"This is my rifle..."

I remember it fairly well. I was 19 years old and a brand new cadet in the Army ROTC program at UNC. The doors to the Armory were flung wide open, and some of the junior and senior cadets were carrying in locked weapon racks off of a truck into the drill deck. My eyes grew wide as I finally saw real M-16A2s for the first time in my life. They looked lighter, more detailed, and just plain cooler than the fake M-16s we trained with for squad tactical exercises. The slightest scent of weapons lubricant began to fill the air, a scent I'd grow to love. I remember taking the weapon and being given instruction on proper assembly and disassembly of the weapon; I marveled at its simple and elegant design that would propel a live round out of its casing. I recall being filled with a feeling that I can only describe as a solemn respect and weight responsibility for the power that I held.

Unlike the perception that most have, owning or holding a weapon does not change a person into a power-crazed maniac or an off-kilter, gun-toting hillbilly. Sure, we have that in America, but those who still have a sense of reason and a conscience won't undergo some Edward Hyde-like transformation from a thin, nervous, Starbucks-sipping artist to Darth Vader. I was a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American teenager who grew up in a small Southern city suburb. Crime, weapons and warfare sat in the furthest periphery of my mind while growing up. I am still a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American guy who against all reason donned a green suit and went traipsing around the world for a few years. A firearm doesn't transform a person into a raging maniac fueled by blood lust and power. Weapons, in the hands of moral, law-abiding citizens, can be a wonderful, useful instrument.

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the handgun ban pushed by the politicians in Chicago. Fully committed to the idea that a firearm somehow corrupts and inevitably creates more violence, they pushed this case to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, this highest court ruled in favor of not only of gun owners but the Constitution. I, for one, and greatly relieved and still somewhat nervous that it was still a 5-4 ruling.

With Second Amendment rights secure for a little while longer, I hope my friends will rediscover an aspect of their common, American heritage - the liberty to protect oneself. I hope to see more firearms in the hands of moral, upright individuals, ready to protect themselves and their loved ones. Imagine the beautiful possibilities.

The Fate of the COINdinistas

It's the way no military officer would want his or her name in lights. General Stan McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to be dressed down by the Commander-in-Chief for remarks he made as reported in the soon-to-be published edition of the Rolling Stones. You can find the article here for your reference.

On all the major news outlets, journalists, political commentators, and news junkies are out in full force to express their opinions. They've typically fallen along party lines - those who lean right condemn the remarks but want McChrystal to stay on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Those who lean left are immediately calling for his resignation. Though the case against General McChrystal is straightforward, the factors surrounding this legendary commander tends to murky what would be an easy call.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a punishable offense to display any sort of contempt against public official by a commissioned officer. Sounds straightforward to me. The only exploitable loophole a lawyer could argue would probably be the fact that General McChrystal may or may not have said these words in the United States or U.S. territory. Semantics aside, the commander is guilty of a punishable offense.

Yet there are two peculiar dimensions regarding the punishments of flag officers. The first of which is how evenly a standard is applied between higher ranking officers versus the lower ranked ones. It's a common Soldier complaint that a young private can be bitterly punished for a minor offense while an officer may get a pass for the very same. This unfortunately happens on a routine basis. I recall a senior officer making some rather unsavory comments about another over email. She served on my commanding general's staff but her actions went largely ignored. No one would extend me the same mercy. I found myself repeatedly dressed down after having made a smart-aleck comment at the logistics officer. To this day, I still bristle with anger when I hear his name, but that's another story for another time. What will happen to the general? Will the commander-in-chief send him to a court-martial, drum him out unceremoniously, or let him delicately resign from his post? The nation will soon find out. The second dimension is the wisdom of taking a wartime commander from his post while he is active engaged against the enemy. This more or less speaks for itself, and it will be up to Obama to make that determination.

However the confounding factors are not limited to these two. There are countless more that will make it difficult to render a clean decision. This is the man who reportedly tried to cover up the true cause of death of Corporal Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL star. This is the man who had command responsibility over allegedly abused detainees in Iraq. This is the man who made a bold and honest recommendation to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, a move that lacked political decorum but expected in the military culture. He is a devout acolyte of counterinsurgency operations á la Petraeus (or would that be au Petraeus) - determined to minimize civilian casualties but maximize victory. These rules of engagement draw the ire of young infantrymen but the applause of senior policymakers - is this Stan McChrystal's style or the political pressure on an otherwise gung-ho general? Unlike most commanders though, he does not hesitate to go out on patrol with his soldiers and to suffer alongside them, but he's obligated to report to demanding superiors.

The list goes on and on, and I find my emotions cloud my more rational judgment. One part of me respects him as a tough but wise military leader. A man, I believe, who should not be restrained by politics and petty egos bruised by a straightforward personality. But another part of me worries when the tables may turn one day when an unwise commander is pitted against a more experienced commander-in-chief. If McChrystal gets a pass, would that set a precedent that would keep a less qualified military commander in place? Perhaps my emotions do cloud my judgment, but I would recommend only a verbal reprimand without resignation / firing. Regardless of what happens, I hope someone will take good care of those young men and women in Afghanistan; I know what a harsh place it can be.

Arizona vs. ...Mexico??

As a preface to this post, it would only be proper to review the hypocrisy of the corrupt ruling class of Mexico, and how they will use the useful idiots in America (and their dear leader Obama) in order to oppose the Arizona immigration bill - a bill that simply enforces the current U.S. immigration laws, which are not being enforced by the Obama administration.

First is the Mexican immigration laws, and sections of the Mexican constitution that deal with immigration and foreign citizens:

"MEXICO VS. UNITED STATES: MEXICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE TOUGHER"

It should come as no surprise that Mexican laws are much tougher (illegal immigration is a FELONY), and that foreign immigrants are treated as second-class citizens. For those of you who don't know, much of the world outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe - i.e. the West - treats immigrants as both ethnic and national outsiders, no matter how long they have lived in the country. Tribalism is very much alive, as it always has been, and it is in fact growing stronger in most places (i.e. China).

What the corrupt oligarchs in Mexico City won't admit is that the 11-18 million illegal immigrants in America remit vast portions of their wealth to Mexico, which is a sizeable portion of Mexico's GDP. And what better way to keep a handle on the vast underclass of your country, than by "allowing" millions of this said class to cross illegally into the United States. Not only does it now become America's problem, but you no longer have to worry about a sizeable number of your constituents who are unhappy with your governance and could become a potential liability.

"How Mexico treats its illegal immigrants"

"Getting Lectured on Human Rights by Mexico"

The following video is pretty damning. Not only does it reveal the rank hypocrisy of Senor Calderon, but it also reveals, straight from his own mouth, that Mexico's immigration policies are tougher than America's, and are a real version of the worst unfounded accusations against the Arizona law.

(Mexican President Felipe Calderon admits that Mexico has tougher immigration laws than Arizona or the USA for that matter. He admits that Mexican police profile and look for people that might be illegals; he also makes it clear that you have to have "proper" papers to enter the country, and if you lack papers, you will be jailed and deported.)

What instigated this post was the recent report that Mexico will be supporting an AMERICAN lawsuit in an AMERICAN courtroom to reject the Arizona immigration law.

"Mexico asks court to reject Ariz. immigration law"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not qualify as an unlawful intrusion into the sovereign affairs of another country? As has been demonstrated, by the very fact of the amount of GDP generated by illegal immigrants' cash remitances to Mexico, and the political benefits of the migration of a large portion of your electorate, should not the Mexican government be barred from any influence in any American courtroom? The entire situation is one that mocks the rule of law, American sovereignty, and democratic values.

Finally, to reinforce the rightful and lawful aims of the Arizona immigration legislation, here are two reports from June 22 (Let it be clear that the drug wars and lawlessness of Mexico have been spilling over our border, are increasing, and will continue to do so unless our borders are enforced. Obama and the Democrats are creating a national security disaster.):

"Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona"

"AZ COPS THREATENED BY DRUG CARTEL SNIPERS AT BORDER"

Connecting the dots...

Receive bundles of money:
"Surprise! Obama Was Top Recipient of BP Donations in 2008!"

Allow the government agencies you control to approve construction, fail to inspect properly, and bypass regulations:
"Deepwater Horizon Inspections: MMS Skipped Monthly Inspections On Doomed Rig"

Fail to respond to the disaster until weeks later, when you are forced to by plummeting approval ratings:


Then punish BP to score political points, while filling your government coffers with billions to use as you deem fit:
"BP, Joe Barton, Obama, and the Shakedown"

Related:

"OFF-SHORE OIL-DRILLING, OBAMA, SOROS, PETROBRAS: CONNECTING THE DOTS"

Toss the Skeptic a Bone

A friendly, "Hello," to all. James, here, the new contributor to this fine blog. More on my (sleep-inducing) background later. You'll find fairly quickly that I'm less well-read or erudite as my fellow writer, Secundus Paulinus (whom I will refer to as SP from this point forward - at least until he berates me for arbitrarily pulling acronyms from thin air). I don't even have as slick of a handle as he does. Nevertheless, I hope to contribute for a long time and start with this humble piece just to get my toes wet. SP can then chase me around with a steel bat for taking forever to write something.

I turn our attention to climate change. It's a popular topic receiving coverage in many of the media outlets whether televised, blogged, or published. There is an international panel devoted to this phenomena as a branch of the United Nation's Environment Program(me). Would-be prophets like Al Gore regularly tour the country on a regular basis warning all of the impending doom of climate change.

But has anyone ever stopped to think, "Is this right?"

Opponents, skeptics, and even individuals who aren't completely sold on climate change are made out to be fools, lunatics and "Holocaust-deniers". Harsh words for ordinary people who approach it with a dose of healthy skepticism! To liken these people to someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes the Holocaust to be nothing but the product of Zionist conspirators is just a bit of a stretch, no?

My point is simply this - it would be worthwhile to hear out the climate change skeptics in the arena of scientific research and public debate. Marginalizing or minimizing the legitimacy of their arguments is unwise and scientifically unhealthy. SP has written (quite extensively) on the holes appearing in the climate change proponent arguments. The leak from the University of East Anglia has only punched through the chink in their armor and has shown that the discussion is not over. Patience, time, respect, and more research is needed before we can come to firmer conclusions.

Global Warming, R.I.P.

Whatever happened to Global Warming? Oh yeah, the international left is all worried about "Global Cooling" now.

2010: Global Warming, R.I.P.

And as the movement slowly dies and transforms, the rats are bailing ship:
According to a top IPCC scientist, there never was a consensus on Global Warming; it was just a few dozen dudes (what happened to the "THOUSANDS" of experts?).
"The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider":

'The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,”...'

Oh, and for all the dingbats who believed islands would sink under an onslaught of melting ice, yeah, no dice on that also.

"EDITORIAL: Pacific islands not sinking from global warming; New study debunks Al Gore's hysterical fairy tale":

'...researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji documented changes in 27 vulnerable, low-lying reef islands in the Central Pacific. Using aerial photographs taken as early as 1944, the areas were carefully mapped and compared with modern satellite images.

It turns out that the islands did, in fact, change over time, but they are hardly sinking. Overall, 20 grew or remained stable. The island of Funamanu, for example, expanded from 7.4 acres to 9.5 acres in size - a 28 percent growth. Only seven islands shrunk, with the biggest percentage change occurring on Tengasu, which dropped from a tiny 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres - a diminishment of 9,670 square feet, the size of Mr. Gore's Tennessee mansion.
...
So the islands aren't sinking, the Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked, the Himalayas still have snow and the polar bears are alive and well. As just about every tenet in the Church of Global Warming has been debunked, it's time for the movement's high priest, Mr. Gore, to offer a refund to those from his flock who bought his work of fiction.'

I'm willing to go ahead and call this one: Victory from idiocy. Now to combat the left's next disaster-scare agenda...