Still More Mush from the White House Pantywaist (Scott McClellan):

Mr. McClellan cannot give a straight answer as to why President Bush still has not made good on a campaign promise made during his FIRST White House run -- namely: Move the US embassy in Israel to its capital city, Jerusalem.

Note: Israel is the ONLY country in the world where the US has chosen to locate its embassy in a non-capital city.

Tough to say Jerusalem is more dangerous than Baghdad these days, but that is -- in essence -- what the Bush Administration/State Department is saying. (Hat tip: WND.)

Okay: Let's get this straight! We know that women born to Arabic-speaking parents in the Middle East:
1.) Are unattractive
2.) Are illiterate
3.) Are Muslim
4.) Wear a Hijab (muslim woman's head-scarf)
5.) Want their sons to grow up to become suicide bombers
6.) Hate Israel and the Jews
7.) Hate America and Americans
8) Love the Jihadists

Well, in the case of Brigitte Gabriel, you would be wrong with each of the answers above!

I recently heard the Lebanese-born Ms. Gabriel the other day on local talk show host Carl Wiglesworth's show. The woman is simply electrifying. She is the survivor of anti-Christian jihadists who systematically attempted to wipe out Lebanon's Christians during the Lebanese civil war that took place during her childhood. She literally lived underground and sometimes ate grass to survive.

The charming and eloquent Ms. Gabriel is fluent in four languages: Arabic, French, Hebrew, and English -- and she is now a naturalized and VERY PATRIOTIC American citizen.

She is VERY concerned that we have become FAR TOO politically correct in our treatment of the Jihadist threat -- to include our absurd kid-gloved treatment of the Guantanamo detainees. Ms. Gabriel says that the interned detainees openly refer to their residence (in Arabic) as "a resort."

Ms. Gabriel also warns against the danger of allowing private Muslim schools (madrassas) to function in this country, as they indoctrinate young Muslim minds in the Koran, which is the original Jihadist manifesto!

Ms. Gabriel has started her own organization, the American Congress for Truth, to educate Americans concerning the Muslim threat from WITHIN and to push for needed legal reforms, sometimes using petitions.

Please click on her organization's site and learn more.

One chilling comment that she made on the radio this week: Everyone of us WHO LIVES IN THE UNITED STATES has (unknowingly) talked to or bought something from a terrorist sometime in our lives!

More Mush from the Wimp (White House spokes"man" Scott McClellan)

A few days back, WND ran a piece highlighting White House Spokesman Scott McClellan's light-in-the-loafers answers to questions by KGO radio reporter Sarah Scott and WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving about President Bush's response to the this week's odious landmark decision regarding eminent domain. The gelding McClellan's repeated response: "... we have to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court."

Well, how's that, folks, for a leader who is willing to go to the mat for his constituents? As Mr. Kinsolving suggested to Mr. McClellan, what is to stop someone from starting a business project to claim the Crawford ranch in eminent domain, if that is the best the White House can do. I mean what is good for the constituent goose is good for the elected official gander!

Well, guess what? As Aaron's cc: points out, the tough guys and girls (grin) in Congress can ALSO rectify (read: REVERSE) a bad High Court decision. The High Court ITSELF admitted this in one of its own decisions (Toolson, 1953), when it opined:

While the Supreme Court ruled in Toolson (1953) that the decision in the Federal Baseball case was in error, they held that since the situation had not been altered by Congress during the intervening 30 years, that it was an issue to be addressed by Congress and not the courts.

Well, don't hold your breath, as Congress runs on mutual back-scratching and pork, and President Bush is salivating over the opportunity to place his amigo, Attorney General, on the Supreme Court, as CNN suggests here. Gonzalez is unlikely to be a Constitutional crusader for our Bill of Rights liberties!

A Pew Research Center poll documents the obvious: Americans are worried that media criticism of our military is weakening our defenses. (Hat tip: NewsMax.)

I have always wondered why -- in this war -- we allow AP and Reuters reporters to report from behind American lines one week and from behind the terrorists' positions the next and so on, without repercussions. Do you think this kind of thing would have been tolerated for even one minute during the long WWII years?

My conviction is that any reporter/cameraman who goes out to report from the enemy's perspective should be fired upon and/or captured just as though he/she were an enemy combatant.

Further, once a reporter has done a "stint" reporting from the terrorists' perspectives he/she should be slapped with a lifetime ban on ever reporting as an embedded ever again (with US forces). After all, they have been an accessory to the provenance of enemy propaganda.

After all, you are either with us or against us, right?

For a fairly full accounting of America's female military war dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, click here. (Hat tip: Newsmax.)

I had posted about the issue of women in combat a few days back. Now here is another piece on the same topic that just appeared in NewsMax.

Folks, igoring this topic will NOT make it go away: There is something about the sight of a woman with a broken or maimed body with injuries sustained in a combat environment which weighs heavily on the consciences of those of us who are devotees of the Judaeo-Christian Tradition (as opposed to, say, the Jihadists). It is sight that bespeaks responsibilities shirked and time-honored traditions trashed.

For President Bush -- husband of one woman and father of two others who have never served a day in their lives in the military -- to remain blissfully silent on this issue does not sit well with me whatsoever. Intended or not, such silence on his part exudes the arrogance and callousness of the ultra-rich and ultra-powerful. Sorry: It does -- and I voted for the man. Apparently, when it comes to the issue of putting US military women in combat/combat-support roles, President Bush has gone over to the dark side -- after all, they are not HIS women who are getting shot at!

As Michael Savage pointed out on his radio show: Last Friday, several hours after the news of the wounding and deaths of the Women Marines in Fallujah was released -- Bush spent a fun evening at the Washington Nationals game without uttering so much as a syllable of public condolences about the event.

Frankly, if I had been the parent of one of those women so hurt in Fallujah, I would have been outraged. I mean, how HARD would it have been for the President to have said to these families before the game via a television reporter: "I'm sorry. Thank you for your daughters'/wives'/sisters' brave service to our country."

Now, lest I be wrongly one-sided on this issue myself, I will gladly say that the political leaders of BOTH parties and their appointees -- as well as the military brass -- have all been eager co-conspirators in this plot against America for some 30 years now.

Thinking they could somehow get military manpower "on the cheap," they have gradually feminized our military to the point where our troops now have to put on plastic gloves(!) when handling Korans at Camp Gitmo. Believe me -- that is effeminate: NO REAL MAN in his right mind would do such a thing (unless ordered to do so).

On the matter of a feminized military, the pigeons have only just BEGUN to come home to roost. Pretending there is not a problem will NOT solve anything. Hint: I will say upfront that one of the PRIMARY reasons for the Army's/USMC's recruitment problems is the advanced state of feminization that currently obtains in those branches. (Don't believe me? Try watching a WWII movie to refresh yourself on what the military USED to be like: Even a Hawaii-based flick like "From Here to Eternity" is an eye-opener.) Men want challenges that are uniquely male.

Ah, mais oui! Comme nous aimions nos Spurs!

Oh, great! Ward Churchill gets something like $90K a year from the state of Colorado to indoctrinate impressionable young 18-year-olds that fragging is a good thing? UnbeLIEVable! (Hat Tip: WND.)

Important background work by CDR Salamander on the Yale Divinity School team that investigated the atmosphere of religious tolerance at USAFA, resulting in what I call the "Big Jesus Scandal" there. (Hat Tip: The Mudville Gazette.)

May these brave Marines -- both male AND female -- rest in peace. May we find their killers and deal with them accordingly.

May we ALSO now honestly discuss the fact that women do NOT belong IN COMBAT -- and may we honestly discuss the fact that the current crop of generals and admirals in charge of our military simply have neither the spine nor the cojones to attack this politially charged, but incredibly important, issue.

I would like to suggest that we need to distinguish between the courage of individual women on the one hand (which I do not for one moment dispute) and the impropriety of the POLICY and PRACTICE of putting women in combat (or direct combat support) positions. And, yes, I am also including combat aircrew positions, as well (both helicopter and fighter/bomber crew positions, which WERE all male until the days of Clinton the Impeached One), in the scope of positions that BY POLICY and PRACTICE should remain all male.

Okay, I will let it all hang out: We should never have introduced females to our military academies, either. If necessary, let us start an all female/all branch US Women's Military Academy. Guess how much sexual harrassment of female cadets occurred in the military academies while these institutions remained all male? ZERO.

All the calls on the part of the military brass for a stop to sexual harrassment sound rather hollow, as long as our generals and admirals still blithely house, train, deploy and employ males and females together. Do our generals/admirals really think they can change human nature -- and, here is the height of absurdity -- change it only until graduation or end of deployment?

Women are not men and vice versa. It is not an issue of intelligence (score one for the ladies). It is not an issue of commitment. It is not an issue of desire. It is not an issue of ability (as in hand-eye coordination).

It IS, however, in some cases (e.g., Infantry) and issue of physical strength, as well as physiology (the old UTI thing, for example). If it is NOT an issue of strength, then would someone please tell me why no women start for the football or basketball teams at any of the military academies? NCAA rules do not prohibit this, at least in the case of football. If women can do "anything" that men can, I say bring on the female football players. (And let us all admit that there are female specimens who are pretty tough and strong -- certainly tougher and stronger than this writer!) And, yet, the root reasons as to why no women start on the academy football teams goes much deeper than physical prowess only.

The core answer as to why there are no women on the military academy football teams gets to the real root of the issue -- even more than the obvious one of physical strength. It is, frankly, a matter of chemistry. It is a matter of esprit de corps. It is a simple matter of admitting that a team of all males bonds and gels differently than a co-ed team does. And, that is as it should be. after all: I say, Vive la Difference.

So, then, why is our miliary leadership continuing with the fiction that "there is no difference" when it is convenient to say so -- while at the same time manifestly allowing FOR such a differences when that stance is more to their advantage. (Hey, we still have male and female restrooms on our bases, thank God, but, logically speaking, WHY do we, if there really is no difference?)

Again, the root issue is one of policy, not of personal courage or conviction. There are brave and strong women -- much braver and stronger than I. But a POLICY which insists on deliberately injecting them into combat or immediate combat support positions is shortsighted and ill-considered, as their very presence changes the "chemistry" of the situation, on the one hand, and invites a coarsening of male treatment of females on the other -- something no lady I know wants.

For a very funny music video by some Danish soldiers stationed in Kosovo, click here. (Hat Tip: JetiRanger.)

Here is Fox News' link to the AF's report on the Air Force Academy's recent "Big Jesus Scandal!" (Hat Tip: Greyhawk.)

Go, Spurs! Go! (Hat Tip: Fox News.)

Is our country going to let the Red Chinese take control of UnoCal? (Hat Tip: DrudgeReport.)

Now, if only White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan could grow a pair! Today, the Charmin-soft McClellan refused to extend the same glowing commendation to Senator Lott for his almost-forgotten apology (that still did not save his job as Senate Leader) that McClellan yesterday extended to Dick Durbin for his risible non-apology (that if you were offended, Gee, he is sorry that you were offended, but he has NEVER characterized what he said as WRONG).

I wonder: What is the White House afraid of these days? Making the Democrats angry?

Memo to the White House: They are ALREADY angry at you -- so full ahead full and damn the (Democrat-launched) torpedoes.

We are all "just renting" now -- thanks to the spineless (Reagan-appointed) Justice Anthony Kennedy, who -- in the words of Constitutional Law professor Hugh Hewitt, "got it all wrong." (Hat Tip: DrudgeReport.)

This execrable decision was written by the (Ford-appointed) Justice John Paul Stevens, who is regularly somewhere to the left of Mao Tse-Tung in most of his decisions.

WND has more here.

Georgians are spared the effects of this Supreme Court Decision. (Hat Tip: WND.)

You can weigh in on this decision at this WND poll on the issue.

Washington Times editorialist Tony Blankley gives Edward Klein's "The Truth About Hillary" two thumbs up! (Hat Tip: NewsMax.)

Before any MilBlog readers fall for the former "battle-axe-in-chief's" recent seemingly pro-military stands, keep in mind that Mizz Clinton never called for Dick Durbin to apologize for his oral diarrhea on the Senate Floor last week slandering our troops as Nazi wannabes, but she HAS called on Karl Rove to apologize for his remarks today, which hurt the feelings of the soft-on-Jihad Democrats.

This woman is a danger to the Republic -- and please don't ever forget it!

For a moving read, try this story about Army 1LT Nainoa K. Hoe, who was gunned down by a sniper in Mosul on January 22 while on patrol. Here is another article on Lt Hoe's last day on this earth. (Hat Tip: Alberta Rose.)

Link to Mudville Gazette's Open Post.

A Republican (woman) was named as President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Democrats are apoplectic. (Hat Tip: Drudge Report.)

(Hint: Everyone KNOWS that at PBS is (or, was) a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC -- funded in part by your tax dollars.)

Does this mean I can now listen to Karl Haas with a clean conscience? LOL.

Rove tells it like it is about the War on Terror; Democrats become unhinged, demanding that Rove either apologize of resign. (Hat Tip: DrudgeReport).

More from Michelle Malkin here.

Not to be outdone by RINO Senator Chuck Hagel, Congresswoman Pelosi has declared the war in Afghanistan over. (Hat Tip: Drudge Report.)

Ms. Pelosi's revelation will surprise most readers, who see headlines like this daily.

Somehow, I don't think Von Clauswitz' and Rommel's places in the annals of great military thinkers are in any danger of being taken by -- ahem -- Dim-Bulb Pelosi.

Hey, Ms. Pelosi, who appointed you as Secretary of Defense (or was it Secretary of State)?

To my thinking, Pelosi obviously safely falls under the category of "the enemy within," as clearly enunciated by talk-show host extraordinaire, Michael Savage.

Senator Chuck Hagel, the alleged "Republican" Senator from the solidly Red State of Nebraska, has done his part to support undermine the war effort by singlehandedly declaring that we are "losing" the war in Iraq.

As Hugh Hewitt (I think it was) has remarked of the Democrats (in connection with the recent Dick Durbin caper): "political advantage trumps supporting our troops." With these remarks to a US News and World Report, Hagel has shown that he subscribes to the same despicable ethic.

In other words, Hagel -- who reportedly harbors Presidential (bada-bing, bada-boom) ambitions -- obviously feels that (having wetted his finger and put it in the wind) he is catching a big wave of popular antiwar sentiment and hopes to ride it to prominent success. (Strains of "Wipe Out!" playing in the background.)

Words cannot describe the contempt I feel for this opportunist -- who should know better, having served in VietNam as an enlisted Army Infantry troop in 1968 -- for publicly saying things that can only ENCOURAGE the enemy and DISCOURAGE our troops in harm's way!

However, I do look forward to Hagel's future foray into Presidential politics: If he runs in a primary in Texas, he can expect to have his ass handed to him.

Now the Pentagon has "piled on" with more scurrilous charges that an atmosphere of "intolerance" exists at the AF Academy. Folks, what this amounts to is that the folks who run the Pentagon think more like the jihadists than like our Founding Fathers did.

They find outspoken Evangelical Christians to be intolerable, so they try to tar these same Evangelicals with the "intolerant" brush.

The fact is: There ARE problems at the AF Academy with sexual harrassment -- but the fact that there are a lot of Christian cadets, faculty, and AOCs is simply NOT a problem.

I mean, let's face it, do you think it is the Evangelicals who are doing most of the sexual harrassing? I highly doubt it.

Instead of TARGETING these Evangelicals, the AF should be thrilled to have them.

If there were suddenly an influx of Muslim, Buddhist, and Wiccan cadets, I suspect that the geniuses in the Pentagon would be THRILLED!

This buck eventually stops at the desks of the AF Chief of Staff, General Jumper (don't look for any sound moral leadership there); the Secretary of the AF (clearly a spineless specimen); the Secretary of Defense (Mr. BeanCounter himself); and our AWOL President, who apparently sits in his office talking to Karl Rove about Social Security while Syria pours men and terrorists into Iraq to kill our boys and while Mexican organized crime takes over our Southern border and makes it their own little drug- and human-smuggling playground.

Yes, folks. The real problem with our military and with America today is that we have TOO MANY OUTSPOKEN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS at the Air Force Academy!

The Air Force Academy pogrom against Evangelical Protestants continues. Spineless Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. John Rosa -- who has said he has a "problem" with "intolerance" on his staff and in his student body, actually offered a special position to liberal female whiner chaplain Capt Melinda Morton, who has her panties all in a wad because not all Protestant Christians at the Academy are liberal like she is.

For Morton -- whose anti-Evangelical slanders have been eagerly picked up by the New York Times -- to RESIGN AFTER being OFFERED a SPECIAL POSITION by the USAFA Superintendent is so sickening. First, no other junior officer in the Air Force is going to be offered a SPECIAL POSITION after RUNNING to the NYT to COMPLAIN about how bad his/her own organization is. For Rosa to offer her a position shows that he is nothing but an inverterbrate political animal.

Rosa is despicable because he DOES have a REAL problem with sexual harrassment of female cadets by male cadets, but he is taking the old "bait and switch" path and trying to divert attention from his REAL problems and use the time-old technique of targeting Jews or Christians -- in this case Evangelical Christians.

Another loser in this mess is the ADL -- the (Jewish) Anti-Defamation League, as they really very often do a disservice to the Jewish people of America by calling "Wolf! Wolf!" as in this case at the Air Force Academy. There is no anti-Jewish anything going on at the Air Force Academy.

In all this, the Air Force Chief of Chaplains, who is an Air Force Academy chaplain -- as well as a former AF flyer -- is being ignored and dissed by not being allowed to "run his own shop."

Not only that, but Gen Rosa has besmirched the reputation of his own commandant, BrigGen Weida, an outstanding Evangelical Christian gentleman and officer, for not hiding his faith.

The AF Academy makes a big deal about providing worship facilities for Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans -- but then clamps down on Evangelicals for being enthusiastic about their own beliefs.

Joseph Farah waxes eloquent -- as few but Farah can -- about the despicable Bill Clinton's egregious call for Gitmo to be "closed down or cleaned up." (So much for being buddy-buddy with this creep, Mr. Bush!)

Newsmax editor John LeBoutillier tells how the cow ate the cabbage with regard to any hope of a McCain candidacy. (Hint: If you like McCain, you had better read this sitting down.)

Hardheaded analysis of the war in Iraq -- and the strain this war is putting on our military from retired Army General Barry McCaffrey. (And, NO, he isn't calling for us to cut and run.)

The Washington Times opines (intelligently) that it is not such a great idea to incarcerated jihadist cutthroats who were captured on the foreign battlefield like Americans accused of a crime.

Folks, you won't believe this, but . . . . this witness actually says that ICE goes easy on employers who hire illegals. Imagine that!

Condoleeza Rice has just courageously called out the Syrians as ... as... as -- a bunch of meanies!

Bill Gertz has more on the quantum leap in Chinese missile technology that threatens Taiwan, Japan, the US.

Hat tip to the Mudville Gazette this amazing link to Michael Yon. Please scroll down and read Day 19 and Day 20 of his online magazine. I dearly love Michael Yon's reporting from Iraq.

Hat tip to little green footballs for this link to an article about Syria assassinating another outspoken anti-Syrian Lebanese politician.

I couldn't agree MORE with Joseph Farah: Despite great expectations, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice continues to underwhelm in the international arena.

In my opinion, President Bush is living in a dream world -- he does next to nothing about illegal immigration, next to nothing about Syria's support of the machine that kills our soldiers daily, next to nothing about the continuing violence at the hands of Palestinian thugs, next to nothing about Sudan's continued depradations in the Darfur region of the Sudan, next to nothing about Christian persecution at the hands of the Saudis, the Nigerians, the VietNamese and others.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd rather W. do nothing than initiate more social programs, as a Democrat would. However, since he started this war (which I support) in Iraq, it is only right that he finish it, even if that means crossing the borders into Syria and Iran (if not by foot soldiers, then by bomb-laden aircraft or cruise missiles).

Also, let me make it clear: I detest the likes of Chuck Hagel, who is an alleged Republican who passes up no opportunity to criticize the war in Iraq. They say that Hagel harbors Presidential ambitions. I say, "come on down to Texas for a primary, Chuck, so you can see how it feels to get your ass kicked from one end of the Lone Star state to the other!"

Hagel is antiwar. I am all for the war -- but not the one-hand-tied-behind-our-backs kind of war that BUSH has allowed it to become -- and why? He is never going to run for re-election. Why is he cowering before the likes of Kennedy, Leahy, and Durbin.

We used to say, "Let Reagan be Reagan." Why can't W be W, for crying out loud?

Michael Schiavo must be one of the sickest, most twisted individuals currently walking on God's green earth. So, he "kept" his "promise" to Terri by living for years with another woman and refusing to divorce Terri? If the tragic life and death of another human being were not involved, the inscription he placed on Terri's headstone would be fitting material for a Dave Chappelle spoof.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. has a good commenatary piece in the Washington Times calling for Dick Durbin to step down from his Senate leadership position (much as Lott did).

Hugh Hewitt (Hat Tip to him, BTW) has an article in the Weekly Standard on Durbin's anti-American drivel of last week.

While we were caught up with affairs in the Middle East and in Gitmo, the dragon was not sleeping.

This WND piece details China's latest submarine-borne "surprise."

Keeping the world free just got more dangerous.

For those who don't think that the military should be involved in the process of securing our nation's southern border, please read this piece by WND Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Joseph Farah.

Well, the (as some might say) overly fulsome expressions of friendship and kindness extended in recent months to former President Bill Clinton -- not only by President Bush himself, but also -- by both of his parents (Daddy Bush "likes" him and Ma Bush calls Clinton "son") have REALLY reaped some GREAT political dividends!

Yep! Impeached former President Clinton just stabbed W. in the back by calling for Camp Gitmo to be CLOSED (or "cleaned up")! (Hat tip: Matt Drudge.)

Memo to Bush: No matter how nice you are to a snake -- he is still a snake!

Psalm 16

1Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.

2O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee;

3But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.

4Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.

5The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.

6The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.

7I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.

8I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

9Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.

10For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

11Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

The Dick Durbin caper is still churning. If we compare the way boiling water lets off steam in an uncovered pan to the way it does in a covered teapot, we may get a picture of how the MSM's initial general ignoring/downplaying of Durbin's scurrilous Senate-Floor slander of our troops has caused the steam to build up longer in an enclosed environment. This means that when it finally builds up pressure it will be let off with even MORE force than would have been the case if the MSM had originally given Durbin's sordid mischaracterization of our troops the play it deserved.

Obviously the New Media have been hitting the Durbin thing non-stop -- and it is beginning to have a cumulative effect.

Here are some interesting links:

First, for a good chuckle see how Greyhawk (to whom hat is tipped) posts links to three terrific caricatures based on Durbin's oral flatulence -- one via Hugh Hewitt found in the Indianapolis Star, another by Cox and Forkum, and a third by Chris Muir.

Second, the Don Lambro (in the Washington Times online) explains that -- back in Illinois -- the natives are getting restless over what they perceive to be Mr. Durbin's lack of circumspectness.

Third, Newsmax tells us that old Newt Gingrich has sent a letter to the Senate asking the other 99 members of the "world's most exclusive club" to officially C-E-N-S-U-R-E Mr. Durbin. Gingrich suggests that the roll call on that vote will clearly delineate where each solon stands with regard to the character of our troops.

Finally, a couple days ago Fox personality Linda Vester blogged about the issue and posted a TERRIFIC email from an Army Sergeant "C," from New Jersey, who served in Gitmo as a guard. Part of his email is as follows: They [the Gitmo detainees] cursed, spit, threw fecal matter and semen[!] on us. They also verbally threatened and physically assaulted us. Vester indicates in the same piece that she will investigate to see if Sgt. "C"'s claims of detainee abuse of US Soldiers can be verified. Please drop Linda an email to encourage her to do a piece on her Fox-News TV show about the reprehensible treatment OUR soldiers at Gitmo are FORCED to endure at the hands of these jihadist detainees for who the hearts of Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and Leahy bleed so.

Some ruminations about base closures. There is an old saying that goes something like this: That which is urgent is seldom important, and that which is important is seldom urgent. Now, while many more urgent stories are vying for our attention, it is very easy for us to forget about a very IMPORTANT issue, that may not be considered urgent by many -- and that is base closures. BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) has been with us for at least 15 years now. I was assigned to a base that closed in the mid-nineties, so I can say I have felt the effects of this "process" first hand. In fact, who hasn't felt its effects?: Just think of ALL the MAJOR installations that have been closed since 1990: Norton AFB, McClellan AFB, Kelly AFB, Ft. Ord are just a few that come to mind.

[Note: For the purposes of this piece, the discussion is limited to CONUS bases only, as the lifespan of overseas bases can be subject to other sets of pressures and conditions than is the case with domestic bases. There is a place to discuss overseas basing, but that is another subject for another time.]

There is something about the BRAC process that bothers me: The BRAC process just seems to "automatically" keep coming up with list after list of so-called "excess" bases that are recommended for downsizing or closure. If you study the history of BRAC, you will see that downsizing now may simply be prelude to a closure later.

Take March AFB, for instance, which -- despite its (then) new commissary and new Air Force media center (built when nearby Norton AFB had earlier been tagged for closure) -- our solons in their great wisdom seriously downsized in the mid-nineties. But, at least not all was lost: March was permitted to keep its significant Reserve flying mission. Well, . . . . guess what? March is now once again on the BRAC list!

Yes: BRAC seems to have a life of its own -- it just keeps on going, sort of like a cross between the Energizer Bunny and a runaway train. No one ever seems to ask: Why do we still have BRAC? Or, is it perhaps time to PERMANENTLY halt the BRAC choo-choo in its tracks? Logically, it seems like -- unless someone in Washington comes to his/her senses -- BRAC could keep going until there are only two Air Force Bases, two Army posts, and two Navy bases left -- one on each coast -- all in the name of all-important "cost savings."

You know: I hear we have more generals in the military now than we did in World War II: Yet, somehow we don't talk about "downsizing" the ranks of the general and flag officers! Perhaps there is a relationship: The number of bases secure from closure is inversely proportional to the number of officers wearing stars on their shoulders -- something like that.

All kidding aside, I think we have a right to ask -- and should expect to be told -- where does it all end? How many bases have to be closed before the BRAC monster is satisfied. I have to ask: If we keep paying a bunch of highly-educated people in the Pentagon O-5, O-6, GS-14, and GS-15 salaries to come up with new facilities to close each year, do you think that they will EVER stop finding installations that "need killin'?"

In fact I wonder, why Congress doesn't authorize a NEW commission -- say, just for discussion purposes, a Keep Our Military Bases Open Commission (KOMBOC) -- that is required to come up with reasons why NO INSTALLATION should EVER be closed?

First, two admissions:

• I will admit that sometimes some bases may need to be closed/downsized.

• Second, I acknowledge that many venerable military installations in our country's past have been shut down (think of names like Ft. Pitt, Ft. Wayne, Ft. Sumter, or Ft. Marcy) -- again, for this insight, I am indebted to Stan Klos .

Here are some other concerns I have:

• Do "superpowers" that WANT to REMAIN superpowers keep on downsizing their military (while potentially VERY dangerous enemies -- such as China, Iran, North Korea -- continue to AGGRESSIVELY expand their military capabilities)? I recently read (forget where) that, within 20 years, at present growth projections, China will have a Navy that will be five (5) times larger than ours. Will we feel a bit funny THEN about having PERMANENTLY CLOSED -- as recommended on the latest BRAC closure list -- the Portsmouth (Maine) Naval Station or the Groton (Connecticut) sub base?

• Do countries actively engaged in a shooting war (as we currently are) logically want to close bases?

• Can anyone in Washington guarantee that we will never, ever, once again sometime in the future need the very bases we have closed (say, a Fort Ord, or a Norton AFB -- to say nothing of their costly infrastructures, which have (in too many cases) been allowed to go "to seed"?

• Does anyone in Washington know the meaning of "penny wise, pound foolish"? I believe Mr. Rumsfeld has tried to sell the latest round of BRAC closures as saving on the order of $20 Billion over the next 20 years. Now, lest you be impressed with such a figure, keep in mind that in present day terms, $20 Billion is penny ante stuff when the total annual military budget is over $400 Billion. Put another way, Mr Rumsfeld, how much would it COST our children to REPLACE those VERY SAME facilities FROM SCRATCH (should that become necessary sometime in the future) that you are asking us to close on the latest list? May I suggest that it would cost them a GOOD DEAL more than the paltry $20 Billion you claim to be trying to save.

• While I am no fan of Government waste, does ANYONE in Washington REALLY think that running a Defense Department is a "bottom-line" affair in the same way that running a business (small or large) is? Isn't the "bottom line" in the Defense business our national security, rather than "saving $20 Billion over 20 years? I mean, does ANYONE think that building either the ancient Great Wall of China or the current security fence in Israel were "profit-making" endeavors by the host countries? To ask such a question is to answer it. However, both projects evidently provide/d a measure of security to the countries who made the strenuous and costly output to build these structures.
  

Some alternatives to closing bases:

• Mothballing bases: When I was deployed to England during Gulf War I, I personally witnessed the "demothballing" of a World War II-era military hospital that we had mothballed for decades, but NEVER closed. It had been run by, perhaps, 10 US military members and a similar number of British employees for years. I understand that it was occasionally partially "brought up" for military exercises, but, for the most part, sat there UNUSED, but properly sealed and maintained, so that it could, on fairly brief notice, be activated when needed. Interestingly, we were also housed on another (RAF) base across town in empty base housing quarters, which, though no longer occupied by RAF families, had been adequately kept up to be used by the TDY troops during the six weeks we were there. The Brits, with much less real estate to play with, at that time, anyway, seemed to realize that an established base that is currently not needed need not necessarily be closed and allowed to go "to seed."

• Renting out some bases for a small fee for 99 years at a time, while retaining deed to the land (with an emergency eviction clause) -- this is NOT my idea (I read it in something by Stan Klos), but it is a good one, because the value of the (rented out) real estate on which the bases sit will only appreciate (even if the facilities do not). A perfect example -- although dating back from well before the current BRAC era of base closures -- of what I mean is a former US military facility located in downtown San Antonio and known as "The Arsenal." The Arsenal was antiquated, but covered with buildings of hewn stone, located downtown, and exceedingly beautiful. This facility is now owned and (well) used as the administrative and information technology headquarters of the giant Texas grocery chain, HEB. I don't know the details of the transaction, but my guess is that HEB likely purchased the facility several decades ago for a song. The buildings alone on that land are likely worth uncounted millions. My point: Rather than GIVING this facility AWAY to HEB, the Pentagon could/should have RENTED it to HEB for, say, 99 years for the price of, say, one US dollar. That way, HEB would have still had the use of the facility, but the Pentagon would still own the ever-appreciating land and infrastructure that it likely gave away for a song.

• Civilianizing more bases, a la Los Alamos Labs

• Turning control of more facilities over to Reserve and/or National Guard units (without necessarily closing -- although, possibly, in some cases, mothballing -- their exchanges, commissaries, and hospitals)

One amazing paradox about the base closure issue is that it seems -- perhaps more than any other issue I can think of -- cross party lines. No one -- and I am referring to senators, congressman, governors, and mayors -- wants to see a base closed in his/her backyard. I read on the Internet today (not sure where) that the entire Washington State Congressional delegation (regardless of party affiliation) is UNITED against losing the Washington and Oregon installations that appear on the latest BRAC closure list.

While that "bipartisan, united-we-stand" resistance to military closures at first blush sounds encouraging, it is only good as far as it goes. There is an old saying that "all politics is local," and when it comes to fighting base closures, that saying is proven over and over again -- to the detriment of the "big picture." Why is that? Well, take the example of the Washington State Congressional delegation just cited: Their concern is very parochial -- only for bases in their state or in one neighboring state that employs Washingtonians. In other words, are they concerned that, say, Connecticut will be getting hammered harder than perhaps any other state mentioned on the latest BRAC closure list? Further, do they care that, due to the relatively small size of the New England states, that the BRAC-recommended closure of two major Naval installations in Connecticut will have a deleterious effect on SEVERAL New England states? To answer my own question: NO, they don't care.

Or, to give another example, I recently called one of my Texas senator's offices to complain about the general pattern of base closure nationally, and the Congressional aide triumphantly responded to me that "Senator Cornyn has been working all week to try to prevent the closure of the Texas bases" mentioned on the BRAC closure list. It is the old NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome on steroids.

Well, my response is: It is NOT simply a question of the bases in Texas or the bases in Washington or the bases in Connecticut. It is a question of NATIONAL well-being and NATIONAL security. By the various state Congressional delegations' becoming so myopic and pitting themselves against one another, they unwittingly fall for the ploy of the Pentagon's bean counters: Someone's bases STILL get closed.

Sure, if a Democrat is in the White House, the bases finally rescued from BRAC closure may be located in more Democratic areas, and if a Republican is in the White House, the bases spared may be located in districts voting more heavily Repubican. But what does that do? We all still lose. If the Congress critters were smart, they would all unite -- not just across party lines -- but also across STATE lines, and stage a sit-down strike on the Pentagon, saying: STOP this runaway BRAC train! Better, they would pass legislation neutralizing the BRAC process, which is itself empowered by a law passed YEARS ago by (you guessed it) the US Congress.

This is my first written foray into this subject area, and I am quite sure that I do not have all my dates, facts and figures in perfect order, so I welcome feedback and corrections (preferrably with links to authoritative sources that can be cited). However, I wanted to get this out for people to chew on and to generate some serious discussion of the BRAC process, its implications, and its philosophical underpinnings.

Finally, my suggestion is that someone in the MilBlogs ring might consider starting one of those online petitions to (PERMANENTLY) STOP THE BRAC PROCESS IN ITS TRACKS! I would gladly link to it and sign it.

Just a summer afternoon daydream . . . . "What if" . . . . duelling were still legal in this country. Anyone care to wager that some of these Democrat losers (and their RINO tag-alongs) might be a tad bit more circumspect in their comments on the Senate Floor and elsewhere? Wonder how many offers to settle this matter at 15 (or 20) paces Mr. Durbin might be entertaining at this moment? LOL!

More on the Durbin thing. The New Media is absolutely BUZZING about the risible comments the Senate's Number Two Ranking member made on the floor comparing our servicemen to the likes of the ghouls who ran the death camps for Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Of course, on one (rather detached) level, it is laughable, as the analogy has all the depth and weight of a third-grade-level school-boy essay. On another (political) level, it is a gift to the Republicans. However, on a third -- and FAR MORE SERIOUS (international) -- level, Durbin's remarks are egregious for the degree to which they give encouragement to our nation's enemies and to which they stumble our nation's military members who are laboring in harm's way. Durbin, like so many others in our country today, seem to have no adult-level grasp of the significance of what it means to BE AT WAR with enemies who WISH TO DESTROY US. Does Durbin think that, because of his remarks, an Islamic "throat-slitter" (hat tip: Michael Savage) would possibly spare him, given the chance to fillet his gullet with a dull knife?

Michelle Malkin has some great links out there, including some to sites showing pics of what the "real" bad guys (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) and their henchmen did.

Hugh Hewitthas, in a sense, assumed the role of "national narrator" for the good guys in this political firefight. Follow his posts to get the overall flow of the national give and take. The Political Teen has a great quote from VP Cheney on the low level of Durbin's Senate floor musings, as well as a link to the audio of Newt Gingrich's strong reaction to Durbin on Sean Hannity.

I am incensed by the total LACK of support for our military being demonstrated by the Democratic "heavies" in the Senate -- to wit, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and others. Their first love is obviously for the terrorists incarcerated at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Remember, for a moment, that most of these givers of aid and comfort to our enemies and underminers of our troops' morale are filthy rich kids grown up without ever having worked a day in their lives or having served a day in the military. Teddy Kennedy lost one brother in WWII and had another serverly injured in that same conflict. Since then, not a single member of the Kennedy clan has donned the uniform of his country. On the anniversary of the first revelation of the charges of the alleged "abuses" committed at Abu Ghraib, Sen. Kennedy has a several-hundred-words-long "statement," not calling for more support for our boys on the front lines, but calling attention once again to the "abuses" committed toward his darling terrorists kept for good reason behind bars in Abu Ghraib.

Now, this week Sen. Durbin of Illinois has led the Democratic Party to new depths by comparing what has been done to a single Gitmo detainee described in a single statement by a single FBI investigator to be analogous to the depradations committed by: the Nazis, the KGB, and Pol Pot. Now, any reasonable listener could only conclude that, by that analogy, Mr. Durbin was slandering the hard-working men and women of our armed forces.

With the New Media up in arms about Durbin's statement, Durbin has refused to apologize. Meanwhile the Mainstream Media (MSM) has pretty much spiked the story of Durbin's egregious slander of our military men and women.

On Hugh Hewitt's blog, I saw this terrific piece in FroggyRuminations
literally calling for Senator Durbin's political hide!

I take the title of this post from the term "maiden voyage," as used of a ship's first actual mission into the deep, or something along those lines. I realize there are 1,000,001 blogs out there, so it isn't really like this one is "needed." However, I find myself wanting to oppose this countries enemies -- both foreign and domestic -- and, since my "gun is jammed" (figuratively speaking, anyway), I will have to resort to the "pen" (read: Internet) which is "mightier than the sword" (and certainly mightier than a jammed gun). I figure this blog may even lengthen my life somewhat, as I will, perhaps, grind my teeth less and develop ulcers more slowly, if I have this blog as an outlet to "voice" my concerns.

I thought of other names for this blog, but "JammedGun" seemed as good as any. I hope to post on subjects various and sundry, both domestic and international.

A little about myself: Middle aged white male. Married. Christian. (I believe the Bible is the Word of God). Served for over 10 years in the USAF. Son currently serving in the US Army. Live in the Great State of Texas. Because I am a lowly employee and not self-employed, it seemed best to keep myself anonymous, lest needlessly I offend my employers or my fellow employees.

A little more about me: I am interested in matters historical, military, political, theological, and -- to a certain degree -- technical (about computers). I am pretty clueless about economics and investing. (Otherwise, I would not be an employee, right?) I am also interested in world affairs and US foreign policy, as well as the English language, grammar, and matters linguistic. However, I am not a recognized authority on any of the areas mentioned above.

I love to listen to Michael Savage (imho, talk radio's undisputed butt-kicker-in-chief) and local San Antonio broadcaster Carl Wiglesworth on the radio. I also enjoy Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager, but I just LOVE listening to Walter Williams when he hosts Rush's show for him. I really enjoy reading Joseph Farah and Vox Day in WorldNetDaily. Drudge is my number one news source. I have only recently begun reading blogs in earnest. There are too many to name, but among current my favorites are Hugh Hewitt, LittleGreenFootballs, MichaelYon, and Michelle Malkin.

I have many concerns about the current state of affairs in this great country. To be blunt, I believe, as Michael Savage asserts, that we are most threatened by the "enemy within," to include the Mainstream Media (MSM), the secular educational establishment (at every level), the Hollywood cabal, the Democratic Party (exhibits A, B, C, and D being Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Leahy, and Boxer), the overt Christian-haters (e.g., the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), the militant "gay" movement (MGM), domestic Islamist-sympathizers (such as CAIR and Amnesty International), militant pro-illegal immigration types (e.g., MeCha and the Aztlan crowd, to say nothing of the big business types who thrive by exploiting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants), and, of course, the RINO wing of the Republican Party (Exhibits A and B being such troublemakers as Senator Spector and Senator Hagel). I don't think that the thriving porno industry is a source of national "pride," either.

Particular peeves of mine are people who apparently care more about the terrorist prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo than they do about our troops on the front line, the Bush Administration's total apathy toward our broken borders (during our alleged "War on Terror"), the Bush Administration's love for the thugs of the Palestinian Authority (and obvious disdain for Israel), and the ubiquitous feminization of the US military -- to include co-ed barracks/dormitories, as well as women in the military academies and in combat units (to include combat aircraft). I also passionately dislike Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez, as symbolic of all that is wrong with the Bush Administration. (And, if it turns out that Condi Rice is behind Bush's recent despicable double-crossing of Israel, she is on my bad list, as well!)

I realize that no two people will ever agree on everything.

You can reach me via email at: gunjam@hush.ai

---

.