Bill's Comments

Two things we do that are detrimental to our ability to field armed forces:

1. Use bases and military procurement as political means to pay supporters--It has to do with votes and seniority, not military needs.

2. Use civilians for many of the functions that used to be military because it is cheaper--eg. KP and cooking. Now the cooks can't fight in a pinch, and they are a liability in that same pinch.

....We are destroying our armed forces.

"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 48

.....and behind the scenes the wannabe elites exploit which ever one they can, believing that they will then be in control.

I have been reading testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on Iraq and Afghanistan. All the testimony points to needing more not less military involvement in the area. Something that stuck out like a sore thumb was the idea that we could not put any more soldiers into the area--essentiall because we don't have them.

There is something seriously wrong here. In WW II the US had a population of under 100 million if I remember correctly and we put over a million men into the war. We now have a population of over 300 million and we are stretched to have less than 200,000 men and women in the field.

We certainly have our priorities wrong. Protecting us and our allies from evil takes a back seat to doling out money to the undeserving. The money spent on welfare, bailouts, foreign aid, and waste could double or triple the salaries of our soldiers and make the military a desirable career.

The Vandals, the Visigoths, the Huns, and the Jihadists are coming, and Nero fiddles.

from Drudge,"'Not productive' to link US missile defense, Iran in talks: Medvedev"

This headline in Drudge

" Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran' "

makes me think of the little shrimp in school who tells the class bully, "I won't snitch on you to the teacher if you beat up the other bully." Where is Charles Atlas when you need him?

I have been reading testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in February on the various facets of the war against Jihadism. The statements are more than sobering in their judgments, they are downright condemnatory of the entire approach to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

I think of how we should respond in legislation to these testimonies, and find a complete contradiction in the actual behavior of the House and the Senate. Where we should increase our levels of military committment, hold the Executive Branch accountable for programs, information, and leadership, our Congress passes a pile of Porks***, reduces the funding for the military, and thinks that being nice and talking nice will do the job, in the face of testimony, by a true expert, that says there is no way talking will accomplish anything with the Jihadists.

In WW II we were the hero in the story, the big, muscled, principled guy that beats up and defeats the bad guy. Now we are the shrimp that hands over his lunch money because he thinks it will buy him protection--until the next time.

From a nation of winners, we have become a nation of losers. Our entire political process is infested with rot, moral corruption, and false ideology. Our schools destroyed our ability to think, and our politicians sold us a worthless bill of goods. We will pay dearly, as all losers do.