This week I attended the funeral mass of a friend of my father’s who served in the French Air Force during WW 2. and that got me thinking about Syria and the missile strikes now taking place.

One of the things about being the son of a World War 2 Vet (Navy, Pacific 1942-45) is I tend to be much more willing to see US intervention than people in my generation who are the grandchildren of that dying next generation That generation was willing to unite pay the price to stop the Axis power, albeit it took the Nazi’s attacking the USSR to get the leftists on board and Pearl Harbor to bring the isolationists on board.

Of course being a largely Christian society and a type of Christianity that actually believed in heaven and hell (what would be called conservative today) such risks and sacrifices were not only considered virtuous but involved one’s eternal reward. Such a culture is capable of going to war in a just cause and was willing to pay the cost in blood and treasure to win it.

Today with a largely secular society and a generation that needs safe spaces for “microagressions” like saying “he” that’s a different story.

Furthermore we have the contrast of a society being willing bear the costs in lives and treasure to keep a large military force in perpetuity in the countries we conquered to change their societies (our military is STILL in Germany , Italy and Japan 72 years later) vs cutting and running like Barack Obama in Iraq for short term political advantage and allowing our enemies to gain power (which is what caused the rise of ISIS in the first place).

So while the gas attacks in Syria are horrific before we consider going to war in Syria we as a country need to answer these questions.

  1. Are we willing to go to war and pay the price in blood and treasure to topple Assad risking American lives in Syria?
  2. Are we willing to fight that war until it’s actually won rather than fight a limited war for the sake of saving face?
  3. Are we willing once Assad is toppled to stay in Syria for the 30 to fifty years to make sure Syria doesn’t become Iraq or Libya and leave it for Islamist to take over?
  4. Are we willing to take responsibility for not only the military but the civilian casualties that will inevitably take place in Syria in such a war?
  5. Are we willing to risk a military confrontation(s) with Russia and Iran in order to do this?

If we as a society are willing to do this, then it’s absolutely a good idea for the US to declare war (yes we should actually declare war) in Syria and support whatever sacrifices it takes to win. I’d like to think that we are a society and a culture strong enough to do what needs to be done to free Syria and stop not only Assad but his Iranian backers.

If the answer to any of those questions are “no” If we balk at the costs, if we are only willing to fight a limited war to save face and or cut and run in the face of Russia and Iran and leave the situation as it is, if we allow the left outrage over every civilian casualty that war brings (and believe me the anti-Trump left will do so) to cause us to blink, if we leave the Syria to become the next failed state dominated by Islamists to breed terror then we are better off not going. We should do it right or not at all.

Frankly given the reality of our self-centered, soft and narcissistic society I think this is the more likely outcome as I can’t see a nation where the very thought of being nice to Trump supporters sends the left into a public frenzy and where police stand by while rioters attack those who support the president capable of uniting under this president to achieve a great cause like this but I’d be delighted to be proved wrong.

Closing thought: Can someone explain to me why the slaughter of the opponents of Assad with chemical weapons is so heinous that it’s considered a causes belli that must be acted upon but if Assad slaughters those same people with bombs, shelling and small arms it’s not?

Closing thought 2: Does anyone seriously believe that the left with the full backing of the media won’t go the full vietnam/Iraq mode with the hope of producing American defeat if Trump does decides to go to war?


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kinds of attempts to lure the GOP state electors into voting for someone other than Donald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Democrat state electors; Hillary Clinton lost even more electors that Trump did. But, now that the Electoral Vote is done—yesterday—and now that Trump is again the victor, but Clinton won the popular vote, there’s a new meme emerging: that the Electoral College is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the outcry with a description of the three-fifths clause in the Constitution and a distortion of its relationship to the Electoral College.[i]

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations [Ed.: slaves and Indians—and women]. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people [sic] of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. (…)

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

Bloody Kansas Era Editorial Cartoon

The Compromise was a trade-off because no perfect solution to the slavery conundrum was available at the time. It was an advantage to the South at first, but over time, the advantages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strategy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the perfect USA; it was born with a birth defect—an “original sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Organized Left always wants to talk about “original sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins—at least not those committed by their ideological allies.)

If the North had not compromised, one wonders what would have happened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812—the year of the next war with the British. And that time estimation is a generous one.[ii] And even if those fantasy nations had lasted, one wonders when the Southern Nation would have ever abolished slavery.  Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Compromise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her citizenry and liberty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT editorial staff dreams of a never-born United States of America and believes it’s never too late to have an abortion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not forget that Alexander Hamilton was a leading advocate and architect of the Electoral College.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Revolution (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Barbary War, The 1811 German Coast Uprising, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Electoral College Mission Accomplished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

On Twitter, many people call on others to “do something” about the destruction and mass killing of civilians in Aleppo, Syria. By “doing something,” they mean something other than posting about it on Social Media. Likely, these are the same people that bashed our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, short of taking up arms and hightailing over there to fight on one side or the other—an action which was which was criticized both in the current US administration and the one preceding—what exactly should be done?

One wonders whether the do-something people were the same ones who were eulogizing mass murderer Fidel Castro as a freedom fighter a few weeks back.

Aleppo is how most of the real world operates. A New York Times headline calls it an example of “humanity melting down”—as if no group of humans has ever murdered another group of humans until this week. (Maybe they still believe OG Fake Newser Walter Duranty’s report on Ukraine from the 1930s.)

What it is: an example of true, unconstrained human nature. That nature is thusly described: fallen. When individuals allow their nature to be unconstrained, we see murder, etc. When nations allow their policies to be unconstrained, we see genocides.

And on a biblical note, with Russia and Iran being the main actors in this violent play, I can’t help but think of the Isaiah and Ezekiel prophesies about war in Syria—and the roles that Russia and Iran play in that war and in other wars destined to occur in the Last Days.

Could we be observing a prequel—a staging of sorts? Probably.

Side note: on my old blog, I had a commenter who criticized me for “fear-mongering” when I talked about Bible prophecy. My response was that if she didn’t believe the Bible, then I could not monger fear in her; and if she did believe the Bible, then she should know that there is no reason to be afraid.

Side note #2: Read about the Great Revolt—the fall and sacking of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire, 66-70 A.D. People who don’t read much history and who live in the USA, Canada, etc. are always shocked at how Hobbesian the rest of the world is and always has been.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

Barack Obama last night gave his “I”m going to destroy ISIS” speech

I’m going to save the debate of the wisdom, necessity and the strategy of what the http://time.com/3320666/obama-isis-speech-full-text/ for later, instead I want to point out one thing that should be clear to any person not wearing the title of “Low Information Voter”

The reason this president made this speech and stated so uniquely that we are going to destroy ISIS is because his collapsing polls numbers demanded it.

And this president has made it clear, that as a nation we will pay and price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend and oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and the success of said numbers.

If I was ISIS I’d find a third-party to hire a lobbying & PR firm to change US public opinion to bring down those numbers.

I guarantee if they can get those numbers low enough in the next sex months the bombs will stop.

John Sexton at Verum Serum has the story:

Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.

John isn’t surprised but figures these guys are clueless

I really find it hard to believe Anonymous could be this dumb. Really. Do they really think the internet and whatever proxy servers and anonymizers they have at hand can shield them from the NSA? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. I think that once you cross this line you’ve really made yourself an issue for the full attention of people who can probably eat your lunch without breaking a cyber-sweat. Not smart. But I’ll give you this: I respect your honesty.

It is actually stupid on a 2nd level, once you call for the violent overthrow of the government and violence then you give a reason for all those draconian measures you oppose, right Mr. Lincoln?

What do I think? Assuming this is real, it clarifies things. This is not a game of “Call of Duty”, these people are calling for armed rebellion against the elected US government. No matter how “principled” their positions or beliefs might be I think this is a bad idea as Winston Wood Bolt and his comrades would tell them if they were still around.

And if real I think the US Government, Military and Secret Service, should take these people at their word and like Mr. Bolt be treated accordingly.

In Shelby Foote Magnum Opus The Civil War he tells the following story of Confederate General Braxton Bragg that is repeated online here:

“Grant recalled a story about Bragg when he was both company commander and quartermaster. “As commander of the company he made a requisition upon the quartermaster-himself-for something he wanted. As quartermaster he declined to fill the requisition, and endorsed on the back of it his reasons for so doing. As company commander he responded to this, urging that his requisition called for nothing but what he was entitled to, and that it was the duty of the quartermaster to fill it. As quartermaster he still persisted that he was right. Bragg finally went to the post commander for resolution of the problem who declared “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself.””

I could not help but think of that when I saw this story, after many days of delays and false starts NATO (a military organization that the US is the primary member and chief sponsor) finally took over the Libya mission from the US. Today was Day 1 of the NATO led mission. So what is the first thing “they” do?

NATO has asked the United States to continue participating in airstrikes over Libya through late Monday, ABC News has learned.

This was done to make up for the bad weather earlier in the week that had hampered targeting of Gadhafi forces and allowed them to push the rebels back to Ajdabiyah.

I suspect that NATO will have an easier time talking to themselves than Bragg did.

That anyone is taking this farce seriously is an indictment on the gullibility of mankind.

You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.

The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.

Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.

And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.

I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.

Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”

Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!

Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.

One of the strangest bits of what is going on in Libya is watching people describe what is going on.

At my weekly game night I went around the table with the guys and asked the opinion of the people there. About 60% didn’t care for it thinking it was not our business, another 40% not only approved but they had an interesting take, they insisted what we were doing wasn’t a war.

By an odd coincidence that is exactly what the French are claiming too:

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific… to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

Nope it’s nothing at all like a war, I would think the Libyans might disagree.

Exit question: As things are getting interesting in Syria what are the odds of seeing the UN or anyone else support “protecting the civilian population” there.

Police fired live ammunition and tear gas Sunday at thousands of Syrians protesting in a tense southern city for a third consecutive day, killing one person and signaling that unrest in yet another Arab country is taking root, activists said.

I suspect we will be hearing crickets over there.

Well here is another test for our president:

Thick plumes of black smoke were rising from a South Korean island on Tuesday afternoon after an unexpected attack by North Korea, killing several people.

The attack began around 2.30 p.m. local time when North Korea fired more than 200 artillery shells near the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, which has a population of nearly 1,200. As many as 70 houses were reported to be on fire, sending huge plumes of black smoke into the air.

The Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) reported that at least several people had been killed in the attack, while the South Korean Yonhap news agency reported that at least 14 South Korean soldiers had been injured, including four who were seriously injured. At least four civilians were also injured.

Seoul confirmed it responded with artillery fire and scrambled F-16 fighter jets to respond to the sudden attack, which comes days after North Korea unveiled a vast new facility it secretly and rapidly built to enrich uranium.

Let me explain how you respond: YOU SHOOT BACK!

As long as you let NK shoot at you and don’t shoot back, they have a license to shoot at you.

Is there a danger of a full scale war? Yes, and the result of said war. The destruction of North Korea and NK knows it. This is a little dictatorship, they aren’t looking for a war, they are looking for a payout, but if they can squeeze SK they will.

And apparently South Korea gets it:

South Korea says it has returned fire after North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at one of its border islands, killing two marines.

The South’s military was placed on its highest non-wartime alert after the shells landed on Yeonpyeong island.

The North said it did not fire first in the incident. Two South Korean marines and four civilians were also injured.

Sure and the North Koreans are feeding their own people fine too.

Liberty Pundits has an interesting opinion:

OK, so on October 13, 2010, North Korea unveiled their new missile with launching platform for submarine launched missiles. On November 4, 2010, the Military Chief of the North Korean military arrives in Cuba for a meeting. On November 8, 2010, a still-unidentified missile was launched from a submarine at rush hour off the coast of LA, and given all the “cargo ships” from North Korea that have been visiting Cuba this year…well, do I really need to finish that thought? Then, 4 days ago, NK revealed that they were doing what everyone with a pulse knew they were doing: making potential weapons grade plutonium from a nuclear plant. And today, they sent 200 missiles to the South Korean Island Yeonppeyong, killing several people.

200 missiles.

They got away with an act of war off our west coast…of course they feel entirely comfortable going after North Korea! And Japan…you’re on their list too.

Well President Obama, you wanted this job, what are you going to do about it?

Update: PJM gets to the heart of the matter:

In March of this year, the South Korean Pohang-class corvette was torpedoed by a North Korean submarine. Hillary Clinton responded by sternly warned North Korea that it would face consequences.

In warning Pyongyang, Secretary of State Clinton aimed to send a “clear message” to North Korea. “We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to unanswered by the International Community”. Whatever the message sent was, it didn’t deter North Korea from this latest attack. But don’t worry. The odds are that Secretary Clinton is consulting with allies to determine how to engage Pyongyang so that this doesn’t happen again, at least not in the next few months.

As a famous sea caption once said: “Cringing to these fellows will never do!”

…he is capable of making an interesting argument and is not afraid of making them.

Today on Morning Joe he has teamed with Ron Paul and now Pat Buchanan and is making the argument on base cutbacks in Europe and elsewhere.

The question he and Ron Paul (and now Pat) make is an interesting one: At what point do we let Europe defend itself?

It’s a fair conversation to have. He talked about the financial costs for us and the subsidy that it , but he actually neglected one of the more important arguments in his favor.

Culturally you have a change in Europe where you have nations that have forgotten how to defend themselves. Recall the famous line from Oscar van den Boogaard quoted in this column and Mark Steyn’s America Alone:

“I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

and to show that the attitute is not just owned by Dutch gay humanists here is a doozy:

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

Why would we expect a culture that doesn’t have to defend itself to do so? If we want this to change we would have to take the hand away. The question becomes are they too far gone already? Would Europe change or fold if our defensive blanket was removed? This is the true cost of American defense.

And then comes the other end of the coin. The benefits of our forward bases. Can a re-armed Europe be able to defend against a newly re-aggressive Russia? Would a re-armed Europe decide to go back to fighting among themselves? Would a Newly re-armed Europe’s military infrastructure become an Islamic military infrastructure in a generation?

Even more important are all of those problems not taking place simply because US troops are there? There were no US bases in Serbia when the war took place, is that a coincidence?

Or put another way: Will US troops and treasure in even greater quantities have to be spent to re-impose peace and re-take territory once we leave?

Or to put it another way, everything costs something. Both positions carry price and risks. Which price and which risk do we as a nation want to incur?