B. Hussein's comments calling a cop's actions stupid show remarkably poor judgment.  On the one hand he says he doesn't know the facts, yet he still spouted off despite professing to not know what happened.

It's hard to believe anyone in his position could be so irresponsible, or someone with legal training (well, he never passed the bar exam, so far as I know) could be so reckless.

So is he stupid?  Is he reckless?

Or is he just doing his best to keep his communist healthcare plan out of the news and off peoples' minds?

If people talk about his communist takeover of our economy, they increasingly grow alarmed and even his own party is backing off of it.  If he can get people to stop looking at that and pay attention to an idiot picking a fight with a cop, then he might be able to get enough votes under the radar to complete his dastardly plans.

He's almost like some mad villian in a bad hollywood movie.

 "In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a 'wedding' ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her 'husband.' 'I regret that, even though the marriages were legal,' he said. Why the regret, if the marriages were 'legal?' 'Because,' he went on, 'I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their "wedding" night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die. 'I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over' he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her.'"

There are people in the world who desparately need killing.  This guard and his masters are among them. 

Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.  Rudyard Kipling

The Pentagon, that vague entity that is cited whenever a controversial policy or decision is announced, has pubished a report recommending that people in the military be prohibited from using any kind of tobacco product, indoors or outdoors, in uniform or out of uniform, in battle or in garrison.

What could they possibly be thinking?  That the recommendation is not being approved at this time is no excuse for even thinking such thoughts.

The most obvious is that this is a precursor to what we can expect with nationalized medical care.  Because the military pays for its people's medical bills and because it can claim that the strength of the military is impacted by smoking, they feel it perfectly reasonable to even suggest that they can regulate every behavior at all times.  When the government pays for everyone's medical bills, it won't be long before they start taxing behavior and eventually outlawing it.  The crime wave from alcohol prohibition will have been nothing compared to a prohibition of tobacco.

But more immediately important to me, beyond the national political ramifications for socialism and marxism and the further proof that we have in the end actually lost the cold war, is the complete disdain for the type of men we need to recruit and retain in the military.

What kind of men are in the military now, especially the ground combat arms?  Real men.  Manly men.  Men who aren't ashamed of or afraid to act like men, to be overtly masculine where the wider culture has nothing but disdain for masculinity.  Men like the lance corporal pictured here who probably aren't successful in academics or fancy talk or genteel ways, but who revels in being tough, being perceived as being tough, and being around others that he perceives as being tough.  

What does it mean to be tough?  This is the crux of the matter.  Different cultures have different meanings of tough, but among them are the beneficial traits:  A willingness to face danger, accepting pain as something to be tolerated, believing that showing traits of pain is a weakness, a drive to win at all costs, and a hunger to dominate others.

It's true that smoking or chewing tobacco doesn't make one tough, in and of itself.  Frankly, I have to say that I don't even understand why people like the stuff.  What I know is that a lot of people like tobacco and this has been true in western civilization for about five centuries.  Tobacco doesn't make one tough, but there is a mindset among tobacco users that makes people in the military more likely to use it.

Tobacco has been vilified for generations.  Parents teach their children in schools and in every setting possible that smoking is bad.  Yet many kids still smoke.  Why?  Because kids like to rebel. In many ways and to many people, smoking or chewing tobacco is perceived as adult behavior and a sign of being independent and free of childish controls.

Our military has come close to banning alcohol consumption.  There is such a strong negative association with drinking and alcohol that the club systems throughout the Marine Corps are failing.  Clubs used to be some of the hottest joints in town.  

Very soon, homosexuals will be welcomed in the military.  Homosexual behavior will be tolerated, which is another way of saying that Marines, soldiers and sailors will be inflicted with mandatory instruction on how to welcome homosexual behavior.  

And now, in the near future smoking will be prohibited.  

The military needs violent men.  It needs a lot of young, violent men, but what we're saying now is that we want men who are tough, but we'll tell them what to eat, what to drink, and what they can and can't smoke or chew.  There will be no range of behavior that will be outside of government approval.  Soon, our military will require men to sit down to piss.  

What kind of men join the military now?  All sorts, but one big category is young men who want to prove to themselves and to others that they are tough, virile, manly, and desirable to women.  It will be much harder to recruit this category of men into the military.  Soon our military will be made up of men who may be openly homosexual, who can't eat or drink what they want, and who are considered such children that they aren't allowed to use tobacco.  Oh, but don't worry.  Hairdressers will quit their jobs in droves to enlist, I'm sure.  

And the men who can actually do what is needed, who can locate, close with and destroy the enemy in a very personal way will find other ways to prove their manhood.

The military will consist of tofu and quiche eating tee totaling children.  I'm sure our enemies will tremble with fear.  

Someone is talking sense, finally.

I don't have a link to the news story that spurred this response from me, I got the following from an email from a friend.  

Two War Strategy Dead: Cartwright

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 12:23 pm
 

One of the fundamental underpinnings of the US military for most of the last 50 years will soon be scrapped, a top Pentagon official said late last week.

The Quadrennial Defense Review will result in deep-sixing the two major theater war strategy, according to Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Cartwright made the statement in a sparsely attended hearing July 9 where his renomination as vice chairman and the nomination of Pacific Command’s new leader was discussed. He was answering a question about the F-22 from Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a firm proponent of the plane. Chambliss asked Cartwright “what is the military requirement for the number of F–22s.” He got much more than he may have bargained for.

“The military requirement right now is associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the QDR, and it is a departure from the two major theater war construct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this aircraft grew up. I mean it grew up in that construct of two major theater wars, and both of them being of a peer competitor quality,” Cartwright said.

“The strategy that we are moving towards is one that is acknowledging of the fact that we are not in that type of conflict, that the more likely conflicts are going to be the ones that we—similar to the ones that we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that we do need to have a capability against a major peer competitor and that we believe that the sizing construct, one, demands that we have fifth generation fighters across all three services rather than just one and that the number of those fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two simultaneous peer competitors, that we don’t see that as the likely. We see that as the extreme,” he told Chambliss.

Reactions among the defense cognoscenti varied wildly depending on one’s view of the world. A longtime Democrat defense expert, Gordon Adams, praised it, noting there are no peer competitors for the US to saddle up against.

“Cartwright’s statement is consistent with every signal Gates has been sending for the last two years – the days of large, heavy forces are ending. There is not a “peer competitor” around that justifies the classic formations or the numbers of legacy equipment. What’s more, there is not a threat around that justifies the size of the ground force we have, but Cartwright and Gates are not there yet. Two MRCs or MTWs was always a force-stressor, not a strategy. It is not terribly relevant to the modern world of war,” said Adams, head of defense at the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration and now a senior fellow at the Stimson Center.

A defense expert with long experience in grand strategy debates — and a Republican bent — took a radically different view, declaring this the “end of the US as a global power. If we size our military to deal only with the PRC, we are giving Russia a free ride which insists on seeing the world as a zero sum game in which they win and we lose. We are simply making it easier for Russia to win.

However, this source conceded that “the two war strategy did not have sufficient forces.” At best the US could “win-hold-win.” The new tack will mean the US will slip to “hold and lose and, maybe, lose and lose.”

Robbin Laird, an international defense consultant who served on the National Security Council during the Reagan and Carter administrations, supported the decision to scrap the strategy since it had not been achievable for some time. But Laird raised another question: “How credible is our ability to do one major contingency operation, depending on where it is?” The key to ensuring long range American power projection, he said, would be to ensure allies are made a part of operational planning.

A congressional aide said the professional staff at the hearing were shocked when Cartwright declared the two war strategy dead. “Did he just say that?” was the reaction. This aide said the move was overdue since the US could not field the forces needed for a two war strategy in the first place, but offered a cautious view of the long term, saying it would take some time to ascertain the significance of whatever new approach Gates, Adm. Mullen, Michelle Flournoy and Cartwright settle on.

Several years ago, I spent time on this blog explaining how Colin Powell is a squeamish loser.  Well, nothing's changed.

He's spent a lifetime vacillating and politicking.  He even took credit for winning the Persian Gulf War when he wasn't even a field commander.

He's gotten a lot of leg's up in his career for being black.  Then he declared himself a republican.  I'm not sure why since he hasn't once expressed a principle that might be similar to anything that the republican party claims to hold to.

Then he went with the flow and ignored B. Hussein's marxist ideology and supported him for the presidency, even though he contributed money to McCain to help him secure the republican nomination.

Powell, along with every other black voter, about 90%, in this country that voted for Obama, proved that whites are not generally racists, but blacks are.  Blacks vote for a man based solely on the color of his skin.  

So now, Powell has buyer's remorse.  Screw him.  It's about time the country starts ignoring this opportunistic, squeamish loser.