Meek "Gunmen" kill "ultra-orthodox Jewish group"

Had the ghastliness in Bombay been wrought by Christian fundamentalist terrorists, how religion would steal the headlines! But it was Muslim fundamentalist terrorists, and for seven years we've had to put up with Muslims stoning adulteresses and beheading infidels under their mad religious laws, and been told that we must not offend their religion. And so MSNBC's headline today - 3 days after the first bombs, 7 years after 9/11, 15 years after the first WTC bombing - blames the horrors on "Pakistani militants." The victims are described in more radically religious terms than the killers: the office of "an ultra-orthodox Jewish group" was one site attacked by "gunmen." I'd rather be called a "gunman" than an ultra-orthodox anything.

Perhaps the only consolation of these murders in Bombay is that they'll inspire more Indians, Israelis, and Americans to take up arms against terrorists. The US is creating terrorists by being in Iraq, the 2007 National Security Estimate reports. Well then, the terrorists' invasion of Mumbai is creating more freedom loving warriors.

Kindness Kills

Starbucks doesn't need a coming-out day to convince me that they're 'red,' but here it comes: Starbucks goes (RED) for World AIDS Day! So on December 1, it's a nickel to the Global Fund for every coffee served.

Its facebook group members include the pitifully innocent: "I will be there! I love coffee and I love to help any way I can;" the idealistic: "They should give way more than 5 cents per beverage;" and the so-liberal-they're-conservative: "How about instead of them giving 5 cents, you go get a cup of coffee from somewhere that isn't a corporate giant, saving yourself about an entire dollar, and give that dollar to the aids fund?"

Few, though, share my reasoned pessimism. It's high time we question whether the "end AIDS" crowd really cares about Africans. Of course Starbucks is motivated by profit - it's a business! But what excuse remains for the Global Funds acolytes?

For it's been well documented that these earmarks for AIDS devastate Sub-Saharan Africa. Children are dying from diarrhea and asphyxia because foreign donations pay for AIDS pills, not oxygen ventilators. If you practice medicine in, say, Lesotho, it's more lucrative to get trained in AIDS treatment than in how to save the lives of sickly babies born in roach-infested hospitals.

If you oppose money for AIDS in Africa, people suspect the basest of motivations. How long, though, until we who know the "unintended consequences" of liberals' bravados stop assuming they have the best intentions? It's eye-catching and hip on the résumé to say you led your college's Global Fund chapter. Not so glamorous to watch people's faces frost over as you explain the need for better basic health infrastructure and diarrhea treatment in Rwanda.

Who better than a profit-seeker like Starbuck's to know what sells, anyway? "Well duh, of course I'll be there!!" writes Laura from California.

Laura's five cents will help buy AIDS pills for some sickly kid, who's too hungry and nauseated to keep from vomiting when he swallows them: Like whatever, I just want to buy coffee so I can like end poverty in the Africa.

If these people want to help save African lives more than they want to be self-righteous and accepted in the gay community, they can start by buying McDonald's coffee on Red Day. For my part, I will assume liberals understand the economics of disease in Africa, and will suspect the basest of motivations.

For more on this, read the LA Times’ “Unintended victims of Gates Foundation generosity”:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates16dec16,0,6256166,full.story

“It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

Ladies: Generally we'll try to limit this blog to original pieces belonging to Steve, Pat and Rob, only posting short clippings from others' work. But, here's a pretty good piece about Marines dominating in Afghanistan:


Marine Makes Insurgents Pay the Price
November 18, 2008
Marine Corps Newsby Cpl. James M. Mercure


FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it.
Shewan has historically been a safe haven for insurgents, who used to plan and stage attacks against Coalition Forces in the Bala Baluk district.
The city is home to several major insurgent leaders. Reports indicate that more than 250 full time fighters reside in the city and in the surrounding villages.

Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines’ deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area.

“The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.”

The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site.

“The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”

During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn’t miss any shots, despite the enemies’ rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position.

“I was in my own little world,” the young corporal said. “I wasn’t even aware of a lot of the rounds impacting near my position, because I was concentrating so hard on making sure my rounds were on target.”

After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

My favorite line is the last one.

Defying the Way

Say what you will about Sarah Palin (or about her children, if you prefer the lights of SNL), but savor her modest contribution to breaking the business-of-politics daze in Washington and at CNN, if only mild and fleeting. In DC you spend your career working up the ladder, rung by rung, quid pro quo after quo, and then someone who doesn't know how it works fixes to take the #2 spot. Katie Couric and others reassured themselves that Hillary-style personality-consuming calculations have their merit, and unorthodox Palin could not have her cake and eat it too.

So credit Palin for characteristically declining Wolf Blitzer's political schemas last Sunday. First, Wolf had been reading off questions from Obama voters. That's how it works. Don't question it.

PALIN: As you're reading these viewers' questions, got any questions from anybody who voted for McCain?
BLITZER: I think we do but we're going to get to that.
PALIN: Oh good! OK!

He never got to it.

Later Wolf tried to get her to play the hide-your-ambition game, obligatory in Washington, where most play but few win. Palin didn't play.

BLITZER: You're not ruling out a run in 2012 for president of the United States, are you?
PALIN: Not ruling that out but there again, that is based on my philosophy that it's crazy to close a door before you know what's even open in front of you...

It would be so easy to rule it out, then say in 2011 "times have changed. I'm running." Some would say you have to lie, that's how it works kid. And thus Obama in 2006 with Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
OBAMA: I will not.

So let us give Palin a stilted cheer or two for keeping her soul off the shelves.

Obama on 60 Minutes: Wants to "emulate" FDR and a "willingness to try things."

In an interview with 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft, President-elect Barack Obama shed some light on to his political thought: "what you see in FDR that I hope my team can-- emulate, is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again."

This kind of nonsense would be easily dismissible save for the fact that it's absolutely dangerous. I expected him to be elected and to be very liberal, but the idea that he actually said this really does scare the hell out of me. It's either extremely ignorant on his part or a legitimate attempt to fundamentally change this country.

One of the biggest problems about liberalism is that liberals usually tend to oversimplify economics. They do not understand, or choose to ignore, the unintended consequences and secondary effect of any governmental program or action. For example, Welfare was supposed to be a great thing, but it actually helped cause the breakdown of the black family as the father's role as breadwinner and provider was usurped by a government check doled out on the 1st and 15th of every month. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) actually dissentivized (or dis-incentivized) two-parent households and working single mothers. No one had the foresight to predict this consequence. A well-intentioned piece of legislation was instrumental is tearing down the family structure of ~12% of our nations population!

Messing with an economy as interconnected and difficult to comprehensively understand as ours will always have huge consequences, that's a fact. These consequences aren't limited to the economic realm -or corporate America-either, as seen above. (note: You can thank my favorite politician, Newt Gingrich, for forcing welfare reform on Clinton after he vetoed it twince, I think, in the form of Temporary Aid to Needy Families TANF).

In this case, Obama is saying he understands there will be unintended consequences when he and his cohorts in Congress meddle with theeconomy, but he's OK with that. In other words, governmental action is better than a reclusive government. This violates one of the primary axioms that has made the US so unique and successful: Maximizing economic freedom.
Obama's tinkering with the economy is also a gross violation of individual freedom. If a "rich" person's taxes are going to go upbecause of the actions of the Congress and President, there must be ademonstrable clear and present issue that needs rectifying. Arbitrarily raising taxes based on whimsical language like "a willingness to try things" is an assault of freedom on those wageearners and wealth-creators. Any limitation on our freedom (taxation) is only justifiable if the ends are legitimate. "Experiment[ing]" on such a grand scale is not legitimate in the slightest. Every action our government takes should be prudent, slow and the bare minimum(unlike all the recent bailouts).

Words have consequences! His comments may seem trivial, but for a man who voiced his intentions of "creating 5 million 'green collar jobs'", we probably should believe him

Finally, I will not grant ANY of Obama's "points" about FDR, whoselegacy of wealth redistribution helped propel this country down thepath towards socialism. In my view, his legacy was bailed out by thewar, which reenergized out industrial means. But, that's for anotherdebate. Take away from FDR that many of his programs lived out theirpurpose- do we really need a Rural Electrification Administration tothis day-despite that its "name has been changed to protect how guiltyit is?" Was Reagan right, or what, when he said, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a governmentbureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on thisearth!"?

First Post

Hey folks, welcome to our blog. It's the brainchild of Steve, Rob, and Pat. Steve works for Wells Fargo and graduated from Hillsdale College. Pat is a Specialist in the Army and graduated from Luther College. Rob is a lieutenant in the Marine Corps and graduated from Marquette University. Let's see where we go from here.