeling? It means to change your outward appearance to more accurately reflect your organizations goals and purpose. That has lead to today’s leading story. The question you must ask yourselves, “Is this true? Or, is it about to be true?”

Headline from somewhere on the Internet…

Democrat Party to Relabel Itself

June 31st, 2015
OldDemSymbol

Old DNC Symbol

The DNC announced today that is was discontinuing the use of its century old icon, the Donkey, as its political symbol. After a complaint from PETA claiming the symbol was unfair to depict the party as a “beast of burden,” and after the party agreed that the symbol was inappropriate since many of its members haven’t held jobs nor worked for generations, the DNC announced it was adopting a new symbol more in line with its half century history and political goals.

NewDNCsymbol

New DNC LOGO

AltNewDNCSymbol

Alternate DNC LOGO for official vehicles

The DNC said the new symbol was adopted from the organization that has been closely aligned with the DNC since the 1960s, supporting the party and financing some leading democrat leaders. The DNC said it was finally time to openly display their aims and goals with their new symbol. The DNC included an alternate symbol in their announcement suitable for banners and bumper stickers, especially for official party vehicles.

Party leaders, activists across the the country and academia applauded the announcement.

Yes, I’m feeling snarky this morning.

***

Is the US and NATO acting to blunt Putin’s aggression? He thinks so. NATO troops and armored forces entered Poland for a well publicized military exercise. It is to be a show of force against Putin’s aggression in Crimea and the Ukraine.

Putin is not amused and threatened retaliation. The Cold War has returned at a time when Obama is desperate to have a legacy, any legacy, now that his major accomplishment, Obamacare, may be crippled if the Supreme Court blocks federal subsidies for Obamacare recipients. One pundit said, “You can end communism in Russia, but you can’t remove the KGB from the Russian.” The Russian in this case is Putin. He has reverted to his previous KGB mentality.

The NATO exercise is not impressing the world’s military organizations. NATO has relied too long on the US for their security. NATO and the EU has sacrificed their militaries to feed their socialist states. Now, when the Cold War has resumed and with the US military resources still tied to the Mideast, NATO is barely able to field any forces to repel Putin if he invades the rest of the Ukraine…and perhaps the former EastBloc countries.

Even if the US was not sill involved in the Mideast, the US has reduced it’s military to a century-old level. The US Navy has fewer ships than it did prior to World War I. Much of the US war stocks, built up in Europe during the earlier cold war, has been expended during Gulf Wars I and II. With the military reductions imposed by Obama and the democrats, those war stocks have not been replenished. In some cases during military actions in Iraq and elsewhere, the US Navy ran out of cruise and land attack missiles.

Those miliary stocks have been slowly replaced. If at all. Some of the tooling needed to build more missiles was destroyed by DoD orders when the contracts expired. Now, when more missiles are needed, those tools are gone and it will be expensive to remake them.

But Putin isn’t the only aggressor on the horizon, The PRC, Communist China to everyone but the socialists around the world, is building a military base in the territory claimed by several other nations.

China builds new island military bases in South China Sea

Posted: May 20, 2015 8:06 PM CDT Updated: May 27, 2015 8:06 PM CDT
 
The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

SOUTH CHINA SEA (CNN) – It’s a tense confrontation between China’s military and an American spy plane monitoring disturbing developments in disputed waters hundreds of miles off the Chinese coast.

China’s activity in the South China Sea has peaked the interest of the U.S. military.

“Foreign military aircraft. This is the Chinese Navy. You are approaching our military alert zone.”

High above the South China Sea, the radio crackles with a stern warning.

“You go!”

The source of dispute appears on the horizon, seemingly out of nowhere.

Islands, manmade by China, located hundreds of miles from its coastline.

CNN got exclusive access to classified U.S. surveillance flights over the islands.

The first time journalists have been allowed on the operational mission by the state of the art P-8 Poseidon, America’s most advance surveillance and sub-hunting aircraft.

Three islands are the target of the mission. It’s the three islands that have been the focus of China’s building in the South China Sea over recent years.

China’s alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is to push U.S. dominance in the region.

Sailing its first aircraft carrier, equipping its nuclear missions with multiple warheads, developing missiles to destroy aircraft carriers, and now building military bases far from its shores.

For the U.S., the islands are a step too far. And the flight is a part of a new and old American military response that may soon include sailing U.S. warships close by as well.

In just two years, China has expanded the islands by 2,000 acres. The equivalent of 1,500 football fields and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet.

An American commander talks about what he sees.

“It appears to be a buildup of military infrastructure and not to mention we were just challenged probably 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese Navy. And I’m highly confident that it came from a shore on this facility,” said Capt. Mike Parker, commander in the U.S. Navy.

What used to be the fiery cross reef now has early warning radar and an airport tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military.

Some are calling it China’s unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The videos of the island taken from the P-8 advanced surveillance cameras never before declassified.

In a sign of just how valuable that China views them, the new islands are already well protected.

“There’s obviously a lot of surface traffic down there… uhh… Chinese warships and Chinese coast guard ships,” said Lt. Commander Matt Newman, mission commander in the U.S. Navy.

And there is proof. The Chinese navy ordering the P-8 out of the airspace not one, not twice, but eight times on the mission.

“This is the Chinese Navy. This is the Chinese Navy. Please go away quickly.”

And like the surveillance video, the audio of these warnings never before shared with the public.

What is interesting is there are also civilian aircrafts, there was a Delta flight on that same frequency. And when it heard that challenge it piped into the frequency to say what’s going on?

The Chinese Navy then reassuring them but as the flight crew says that can be a very nerve wracking experience for civilian aircraft in the area.

And the more China builds the more frequently and aggressively it warns away U.S. aircraft.

The crucial issue facing American voters in the coming national election is who to choose to lead us in the coming troubled times? Some of the candidates are isolationists, although they refuse to acknowledge the label. If a military confrontation occurs in the Ukraine or in the South China Sea, will our next President refuse to act, claiming it is not our business, or will he defend our allies and national security?

As much as some libertarians deny the fact, we cannot sit isolated from the world. We are dependent on allies and, if we are to have allies, they must be able to depend on us. The US and India has entered into talks discussing areas of mutual interest…the South China Sea, being one. India has a common border with China and has had military border disputes with China before.

When we choose a new President, we must chose one who is unafraid to remain involved in the world because the world will not be afraid to be involved in us.

Rand is in

Rand Paul announced his candidacy for President today. Erick Erickson wrote a column today that mirrors my concerns about Rand Paul as prez.

Welcome to the Arena, Senator Paul

Erick Erickson (Diary)  | 

Today, in Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is going to announce his campaign for President of the United States.

This 2016 run has caused one unnoticed negative for conservatives. Since it became obvious that they’d be competing against each other in 2016, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz has had a less than stellar working relationship when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. At least now it can be out there and the differences between the two can be aired.

Paul is going to have baggage that Cruz does not have. Paul backed McConnell against Matt Bevin in 2014 and McConnell is doing nothing now to reciprocate. Though McConnell won, it left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservative activists. Likewise, Rand Paul is going to have the shadow of his father lingering over him and will have to, again, show he is his own man. The zealous nature of many Ron Paul supporters keeps some from embracing Rand Paul and, concurrently, Team Paul has historically done awesome at winning straw polls, just not regular polls.

But Paul will be free of some baggage that Cruz has. Paul has gone out of his way to show he can work within establishment circles. Backing McConnell helped. Likewise, Paul has shown himself to be a less doctrinaire conservative, which will help him with the media, even if it does not with the base.

Many of my friends think Rand Paul operates as a closet Democrat. I think, in fact, he comes the closest to an authentic civil libertarian candidate in some time. He is willing to approach issues on race in ways other Republicans don’t, if only to mitigate prior attacks on him for his statements on civil rights legislation. He has also been willing to speak critically of American engagement abroad when most Republicans rah-rah any use of force.

The column continues at the website.

Rand Paul is waay down my list of preferred candidates. Still, I admit that he’s better than Bush, Christi or Huckabee. I believe Paul would secure our borders…but that’s all. His and his father’s political views are isolationist following the Libertarian platform. That platform does not support a strong military.

Paul’s foreign policy would be a retreat to our shores. Our Navy would revert to a ‘brown-water’ navy from a ‘blue water’ navy. Without ‘foreign entanglements,’ the US would not need a large military. Paul would continue the deterioration of our military capability. That is a very dangerous attitude and I see no amelioration of that in Rand Paul.

The US has lost its leadership of the world. I do not see Rand Paul interested in fixing that situation.

Ramirez_04072015

The race is on!

 

It’s not easy…

…being a RINO.

Conservatives in Congress continue to give John Boehner and Mitch McConnell headaches. That makes me smile! It’s hardly been a month since the GOP took control of both houses of Congress. In the first week of the new Congress, more legislation has been passed that in the entire year of 2014 under Harry Reid. The ball has now passed to Obama. Will he sign or veto?

Unfortunately, most of the legislation passed has been non-consequential. The tough bills, changes in abortion funding and border security have been pulled in the face of conservative opposition who have problems with sections of both bills.

Trouble in GOP ranks kills votes on border and abortion bills

– The Washington Times – Monday, January 26, 2015

Facing a rebellion in their own ranks, House Republican leaders scrapped their plans to vote this week on their first border security bill of the new Congress, blaming the weather for the delay but buying themselves time to try to stiffen the bill and make it more palatable to conservatives.

It’s the second bill in as many weeks that Republican leaders have had to pull after internal opposition. Last week the GOP scrapped a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, acting the night before the March for Life, after realizing that some female Republican House members had concerns.

The border bill had to be pulled after conservatives objected, saying it didn’t do enough to build the border fence or to step up enforcement against illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S.

Rank-and-file Republicans said they’ve been assured the delay is temporary — a similar assurance was given to pro-lifers on their bill last week — and the border bill will be brought back once GOP leaders can add other get-tough provisions to it. They are looking to combine it with updated versions of interior enforcement bills that passed in the previous Congress.

“The idea was just to get the companion bill out here. That is the game plan,” said Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter, Georgia Republican. “It all depends on the progress in [the House] Judiciary [Committee] and them getting it done.”

The column continues here.

At least Boehner did the right thing and is giving conservatives an opportunity to modify both bills as they have demanded. But neither Boehner nor McConnell have gained any confidence from conservatives. Neither Boehner nor McConnell are viewed as having any fortitude to confront Obama and the democrats. The simmering rebellion in the ranks has not dissipated. It’s still there and appears to be growing.

Boehner-McConnell retreat in Obama amnesty fight panics conservatives

– The Washington Times – Sunday, January 25, 2015

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/01/25/boehnermcconnell_s878x789.jpg?bd854b5a5236db4fa381af0adc34957a3c20f6c9

The conservative core of the Republican Party has long been leery of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts.

Conservatives saw it as raising a white flag when Republican congressional leaders pledged not to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security in the fight over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, stoking fears that for the next two years House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will consistently surrender.

For the Republican base, Mr. Obama’s unilateral move to grant legal status and work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants was an unlawful power grab that created a constitutional crisis.

If Republican leaders were not willing to use Congress’ power of the purse — the most potent weapon possessed by lawmakers to restrict a president — to stop a brazen unconstitutional act, conservatives reasoned, would the GOP-controlled Congress ever go to the mat to fight Mr. Obama?

The conservative core of the party has long been leery of Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts. The refusal of the leaders to threaten a government shutdown or even close a single agency to force Mr. Obama to revoke his immigration edicts seemed only to confirm the right wing’s worst suspicions.

“The anger I see from my audience at the Republican Party cannot become any more palpable,” nationally syndicated talk radio host Steve Deace said. “We have a president who looks for new and unique ways to shred the Constitution on an almost daily basis, and we have a Republican Party leadership that refuses to do anything about it.”

He said Republican incumbents should expect a backlash and primary challenges next year because of their weak attempt to stop the amnesty.

“People are this angry about it. They feel as if they are already not represented and essentially they have been betrayed by most of the people they just worked to elect in November,” said Mr. Deace. “That’s why people are angry at this, because they realize the people that are in charge of our party don’t believe in almost anything in our party platform. They don’t. They are just treacherous.”

Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell declined to use the power of the purse to try to stop deportation amnesty when they pushed through a spending bill in December that funded all of the government except Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

They promised a showdown over immigration before temporary funding for Homeland Security expires Feb. 27. But faced with a spate of terrorism in Europe and cyberattacks by North Korea, the Republican leaders also promised not to shut down Homeland Security and jeopardize the safety of Americans.

Meanwhile, Mr. McConnell and his team expressed doubts about getting the 60 votes in the Senate needed to approve the House-passed spending bill for Homeland Security that included policy riders blocking Mr. Obama’s immigration moves.

Spineless cowards. I have an idea! Let’s use Harry Reid’s rules. Let’s declare these bills as budget bills and pass them with a simple majority. It it worked for Harry, why not for Mitch?

We know why. Boehner and McConnell are more afraid of democrats than they are of us. That can be changed. We had the opportunity with the election of a new Speaker. Unfortunately, not enough Congressmen have spines and need to be replaced.

Friday Follies for September 12, 2014

I made a mistake yesterday…a math error really. I had calculated that 110 votes were needed in the Missouri House to overturn Governor Jay Nixon’s veto. I was wrong. It was 109 votes that was needed.

At the end of yesterday’s post, I made a little rant about needing just one more vote to override the veto on SB 523 that prohibited RFID tracking of public school students. I thought the veto had been sustained. I was wrong. The veto on SB 523 was overturned. Yay!!

***

Democrats are going crazy…well more than they usually are. As November and it’s midterm election grows closer, the democrats sink deeper in the outhouse. Real Clear Politics released their Battleground poll and it’s not good—for the democrats. The poll shows them 18 points down, overall.

BATTLEGROUND POLL SHOWS DEMS DOWN BY 18 POINTS
If this week’s polling is any evidence, Democrats are facing an even tougher road come November. With President Obama’s approval sinking below former president George W. Bush’s, the latest Fox News poll finds Republicans hold the advantage as they seek to reclaim the Senate. In states with active U.S. Senate races, likely voters say they would back the Republican a 9-point margin. And when looking at the results in just the 14 Fox News battleground states the GOP edge widens to 18-point margin.  Fox News: “The president recently claimed that ‘by almost every measure’ the nation’s economy and American workers are better off now than when he took office. Voters dismiss his boast as ‘mostly false’ by a 58-36 percent margin. That includes 37 percent of Democrats who think it doesn’t ring true.”

[The battleground list: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, South Dakota and West Virginia] — FOX Newsletter, September 12, 2014.

The Battleground poll is not the only indicator that the dems are losing their base. Their so-call War on Women campaign is failing, too. In fact, it appears their campaign has boomeranged against them.

Dem base cracks up – WaPo: “Women surveyed [in the WaPo/ABC News poll] said they disapprove of [President Obama ] by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin — nearing an all-time low in the poll. It’s almost the reverse of the 55 percent to 44 percent breakdown for Obama among female voters in 2012, according to exit polls…His approval rating among women has slipped four percentage points from a year ago and 16 points since his second inaugural in January 2013, when his approval was 60 percent among the group. Among younger voting-age Americans, Obama’s approval rating stood at 43 percent. That marked an 11-point drop since June among those 18 to 29 years old.” — FOX Newsletter, September 12, 2014.

When you add to these polls other indicators, such as the massive override yesterday of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s vetos on such controversial issues as Abortion, Gun Rights, and Open Carry, it doesn’t take a genius to know that the dems are in trouble. It couldn’t happen to a better party.

***

ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIL, the Islamic State of the Levant, as Obama calls it, is at war with the US, so said Obama the other night. What’s the difference between ISIS and ISIL? The included territory. The Levant is the old 19th century name for that portion of the Mediterranean coast from southern Turkey down to the Sinai peninsula. It includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and…Israel. No one includes Israel as ISIS territory except Obama.

But continuing, we, as a nation, are upset at seeing a stream of barbarity by ISIS. People wonder how civilized people could do such massive murder and mayhem. The answer is quite simple. ISIS and their Islamic followers are not civilized. They have not progressed to a social and cultural level where a nation is possible. They are stuck in a primitive culture, in stasis, that grants loyalty only to the family, clan, or at best, tribe.

Tom Kratman, author, lawyer and retired US Army Lt. Colonel, wrote an article for a web-magazine. He drew on his experience, acquired during Gulf War I and later, to write why Islamists behave as they do. Kratman speaks and writes bluntly—but he knows well of what he says.

Why Are Arab Armies So Generally Worthless?

Mon, Sep 1 – 9:00 am EDT | 2 weeks ago by

http://www.everyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lines-of-departure-arab-army.pngAs an American soldier, I found that one of the best and most satisfying things about the first Gulf War, the liberation of Kuwait, was that we’d never again have to listen to how great the Israelis were. We’d seen the Arabs, met them, and went through them like a hot knife through butter. What did Tzahal have to teach us?

It’s a complex set of problems they have, the armies of the Arab world. Here’s a true story that will illustrate a lot of that why. It’s also a story I’ve told before in the essay, Training for War1:

During Bright Star 85, the Egyptian Army, which is one of the better Arab armies, set up some tents for us as Wadi Natrun, northwest of Cairo. The officer in charge of the detail looked at the Americans, looked at the tents (which were, by the way, better than ours), looked at the Americans…

He was thinking that an American’s signature on a hand receipt would do him no good if one of those very good and very expensive tents grew legs and went to hide in a shipping container. He put his platoon in formation, held up three fingers, and announced, “I need three guards.”

Every man reached into his back pocket, pulled out a wallet and began peeling off notes. That is to say, they were offering bribes, baksheesh. The three who came up with the smallest bribes were picked to guard the tents. These three then proceeded to squat by the road, hold hands, and cry like babies.2 And it was sort of understandable that they cried because for the next four days they got no food or water except what our men gave them out of pity; their officer just didn’t care.

That’s what you fight when you fight Arab armies, and that’s why we went through them like lightning. They’re a collection of demoralized bipedal sheep, usually led by corrupt and connected human filth. Exceptions? Sure there are exceptions; I’ve met a few. That’s why we call them “exceptional.” Shazly, the Egyptian general who got the army across the Suez, was an exception. He’s dead. Baki Zaki Youssef, the then young lieutenant of engineers who figured out how to breach the sand wall on the eastern bank of the Suez is old now. That he’s also a Copt, a Christian, may also suggest something about the problems of the Muslim mass.3

The Arabs are what the sociologists like to call “amoral familists.” This means that they are nearly or totally incapable of forming bonds of love and loyalty with anyone not a blood relation. Even then, the degree of blood relation determines where loyalty legitimately lies. The saying in the area is: “Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world.” This not only allows a superior to extort baksheesh from non-relations, but identifies him as an idiot – a weak idiot, actually – if he does not.

The Arab private? He’s no more a coward than anybody else. Indeed, as an individual, I might rate him above, or even substantially above, the human norm. But he is just one man, alone.

With us, the very broad us within the western military tradition and some eastern military traditions, or with Israelis, who are very western, “It’s all of us against all of them. They’re toast.” With him? With that poor dumb-shit Arab private? “It’s all of them against me alone. I’m toast.” He knows no one in his unit cares about him; after all, he doesn’t care about any of them, either. They’re just not family. So when that private is placed in the loneliest position in the world, the modern battlefield? He runs or surrenders at the first sign things are going badly. (He’ll be fine as long as they are going well, though. Note: Things rarely go well.) Defeat is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that has been fulfilled so often at this point that an Arab who didn’t expect it probably ought be locked up for his own good.

Add in the fantasy mindset. Don’t forget “Insh’allah,” (Which is like “mañana,” but without the sense of urgency) which makes it somewhat impious to train really well since it is all the will of God anyway. Insh’allah also provides an excuse for bad behavior on the battlefield. Add in a set of social values that despise and loathe physical labor.

Militarily, they’ve got nothing going for them.4

This may piss some people off; the Israelis have routinely stomped the Arabs so badly not because the Israelis are so great. In fact, outside of a few units the Israelis are just decent citizen soldier militia, nothing very special. But fighting the Arabs even just decent militia can shine.

I suggested in footnote four, below, that there is a way to make better Arab units, but it has three severe limitations and problems. The first of these is closely related to what I said above, Arabs rarely if ever can form bonds of loyalty and love with non-blood relations. Hence, one forms units of blood relations. They will fight like hell for each other, their fathers and uncles, their brothers and cousins, and for the glory of the clan. What happens then, though?

The first problem is that the units so formed are also the power, standing and security of their clan. They can only afford to lose or to risk so much without damaging that power, standing and security. They won’t usually run. Surrender is rare indeed. Still, there comes a point when they simply have to retire in good order.

The second problem is a problem from the point of view of the government that raises the blood-based units. In an organization that is formed from a clan or tribe, the loyalty of everyone, from the rank and file to the commanding officer, is not to the government. It isn’t to the country, which is a pretty weak concept in the Arab world anyway. Family and faith matter there a great deal; countries little or not at all.

I don’t know if the third problem is inevitable, but I’ve seen it just about enough to suspect so.

Watch the commander of a battalion of the Saudi Haras al Watiny, the National Guard.5 Watch how he acts with his driver. Tactfully nose about to see what the familial relationship is with that driver. Odds are, the driver – driving, not being driven, is the prestige and power position amongst the Saudi Arabs – is the battalion commander’s uncle, hence senior in the clan. He is the real battalion commander. He exercises real political control over the battalion. He may let the youngster pretend that said youngster is in charge. The above may differ in details, but the trend generally holds.

__________

1 http://www.amazon.com/Training-War-Essay-Tom-Kratman-ebook/dp/B00JQI9TH2/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_d_3 Note the temptingly low price.

2 Although there does appear to be a fairly strong element of bisexuality in the Arab male’s makeup, no, men holding hands doesn’t mean that.

3 I’m really not a huge fan of most people, but I’ll state for the record that if there are any people living I’d go out of my way to shake the hand of, Lieutenant Baki Zaki Youssef is not least among them. Neither would Shazly have been.

4 The Arab Legion is a partial exception to this, as is the Saudi National Guard, but they are highly limited exceptions.

5 The Haras al Watiny is the Saudi version of balance of power/separation of powers. They’re not as heavily equipped as the Saudi Army, not nearly, but they don’t need to be because they’re much tougher. Much. Personally, I quite like the Haras as, indeed, I like the Saudis.

Tom Kratman writes a weekly column, Lines of Departure, on the Every Joe Website.

Is history repeating itself?

A number of writers and bloggers, myself included, have noted the similarities of our current events to those just prior to World War I. If you take a step back and look at the underlying issues, our times also mirror events during the 1930s just before World War II.

Putin wants to restore Russia to its former USSR status. While the former USSR was nominally Communist, it was governed by a closed group, a political party that operated as an oligarchy. Hitler, like Putin after him, wanted to restore Germany to the status it held before World War I with its world-wide empire. Germany, like the USSR, was nominally socialist but was governed by an oligarchy masquerading as the National Socialist Workers Party, the Nazis.

Hitler took the Rhineland breaking Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact in 1936. The Rhineland was a demilitarized zone in western Germany, that created a buffer between isolating Germany from Belgium and France.

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in July 1919–eight months after the guns fell silent in World War I–called for stiff war reparation payments and other punishing peace terms for defeated Germany. Having been forced to sign the treaty, the German delegation to the peace conference indicated its attitude by breaking the ceremonial pen. As dictated by the Treaty of Versailles, Germany’s military forces were reduced to insignificance and the Rhineland was to be demilitarized.

In 1925, at the conclusion of a European peace conference held in Switzerland, the Locarno Pact was signed, reaffirming the national boundaries decided by the Treaty of Versailles and approving the German entry into the League of Nations. The so-called “spirit of Locarno” symbolized hopes for an era of European peace and goodwill, and by 1930 German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann had negotiated the removal of the last Allied troops in the demilitarized Rhineland. — History.com.

Two years later in march of 1938, Hitler annexed Austria into the growing German Empire. The Anschluss, as it was called, is exactly like the annexation of Crimea into Putin’s resurgent Russian Empire.

Before the end of 1938, Hitler, through political maneuverings, absorbed the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia when Neville Chamberlain of Britain and Édouard Daladier of France refused to intervene.

http://gdb.voanews.com/CBBF0236-4C48-427A-8268-A80B0BECB923_cx0_cy10_cw0_mw1024_s_n.jpgI should note that Russian armored forces has entered the Ukraine and the Ukraine is left defenseless after the US and NATO have refused to honor security agreements between them and the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine says Russian forces cross border in tanks, armored vehicles

August 25 at 11:12 AM

Ukraine charged that Russian forces crossed into eastern Ukraine early Monday in military vehicles, including tanks, as Russia vowed to send a second humanitarian aid convoy into the country this week to deliver emergency supplies to areas held by pro-Moscow separatists.

Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Russian military vehicles with the insignia of the separatists’ self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic “violated the state border of Ukraine” near Novoazovsk in the southern part of Donetsk region.

It was the latest, and one of the most forceful, accusations from Kiev that Russia has been directly supplying weapons, personnel and other assistance to the separatists fighting government troops in eastern Ukraine.

Lysenko said at least 10 tanks, two armored vehicles and two trucks from russia crossed into Ukrainian territory at 5:20 a.m. Monday, potentially bound for the key port city of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov. The highway leading to Mariupol is currently under control of the Ukrainian military, he said.

The Russian military vehicles flying rebel flags moved toward the village of Shcherbak, where they engaged in battle with soldiers of a Ukrainian border unit, Lysenko said in a briefing Monday. He said the Ukrainian forces then called for reinforcements and managed to stop the advance of the convoy just outside the villages of Shcherbak and Markyne. The villages are north of the larger town of Novoazovsk, about five miles from the Russian border.

The rest of the article can be found here, at the Washington Post website.

The first question is if Putin’s incursion into the Ukraine is like that of Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. The difference is that in 1939, Britain and France actually honored their treaties with Poland. Today, after Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, Obama couldn’t be bothered and is playing golf somewhere and the EU nations and NATO have emasculated themselves by depending on the US military to provide their defense. The similarities between today and the open scenes of World War II are astounding.

On the other side of the world, similar scenes are playing. In the 1930s, Imperial Japan invaded China in a quest for natural resources. As an island nation, Japan had few, if any, resources needed for an industrialized society. It lacked oil, iron and coal. China and the territory around the South China Sea, Indo-China, the Philippines, and Dutch East Indian Islands, had all those resources in abundance. The problem facing Japan is that the territory belonged to other European powers…until an opportunity arose when those powers became embroiled in war.

Communist China is acting Imperial Japan of the 1930s. China has arbitrarily and in violation of a number of Open Seas treaties, laid claim to much of the South China Sea—and the resources that lay underneath those shallow waters. China started drilling in territory claimed by Vietnam that sparked riots and the movement of Chinese troops to the Vietnamese border.

China has expanded their military and has recently taken to harassing US Navy maritime patrol planes. In 2001, a Chinese fighter colliding with a US Navy EP-3 patrol aircraft causing the US plane to make an emergency landing on China’s Hainan Island. China asserted its right to harass aircraft after this latest incident.

China rejects U.S. criticism over jet encounter

BEIJING Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:19pm EDT

(Reuters) – China on Saturday called US criticism of an approach by one of its jets to a US Navy patrol plane off the Chinese coast earlier this week “completely groundless” and said its pilot had maintained a safe distance from the US aircraft.

The strongly-worded statement attributed to Ministry of National Defense spokesman Yang Yujun was a response to a diplomatic complaint the Pentagon filed with Beijing on Friday.

The complaint concerned an August 19 encounter about 215 km (135 miles) east of China’s Hainan Island in which a Chinese fighter jet came within meters (yards) of a US P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine and reconnaissance plane and, the US claimed, performed acrobatic maneuvers around it.In its statement, the Chinese defense ministry said the J-11 jet was conducting routine checks and described the pilot’s actions as professional.The United States’ frequent short-range reconnaissance missions threatened the safety of both militaries, it said.

It urged the US to reduce short-range reconnaissance against China and to respect international law and conventions.

Yes, more and more the world appears to be entering a new stage for conflict, a conflict on the scale of earlier world wars. And, like those earlier wars, the United States and Europe are woefully unprepared for conflict.

The Crazy Years

Robert A Heinlein’s ‘Future History’ had a period during the latter half of the 20th Century called the Crazy Years. From a late 1940s, 1950s viewpoint, Heinlein, in some of his books, included headlines that would seem farcial when viewed through the lenses of the common culture at that time.

One definition of ‘Crazy Years’ was proposed by writer John C. Wright.

The main sign of when madness has possessed a crowd, or a civilization, is when the people are fearful of imaginary or trivial dangers but nonchalant about real and deep dangers. When that happens, there is gradual deterioration of mores, orientation, and social institutions—the Crazy Years have arrived. — John C. Wright.

How accurate! People up in arms about being offended at common words while ignoring the infusion of our enemies through their ‘open border’ policies.

Heinlein’s future history has been documented in his novels and short stories. While the fictional time period of the Crazy Years, as viewed by Heinlein’s timeline, was in the past century, if you use Wright’s definition above, the Crazy Years are now.

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1439133417/143913341701.jpg

One technique used by Heinlein was to include fictional headlines in his stories, headlines that may have appeared on some tabloid of the time. One such headline, if I remember it correctly, was, “Two-headed boy born to…” We only need to view the headlines on Drudge to see the parallels of our current condition to the Crazy Years Heinlein foresaw over half a century ago. Below is a random sampling from Drudge. If you read them as if they appeared in one of Heinlein’s stories, a viewpoint of the early 1960s, no one would believe they were real.

State Department hires firm to coach witnesses on Congressional testimony...

Mystery 'Water Vigilante' Cuts Flow to Homes...

Border Patrol: Feds Releasing Murderers Into USA...

School District Defends 9th Grade Sex-Ed Book Detailing Bondage...

Heinlein would have been astounded…well perhaps not. He had a cynical view of people. Writer Sarah A Hoyt has a more descriptive view of our current times. She calls them the, “fracking insane years.”

I’m here to tell you these are not the crazy years, these are the fracking insane years.  Yesterday I went for a long walk and because I didn’t have my son – he was volunteering at the hospital – and therefore had to stay off the more interesting parts of downtown, I took an audio book to keep me company.  The book, because I’m writing space opera and trying to internalize his rhythms (and also because I really am trying to avoid using his terminology, etc, by reminding myself what it is.  I grew up with it, and to me it just means “science fiction” but of course it’s more than that), was Methuselah’s Children by Robert A. Heinlein.

When he hits the description of the Crazy years – you know, kids striking for less homework, more pay (for going to school) and eating clay sandwiches and such, I thought “Brother, you didn’t know from crazy.” — Sarah A. Hoyt.

Sarah Hoyt is right! Look at the mess along our southern border. Obama has created an environment where our country is actually being invaded, not by armed troops, although some of the drug gangs will substitute nicely for that, but by teenagers and younger children sent here on a false promise of prosperity. A horde of potential, and some actual, parasites with no skills, no education, nothing to allow them to actually build an independent life within the United States.

The libs say the invasion is irresistible. Others say it’s not but it would be disruptive from the infiltrators already in the country. The inflow can be halted. We’ve done it before. But the disloyal opposition, the libs and open border advocates, is ably abetted by the establishment politicians of all parties in Washington.

How, do you ask, could be end the invasion? It’s simple—enforce the laws currently on the books, deploy troops along the border to combat the armed incursions from Mexico and the cartels, end all benefits and assistance to illegals in the US regardless of their method of entry, and finally, cut ALL federal money to any city, county and state that refuses to enforce those immigration laws, i.e., the Sanctuary Cities.

I would bet, when the federal funding ends, San Francisco and the other Sanctuary Cities, and states like California, would quickly change—or succumb to chaos. On second thought, the libs and their Marxist supporters would probably welcome chaos believing they could win a coup—at least at the state level. Considering California, I’m not sure if that would be any different from the current state of the state’s politics.

The bottom line is that we could reverse the influx of illegal aliens if we had the desire and backbone. Unfortunately, we have neither in the federal government. We truly live in “fracking insane years!”

News and Views

Obama went to Texas this week. He went for another fundraiser. He had no intention to visit the border—and didn’t over the protests of his own party members, such as Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-TX.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Perry.Hannity.pngGovernor Rick Perry met Obama on the tarmac of Austin’s airport to ask Obama to go with him to the border. “He flies in a big airplane. It’s only 350 miles to the border,” Perry said in an interview with Shawn Hannity last night. Perry and Obama did meet to discuss the border, a meeting that resulted in Obama’s presser yesterday that said nothing and continued to blame Republicans for the border crisis.

Obama wants billions to ‘fix’ the border. He doesn’t need more billions; he can do that immediately by ordering the DoD to secure the border. In fact, Obama has a duty to do so. But he won’t. Instead he’ll dither as usual and do nothing while the problem compounds itself. The crisis is nearing the boiling point from Texas to California. Obama could not care less.

What will happen next? No one knows…except that it won’t, while Obama remains in office, get any better.

***

There is a bill floating in the Senate that Dems hope with give them some creds with Second Amendment activists. The bill has a lot of good changes in it…and a poison pill for anyone who votes for it.

EDITORIAL: No free pass on gun rights for red-state Democrats

Republicans must deny endangered incumbents a phony vote