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!”

Federal unions vow payback

Today is March 1st and the monstrous ‘sequester’ is supposed to be in effect. But…it’s not yet. Why? As of this time, 9:30am CST, Obama hasn’t signed the paperwork. He’s still waiting for the ‘Pubs to cave and agree to more taxes. He’s called McConnell and other Senate leaders to the White House to make a deal. McConnell, before the meeting swore, “No new taxes!”

Where have I heard that before?

SEIU and the National Federation of Federal Employees are warning lawmakers they will get payback. Quote: “Why should hardworking, middle-class federal employees have to suffer because our elected officials can’t clean up the mess they created?” — New York Post.

They are correct to blame ‘elected officials.’ Unfortunately, they aren’t blaming the correct ones—Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama. On the other hand, they are overpaid and parasitic, sucking more from the economy and provide little or no return for our money except to eat more of our fiscal resources.

The article continues…

That would erase any budget savings or debt reduction resulting from the furloughs, which is supposed to be the whole idea.

Federal employees have a history of winning these labor fights.

The workers got their back pay the last time they suffered mass “unpaid” furloughs during the 1996 government shutdown under President Bill Clinton.

The automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, threaten furloughs of up to a day a week for hundreds of thousands of federal employees, cutting their weekly paychecks by 20 percent.

Furloughs for as many as 875,000 federal workers would kick in after April 1, forcing workers to stay home without pay one day a week for about 22 weeks. — The New York Post.

That may gain some sympathy if it was correct. It’s not. The ones impacted are the non-union positions, the engineers, technical consultants that actually do work instead of unionized bureaucrats who, for the most part, do little more than push paper. We can reasonably rest assured Obama won’t impact his union contributors. As least not their leadership. The rank ‘n file are on their own.

***

Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up! I was surfin’ the internet this morning and what do I find?  This!

Kerry, Hagel and Brennan: The 3 Stooges are running the country

Friday, March 1, 2013 – What in the World by Bob Taylor
Washington is starting to look like a black and white comedy short: The Three Stooges running the country.

Photo: The Three Stooges

CHARLOTTE, February 29, 2013 ― As the new Secretary of State, Kerry is boning up on Islam and has learned that it “is not represented by a lot of jihadists and others,” but is, instead, “a beautiful religion.”

But Kerry continued by adding, “I’ve been reading a book recently called No god but God, which is the history of the Prophet and where he came from and how it developed as a religion. It’s fascinating.”

That should be enough to immediately let us know the direction of Kerry’s tenure in his new position, a direction wholeheartedly endorsed by President Obama.

When a controversial new CIA director, Brennan, who is just a confirmation vote away, joins his equally unqualified partner, Hagel, as Secretary of Defense, the trio will be complete and the image of the United States as a global force to be respected will be further diminished.

I could not make a more appropriate description of these three other than renaming them, Larry, Moe and Curly.

Obama’s chickeeeens have come hooome!

I was listening to a news item on the radio this morning and this paraphrased quote came to mind. “Obama’s chickeeeens, have come hooooome, to roost!” It seem that the Detroit city council, now that they’ve delivered 75% of Detroit’s voters to Obama, want pay-back. They’re demanding the Obama bail out their city.

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

Posted: Dec 05, 2012 6:00 AM CST, Updated: Dec 05, 2012 7:39 AM CST

DETROIT (WJBK) — The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.”

I would like you to note that Councilman JoAnn Watson is NO relation of mine. Obama was re-elected, in part by promising everyone the moon. Now those voters want Obama to keep those promises.  The response from the White House on these demands is…  ** crickets…crickets **.

***

The democrats continue with their agenda to marginalize the military and military veterans. The dems added an amendment to a defense bill passing through the Senate. The amendment would allow the Veteran’s Administration to rescind veteran’s 2nd Amendment rights if those veterans are deemed “mentally incompetent” by the VA or the military services.

How long do you think it’d be before every serviceman who ever served overseas in a combat zone, or a potential combat zone, or sailed in or close to a combat zone, or flew over a combat zone, is deemed to suffer PTSD and therefore sufficient cause to prohibit them from owning and/or purchasing a firearm? Senator John McCain was upset that Senator Rand Paul promised to filibuster the amendment and threatened to vote with the dems.

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops

By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times, Monday, December 3, 2012A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.

“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Note Senator Schumer equating veterans to felons.  The veterans have committed no crimes, other than to serve the country, but Schumer wants them treated the same as convicted felons.  The difference is that the veterans have committed no crime, never been convicted and are only declared incompetent by the VA. The veterans, under the amendment, would have no recourse—except through the VA—Judge, Jury and Executioner all in one federal agency.  Totalitarianism at its best. Veterans, call your Senators if you want to retain your 2nd Amendment rights. Your 1st Amendment rights are under fire from the dems as well.

Your Government knows best

My wife and I joined our local community center this week. Usually I take walks in our local park. However, the incidents of dogs running loose has increased. Monday, two dogs were running loose and one growled at me as I walked past.  Last year I was charged by another dog.  I am armed but I’d rather avoid situations where I may need a weapon.

As we approached the entrance of the community center, I saw a sign that said No Firearms Allowed. Geez, another Come Rob Me zone. Inside kids were running around. There’s a summer “camp” at the center.  I looked around. No guard. Nothing to safeguard the kids if someone entered with bad intentions than a few teenaged summer employees—muscles against a 9mm or whatever is the current gang favorite.

My wife likes the place. She doesn’t like hot weather, or rather I’m more tolerant of heat than she. Anyway, we joined.  I have the choice of being able to defend myself if in need and walk in the park…with the dogs. Or walk in the air conditioned community center, unarmed and defenseless if ever the need arose.

Some choice.  I wonder what the legal liability of the city would be if some incident did occur and a child was kidnapped or injured because there was no one with a weapon on the premises?

Gun-Free Zone

***

Public sector unions are in the news again, this time in Illinois.  The teachers in Chicago want a raise, a 30% raise when the average teacher salary is $71,000 a year.

Lindsey Burke, June 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm

It takes a lot of nerve to ask for a 30 percent pay raise. You’d better be sure you had a banner year. Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not agree to a 30 percent increase in teachers’ salaries.

The average teacher in Chicago Public Schools—a district facing a $700 million deficit—makes $71,000 per year before benefits are included. If the district meets union demands and rewards teachers with the requested salary increase, education employees will receive compensation north of $92,000 per year.

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, the average annual income of a family in Chicago is $47,000 per year. If implemented, the 30 percent raise will mean that in nine months, a single teacher in the Chicago Public School system will take home nearly double what the average family in the city earns in a year.

According to the union, 91 percent of its members voted for the ability to strike. That vote gives the union the ability to walk out of public school classrooms as children return to school this fall.

The union argues that Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) wants to extend the school day, and that the requested salary increase would compensate them for extending the school day from 5.5 hours—among the nation’s shortest school days—to 7.5 hours. Chicago Public Schools states that under the extended school day:

On average teachers will provide 5.5 hours of instruction (an increase of 54 minutes), receive a 45-minute duty-free lunch and 60-minute prep period and supervise the passing period. They will also be required to be on-site for 10 minutes before and after school.

While the union bemoans the longer school day and is demanding a hefty pay raise as a result, taxpayers will be left holding the bill for a 30 percent salary increase and wondering whether $92,000 is appropriate compensation for public school employees.

Thirty percent raise!!!

The last time I received a raise was in 2003. We had a choice, no raise and keep our jobs or demand a raise and sweat layoffs.  We chose to keep our jobs.  That was the last raise I received.

Now, in the depths of a depression a public service union demands—demands! a thirty percent raise! And they’ve voted to strike if they don’t get their demands met.

I see this as a great opportunity for the taxpayers in Illinois.  The state is already heavily in debt and near bankruptcy. I see this as an opportunity to save the state some money.  Fire all the strikers. Hire some recent grads needing a job. I’ll bet they’d accept much less than that $71,000 average. Streamline the administration. How many non-teachers are really needed? I’d bet the Godfather, Rahm Emmanuel, would jump on this opportunity to save his bankrupt city some hard-earned tax dollars.

Who knows, the new teachers may even teach the kids something useful like reading, writing, spelling and grammar with some math thrown in.  Imagine, a school district whose primary interest was teaching instead of feathering their own nest.  What a concept!

Is it time to end NATO?

For the last two decades since the fall of the Soviet Empire, NATO has been without a mission.  Europe used the fall of the USSR to minimalize their militaries—relying on the US for support while emasculating themselves.  When the European Union wanted to use NATO to intervene in the Balkans and Kosovo in the 1990s, it was the US who had to provide the requested military force.  Bill Clinton agreed because the Euros, by themselves, were incapable of provided the needed military force.

The same scenario is happening again in Libya.  I wrote about the lopsided NATO support in an earlier post.  If you examine the chart in that post, you’ll see that the US, contrary to the lies spoken by Obama, is performing the majority of the sorties logistical support. The Brits are a distant second but they had to borrow Maritime Surveillance aircraft from the US Navy to cover their warships in the Med.  They are approaching the point were their operations will have to be cut or terminated according to the Royal Navy sources.  The UK scrapped the RN’s jump-jet carriers and Harriers last year.  If a Falklands Island scenario happened, the Brits would have to ask for the US to step in or wave their possession good-bye.

Only a few NATO nations provided support in proportion to their military capabilities, Norway and Denmark.  Norway has just announced they will be withdrawing as well. They, like the UK, have exhausted their capabilities and need to rest, repair and re-equip.

The US is still providing almost all of the logistical and munition support.  Our stocks are nearing depletion.  Why?  Because the Euros ceased making the bombs, missiles and bullets needed by any extended period of use. Like the attacks on Libya. The Euros assumed they could draw on US stocks.  After all, wasn’t standardized munitions one of the benefits of NATO?

In short, the Euros have been depending on the US to take over their military responsibilities while they have slashed their military budgets to feed their socialist schemes.  

They are parasites feeding on the US and it’s time to stop.


Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with NATO representatives and gave this blunt speech.

Jun 10, 5:30 AM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS

BRUSSELS (AP) – America’s military alliance with Europe – the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades – faces a “dim, if not dismal” future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members’ penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

“Future U.S. political leaders – those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost,” he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.


(AP) ADDS IDENTITY OF PERSON RECEIVING THE SIGNED MAGAZINE U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates hands…

Even so, Gates’ assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO’s main military operations now – Afghanistan and Libya – point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” he said.

Without naming names, he blasted allies who are “willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”

The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

The war in Afghanistan, which is being conducted under NATO auspices, is a prime example of U.S. frustration at European inability to provide the required resources.
 

“Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more,” Gates said.

For many Americans, NATO is a vague concept tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s reason for being came into question. It has remained intact – and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today.

But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
 

Gates said this could spell the demise of NATO.

“What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance,” he said. “Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a very different future.”

Gates has said he believes NATO will endure despite its flaws and failings. But his remarks Friday point to a degree of American impatience with traditional and newer European allies that in coming years could lead to a reordering of U.S. defense priorities in favor of Asia and the Pacific, where the rise of China is becoming a predominant concern.

To illustrate his concerns about Europe’s lack of appetite for defense, Gates noted the difficulty NATO has encountered in carrying out an air campaign in Libya.
 

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” he said.

His comment reflected U.S. frustration with the allies’ limited defense budgets.
 

“To avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities,” he said. (Follow the links to read the entire article.)

I am a child of the cold war.  We had “duck and cover” drills when I was in grade school.  I had just started high school when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred and watched neighbors digging fallout shelters “just in case.”  The draft was a cultural imperative. Everyone served in one form or another in the Armed Services.  Anyone who didn’t was a coward and subject to ridicule.

The US and NATO caused the fall of the Soviet Empire by the strength of our resolve, our economies, and our alliance.  Now twenty years after the fall of the USSR, the European Marxists are creating through the European Union what the USSR could not create through force of arms.

The US invoked NATO’s mutual defense agreements after 9/11.  It’s a good thing we really didn’t need them.

The mission of NATO has been completed.  Now, it must be revised to provide a more balanced participation or be dissolved.  Frankly, if it weren’t for our need of forward bases to protect the US from the new generation of enemies, I’d say let Europe dissolve in the anarchy of their own creation.

Perhaps that will still happen. Perhaps it is time to create new alliances to replace NATO. I note that Japan is continuing to build up their Self Defense Force.  South Korea and Taiwan, for all the negative rhetoric, still has a large and modern militaries.  Perhaps it is time to look west against the growing menace of China instead of east to the former USSR. 

I note that Vietnam is now seeking US support against China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea oil fields—fields also claimed by the Philippines              

Civil Wars

There are a number of “hot” topics in the news today.  It’s difficult to choose which draws my ire more than the rest.  There are some common threads being exposed—Civil War.  More explicitly, it’s a civil war by the unions against the welfare of the country and the non-union populace.

That war is being played most prominently in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states mired in the mess of public employee unions.  The union lost in Wisconsin despite the efforts of a judge and dem legislators bought by the union.  The battle still continues with this report of thuggery and intimidation by the police union.

Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn’t show support

Letters seek window signs supporting collective bargaining 

By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel 

Members of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, warning that they will face a boycott if they don’t support collective bargaining for public employee unions.

The letters ask businesses to express that support by displaying union signs in their windows.

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business,” the letter says. “And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

They won in Indiana where the RINO governor caved to the unions and dem legislators in that state’s effort to pass Right to Work.  In other states are efforts to remove the state as collectors of union dues.

It now has been discovered that the Obamacare bills authorized a $2Bn slush fund to support public employees, unions and corporations to subsidize health care costs.  This is nothing more than using funds taken from taxpayers to subsidize a select few—who have historically supported the democrat party.

Can we say, “Pay off!”? 

Yes, we’re in a civil war. A war between the dems and their thuggish supporters against the rest of us. It’s a war to retain their parasitic hold and control of the country.  It’s a war that we must not lose.