Pan Am Flying Boats

 I have posted enough budget stuff, now I am going to airplanes.  I remember reading about the PAN-AM clippers  in my aviation history books from time life.  This was the golden age of the flying boats. 

 

The Flying Boat Airliner

The flying boat airliner dominated international airline service in the 1920s and 1930s.
Although aerodynamically less efficient than streamlined landplanes, flying boats could provide scheduled passenger service to any city with a sheltered harbor, which made them the ideal international airliner at a time when runways capable of handling large aircraft were scarce.

The Pan Am Clippers

The most famous flying boat airliners were the Pan Am Clippers, and the era of the flying boat reached its height with the luxurious Boeing 314 flying boat, with which Pan American Airways inaugurated the first scheduled transatlantic airline service between Europe and America in 1939.
Pan Am’s leader, Juan Trippe, decided to call his flying boats “clippers” as part of his effort to link his airliner with the maritime heritage of the ocean liners with which Pan Am was in competition, and with which the public were so comfortable.

Sikorsky S-40

Sikorsky S-40

The first Pan American plane to be called a “Clipper” was the Sikorsky S-40 flying boat, introduced in 1931.  The S-40 helped Pan Am spread its wings in Latin American, but it was a relatively primitive machine which never fully satisfied the needs of the airline.

Sikorsky S-42

Sikorsky S-42

The streamlined Sikorsky S-42 was a giant leap forward in flying boat technology.  The S-42 was used extensively on Pan Am’s Latin American network and made pioneering survey flights to develop Pan Am’s routes across the Pacific.

Martin M-130

Martin M-130

Pan American’s famous China Clipper, a Martin M-130 flying boat, inaugurated the first regularly scheduled passenger and mail across the Pacific in November, 1935.

Boeing B-314

Boeing B-314

The apex of flying boat design was the Boeing B-314, introduced in 1939. Sometimes known as the Yankee Clipper or Dixie Clipper type, the luxurious B-314 provided the first scheduled heavier-than-air passenger service across the Atlantic ocean.

THE DEMOGRAPHY OF DEBTORS

I read this from here      It is a bit long but a real good read.

Steyn on the World

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

HAPPY WARRIOR from National Review The other day, Abdul Qadir Fitrat, the governor of Afghanistan’s central bank, fled the country. The only wonder is that there aren’t more fleeing. Not Afghans; central bankers. I mean, you gotta figure that throughout the G-20 there are more than a few with the vague but growing feeling that the jig’s up big time. Round about the time the Afghan central banker was heading for the hills, the Greek central banker ventured some rare criticisms of his government. “Piling more taxes on taxpayers has reached its limit,” said Giorgos Provopoulos. The alleged austerity measures do not “place enough emphasis on the containment of spending.” All very sensible. Prudent and measured. Outside, in the streets of Athens, strikers struck, rioters rioted, and an already shrunken tourism industry dwindled down to an international press corps anxious to get on with societal collapse. “We don’t want your money, Europe,” declared a protesting “youth,” Iamando, 36. “Leave us alone — please, please, please.” I would bet that, somewhere not too deep down, Giorgos Provopoulos understands that the problem is not the Greek economy or the Greek government but the Greek people. Many years ago in this space, I quoted the line Gerald Ford liked to use when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” And I suggested there was an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s the stage Greece is at and so, to one degree or another, is the rest of the Western world. In the United States, our democracy is trending as Athenian as the rest: We’re the Brokest Nation in History, but, as those Medicare polls suggest, getting enough people to give enough of it back isn’t going to be any easier than it is in Greece. From Athens to Madison, Wis., too many people have gotten used to a level of comfort and ease they haven’t earned. It’s not a green-eyeshade issue. The inability to balance the books is a symptom of more profound structural imbalances. Over on the Mediterranean, the only question that matters is: Are the Greek people ready to get real? Most of us, including Mr. Provopoulos, have figured out the answer to that. Since Obama took office, it’s been fashionable to quote Mrs. Thatcher’s great line: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” But we’re way beyond that. That’s a droll quip when you’re on mid-20th-century European fertility rates, but we’ve advanced to the next stage: We’ve run out of other people, period. Hyper-rationalist technocrats introduced at remarkable speed a range of transformative innovations — welfare, feminism, mass college education, abortion — whose cumulative effect a few decades on is that the developed world has developed to breaking point: Not enough people do not enough work for not enough of their lives. In the course of so doing, they have fewer children later. And the few they do have leave childhood ever later — Obamacare’s much heralded “right” for a 26-year old to remain on his parents’ health insurance being merely a belated attempt to catch up with the Europeans, and one sure to be bid up further. A society of 25-year-old “children” whiling away the years till early middle age in desultory pseudo-education has no desire to fund its prolonged adolescence by any kind of physical labor, so huge numbers of unskilled Third World immigrants from the swollen favelas of Latin America or (in Europe) the shanty megalopolises of the Muslim world are imported to cook, clean, wash, build, do. On the Continent, the shifting rationale for mass immigration may not illuminate much about the immigrants but it certainly tells you something about the natives: Originally, European leaders said, we needed immigrants to work in the mills and factories. But the mills and factories closed. So the new rationale was that we needed young immigrants to keep the welfare state solvent. But in Germany the Turks retire even younger than the Krauts do, and in France 65 percent of imams are on the dole. So the surviving rationale is that a dependence on mass immigration is not a structural flaw but a sign of moral virtue. The evolving justification for post-war immigration policy — from manufacturing to welfare to moral narcissism — is itself a perfect shorthand for Western decay. Most of the above doesn’t sound terribly “fiscal,” because it’s not. The ruinous debt is a symptom of our decline, not the cause. As Angela Merkel well understands every time she switches on the TV and sees a news report from Greece, culture trumps economics. I had a faintly surreal conversation with two Hollywood liberal pals not so long ago: One moment they were bemoaning all those right-wing racists like Pat Buchanan who’d made such a big deal about the crowd cheering for the Mexican team and booing the Americans at a U.S.–Mexico soccer match in Pasadena, and deploring the way the U.S. goalie had complained that the post-match ceremony was conducted entirely in Spanish. Ten minutes later they were sighing that nothing in Los Angeles seemed to work quite as well as it did when they first came out west over 40 years ago. And it never occurred to them that these two conversational topics might somehow be connected. Meanwhile, at Redwood Heights Elementary in Oakland, Californian kindergartners are put through “Gender Spectrum Diversity Training” in order to teach them that there are “more than two genders.” The social capital of a nation is built up over centuries but squandered in a generation or two. With blithe self-confidence, the post-war West changed too much too fast. We changed everything, and yet we’ll still wonder why everything’s changed.

Hanoi Jane is back in the news.

I remember the only person that my dad has a visceral hatred for,   When I was young(teenager) I saw him using some real foul language at the TV and I waited for him to calm down then I asked him what the matter was.  He replied "that traitorous bitch jane fonda"  Pointing to the tv screen that depicted her in warmup gear peddling her workout video's and book.  He then told me about being over there in 1972 and listening to her broadcast her lies and sedition.  Why she wasn't tried as a traitor and hung couldn't be understood.  I also remember a story where some of the POW's agreed to meet with her and they by slight of hand gave her a list of POW's at the hanoi hilton.  After the meet and greet, she to the dumbfounded POW's gave the list to her NVA handler.  They were tortured and a couple of them died on account of it.    I also remember being with my mom as my Dad came back from vietnam and the hatred that he and other G.I's got from the public, he and others were reluctant to wear his uniform off post because of the treatment they received.  I remember being sad for my Dad because I am very proud of my Dad well because he is my Dad and others of his generation that did the right thing and were crapped on.  I also remember a fight I had when I came back from the gulf and was in a club in Germany and some local calls me a "murderer and a baby killer", that was the only time I really enjoyed beating somebody's ass and as I pummeled this guy I kept thinking "yeah I am getting a lick in for my Dad and his generation.   



Hanoi Jane Whines After Being Dumped By QVC – Lashes Out at “Insane Extremists” Who Opposed Her Appearance

In 1972 "Hanoi" Jane Fonda applauded an NVA anti-aircraft gun crew during her trip to North Vietnam. These guns were used to shoot down American planes and contributed to the deaths of American Airmen.
But Jane Fonda thinks she’s suffered enough.
Hanoi Jane whined after being dumped from QVC after they received several calls criticizing her for her previous propaganda work with the North Vietnamese.
Via the Jane Fonda website, via Free Republic:

I was to have been on QVC today to introduce my book, “Prime Time,” about aging and the life cycle. The network said they got a lot of calls yesterday criticizing me for my opposition to the Vietnam War and threatening to boycott the show if I was allowed to appear. I am, to say the least, deeply disappointed that QVC caved to this kind of insane pressure by some well funded and organized political extremist groups. And that they did it without talking to me first. I have never shied away from talking about this as I have nothing to hide. I could have pointed out that threats of boycotts are nothing new for me and have never prevented me from having best selling books and exercise DVDs, films, and a Broadway play. Most people don’t buy into the far right lies. Many people have reached out to express how excited they were about my going onto QVC and hearing about my book.
Bottom line, this has gone on far too long, this spreading of lies about me! None of it is true. NONE OF IT! I love my country. I have never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us.

What a horrible woman.

- The Gateway Pundit

5 lies of the debt debate

The article below is from Human Events.
Enough said.

Incontinent spending put America $14 trillion in debt. 
The politicians who borrowed and spent us into debt 
want permission to borrow more so that they can 
spend more. And if they don’t get permission to 
borrow more money, they assure us that our debt 
woes will worsen.

Does this seem like a solution or a rationalization?

Washington is hooked on spending. Like other 
addicts, politicians tell lies to get their fix. 
Jonesing for more money, they insist that 
raising the debt limit is the best way to limit 
America’s debt.

Bad habits are tough to break. Surely, dishonesty
 about the problem doesn’t bring us any closer 
to a solution.

In the spirit of providing clarity through the 
haze of deceit, here are the five big lies the 
spending addicts tell to satiate their cravings 
for more of your money:  

Lie #5 Americans Want a Tax Increase
“Eighty percent of the American people support 
an approach that includes revenues and cuts,”
 the president claimed Friday. “So the notion 
that somehow the American people aren’t sold 
is not the problem. The problem is members of 
Congress are dug in ideologically into various 
positions because they boxed themselves in 
with previous statements.” A poll released the 
previous day by Rasmussen showed that while 
a majority of Democrats want a tax increase 
as part of the deal, just 34 percent of Americans 
favor one in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling.

Lie #4 The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share
Obama contended in his Saturday radio address 
that he merely planned on “asking the wealthiest 
Americans to pay their fair share” and that 
“we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest 
Americans to share in that sacrifice.” 
Leaving aside whether Obama intends to merely 
“ask” wealthy Americans for more of their money, 
there is the subjective question of what constitutes
 a “fair share.” A study by the Tax Foundation 
found that America’s richest tenth pays a higher 
percentage of income taxes than their counterparts 
in Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and every other 
similar industrialized nation. According to the 
Internal Revenue Service, the wealthiest five 
percent of Americans pays 59 percent of income 
taxes and the bottom fifty percent pays three percent 
of income taxes. 
Who, precisely, isn’t paying their “fair” share?

Lie #3 The U.S. Will Default If Congress Doesn’t
 Raise the Debt Ceiling 
The president has repeatedly referred to a failure 
to raise the debt limit as “Armageddon.” But if the 
debt ceiling is not raised before it expires the first 
week of August, it’s not the end of Washington’s 
money—let alone the end of the world. The U.S. Treasury 
will claim revenues of about $172 billion for the 
remainder of the month. Even practitioners of 
fuzzy math understand that revenues of $172 
billion are enough to cover an interest payment
 of $29 billion. Not only are the revenues sufficient
 to pay the interest on the debt, but military salaries, 
Social Security, and Medicare, too. 
Dramatic spending cuts would necessarily follow 
a decision not to raise the debt ceiling. 
But it’s a lie to equate an act of fiscal responsibility 
(refusing to allow more borrowing) with one of 
recklessness (default).

Lie #2 The Bush Tax Cuts Caused the Debt
“It turns out that our problem is we cut taxes 
without paying for them over the last decade,” 
Obama claimed during Friday’s press conference. 
But revenues, which had been in decline 
immediately prior to the enactment of the 
Bush tax cuts, increased by more than a third 
soon after the top rates fell from 40 percent 
to 35 percent. While receipts declined dramatically 
in the aftermath of the financial/housing crisis, 
they had increased even more dramatically—
$1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.6 trillion in 2007—in 
the wake of the Bush tax cuts. As with the Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy/Johnson, and Reagan rate reductions, revenue counterintuitively increased following the Bush tax cuts.

Lie #1 Conservatives Who Oppose Raising t
he Debt Ceiling Are (Insert Insult Here)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee sees 
racism fueling opposition to raising the debt ceiling.
Newsweek’s Tina Brown calls Republicans “suicide bombers.” Economist Paul Krugman calls the GOP “crazy.”
 But there are sensible reasons why an elected 
official might believe that taking on new debt 
would make a debt crisis worse, not better. 
“The fact that we are here today to debate 
raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership 
failure,” Senator Obama explained in 2006 
regarding his vote against raising the debt ceiling. 
“It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay 
its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on 
ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries 
to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.” 
Amen.

Sticking it to the grandkids....they don't vote

Sticking It To The Grandkids

July 19, 2011 by Robert Ringer 

PHOTOS.COM

All Democrats and most Republicans are doing is playing politics in an effort to prolong the inevitable so our children and grandchildren will be left holding the bag of hyper-inflated currency when the U.S. does finally default on its debt.

I think by now everyone who is halfway honest and has an IQ above 32 realizes that the claim that the U.S. will default its debt if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by Aug. 2 is just another shameless Democratic canard.
Thanks to cable TV, talk radio and the Internet, the facts are well known:
First, while the exact amounts vary from month to month, the government brings in, on average, about $200 billion a month from (mostly unwilling) taxpayers and pays out, on average, about $20 billion in monthly interest charges. That’s a tenfold coverage.
Second, Social Security and Medicare, at least right now, are easily covered by government revenues each month. There’s no nice way to say it: Barack Obama has been blatantly lying about Social Security and Medicare payments being in jeopardy, as has the rest of the Democratic leadership.
Third, there would also be enough money available to meet our current military obligations (though we need a good debate about how much military we really need in order to defend our country).
Fourth, everything that’s left (about 30 percent of scheduled expenditures) can be prioritized, with the only question being who should make the decisions as to what goes at the top of the list and what goes at the bottom. Not doable, says Turbo Tax whiz Timothy Geithner. Turbo Tim insists that prioritizing government payments won’t work because it would “spur deep cuts in other disbursements and still cause investors to shun U.S. Treasury securities.”
No question about it, it definitely would cause deep cuts in other disbursements, but that’s a good thing. It’s a forced solution to government’s spending addiction. And the notion that cutting spending would cause investors to stop buying U.S. Treasuries is questionable, at best. On the contrary, the rest of the civilized world has made it clear that it is gravely concerned about rapidly increasing U.S. spending and debt.
Continued out-of-control spending is far more likely to cause investors to pull their money out of U.S. Treasuries than a fantasy default. Geithner, who was wrong on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (even though TARP was his predecessor’s creation), wrong on the “stimulus,” and wrong on his own taxes, said: “Ultimately, the notion of ‘prioritizing’ payments is futile because the debt limit must be increased regardless of which spending path is adopted. There is no credible budget plan under which a debt-limit increase can be avoided.”
Wrong again, Timmy. There most certainly is a creditable budget plan to avoid raising the debt ceiling. It’s called: Cut spending. That’s right, just cut spending enough, and you don’t have to raise the debt ceiling one dime.
And once that’s accomplished, a new House, Senate and President in 2013 could start making serious cuts in the budget, with the litmus test being whether a given program or expenditure is constitutional. Such a litmus test would make it possible to dramatically reduce taxes, borrowing and fiat-money creation.
Geithner warns that because the United States now borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends, prioritizing payments without raising the debt ceiling would force the U.S. to cut 40 percent of all government expenditures. Darn. And here I was hoping to see spending cuts more in the area of 80 percent of current expenditures.
Finally, Geithner got to the heart of America’s impending financial doom when he said that such spending cuts “would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life.” He included military families, veterans and government employees — all commonly referred to by politicians as voters.
The military families and veterans obligations can be whittled down over a period of time by closing most of our 700 overseas military bases and staying out of nation-building wars. For a fraction of current costs, we can bring our troops home and have them focus on defending our own porous borders rather than bombing, then rebuilding, countries on the other side of the globe that have no interest in establishing a democratic form of government.
As to government employees, do you know anyone who would be unhappy with getting rid of as many “public servants” as possible?
Those who insist that not paying for programs and employees already on the books is just as much of a default as not paying interest on the national debt are, in effect, saying: “Even though we have to go deeper into debt to pay for these government programs, which assures that default is only a matter of time, we have no choice because we’ve already made those commitments to people.” What great logic.
Sorry, but if Congress passes unConstitutional legislation to implement unConstitutional programs, it is not your obligation to pay for them. On the contrary, it is Congress’s duty to repeal all such legislation, because, first and foremost, members of Congress made a commitment that trumps all other commitments — the commitment to uphold the Constitution!  I’m feeling a bit lonely wondering about how many other people even care about this little inconvenient truth.
But let’s get real here and face reality. The U.S. will ultimately default on its debt obligations regardless of what deal Congress strikes. Every halfway honest person with an IQ below 32 knows that. All Democrats and most Republicans are doing is playing politics in an effort to prolong the inevitable so our children and grandchildren will be left holding the bag of hyper-inflated currency when the U.S. does finally default on its debt. Lots of luck, kids.
Our problem is not how to deal with the debt ceiling. It’s much bigger than that. Our real, underlying problem is that we have lost our moral compass.
–Robert Ringer

Bullet train to bankruptcy

Government

Bullet train to bankruptcy

"The country is on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy (the only kind of bullets liberals approve of), and the Democrats' motto is: Spend! Spend! Spend! Democrats are at an advantage in the 'should the U.S. go bankrupt or not?' debate because, based on their economic policies so far, they obviously favor bankruptcy. This allows them to sit back and demand that Republicans propose all the spending cuts and then turn around and scream that Republicans have declared war on the poor and disadvantaged. It's a nice trick, especially considering Republicans control only the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan? Their plan is to keep spending, while blaming tax breaks for corporate jets for the entire $14.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats will never suggest any cuts to a budget that has put the country another $4 trillion in debt only since Obama became president. So Republicans keep proposing cuts and Democrats keep riling up the increasingly large number of people who get checks from the government. Nothing ever gets cut, but more people hate Republicans for having proposed any cuts at all. ... If Republicans cut government spending, recipients of government checks come after them with pitchforks. If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling to force spending cuts, the economy collapses. In general, the trend seems to be in the direction of higher spending and endless debt." --columnist Ann Coulter

email from Dad....

This is a oldie, but a goodie.  I have seen thing floating around for a while.  It is still funny as hell....to me anyway.

An oldey but a goody

---

A new Priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak. After mass he asked the Monsignor how he had done.

The Monsignor replied, "When I am worried about getting nervous on the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous, I take a sip."

So next Sunday he took the Monsignor's advice. At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink. He proceeded to talk up a storm.

Upon his return to his office after the mass, he found the following note on the door:

1) Sip the vodka, don't gulp.

2) There are 10 commandments, not 12.

3) There are 12 disciples, not 10.

4) Jesus was consecrated, not constipated.

5) Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass.

6) We do not refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C.

7) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the Spook.

David slew Goliath; he did not kick the **** out of him..

9) When David was hit by a rock and was knocked off his donkey, don't say he was stoned off his ass.

10) We do not refer to the cross as the 'Big T.'

11) When Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said, "Take this and eat it for this is my body." He did not say,"Eat me."

12) The Virgin Mary is not called 'Mary with the Cherry'.

13) The recommended grace before a meal is not: Rub-A-Dub-Dub thanks for the grub, Yay, God.

14) Next Sunday there will be a taffy pulling contest at St. Peter's not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy's

Poverty in America

I read this piece and it confirmed what I have already suspected and believe, the poor in America have it made.  you want to see poor people, go to the 3rd world in Africa or to the huts in South America, That is poverty, not what you see in America.  When I was delivering pizza, I delivered to a lot of poor peoples houses, they had section 8 approval, lived in middle/upper class neighborhoods, we pizza drivers knew who the poor were by certain indicators, they had the 50" plasma, the game system, the assorted GM products or Lexus with dub rims, and the lawn furniture doing double duty as living room furniture.  "we made jokes like" wings and sprite...the tip will be light"  There are soo many people getting assistance from the government like 1 out of 7, where is the self reliance.  Getting purpetual goodies from the "gubbment because it is free" is draining the reliance from the people and making them dependent on the government.  I give you examples like katrina, the people stayed and waited for the government to tell them what to do.  they have become sheep.  I understand the need to help, but when it becomes a crutch,or a way to get more stuff, it becomes a problem.  Even Obungler admits that generational welfare is bad and that is what we have.  Once you get goodies from the government, you will want to keep that benefit coming, and you will vote accordingly to the party that will keep the gravy coming.

Studies released yesterday by the Heritage Foundation show that 30 million Americans are living in “poverty,” according to the US Census Bureau.  Wow, that’s a pretty sizable number … until you remember that what it means to be “poor” in America has become a colossal joke.  How did this happen? It happened with Lyndon Johnson.  He was looking for ways to expand government social programs.  So he went to Social Security Administration and asked them to come up with a definition of poverty.  He made it clear – we need a definition that will enable us to expand our social welfare programs. So the Social Security Administration came up with a definition that is so absurd that we can inflate to unbelievable heights the supposed number of people living in poverty in the US.  These statistics are based on 2005 figures, but after reading the study you can conclude that these figures are pretty similar to our current economy.

• The typical “poor” household in America has a car

• 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning

• 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and  VCR

• Most “poor” households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation

• 38% of “poor” households in America have a personal computer

• Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

• The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.

• The typical “poor” American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.

The average “poor” household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.  What they are struggling to afford is air conditioning and cable TV, not food.

monday music

Men at work I have their "Down under" video A very funny video

 The following video was "who can it be now"  it was their first video of their first U.S. hit.

They also did the video" its a mistake"  I considered it a piece of propaganda for the russians.  I have made the comment that they should have gotten the order of lenin for that piece.

Obungler Defence cuts

 I remember after the collapse of the wall and the implosion of the soviet union, how the left immediately talked about "Peace dividend"    The military immediately started cutting back, the U.S. Army cut back the most, something like 50%.   I got RIFted in 1991 after coming back from the Gulf War.  The intelligence agencies cut back because the cold war was over and we needed to spend on butter.  THe military was cut back and thanks to Clinton, the services had political forces to deal with.  I remember "DAKOWITZ" It was an organization that was championed by Hillery to promote the feminist agenda and they acted like political commissars to the services.  The intelligence services and the military were concerned about the politics of political correctness which is understandable since that is where the money and power resides.  The military and intelligence services forgot that the main goal was defence of this nation and their citizens.  I remember black hawk down, the bombing of kobar towers, the Kosovo debacle. followed by the 9/11.  We were perceived as weak by our enemies and that is why they struck.  Now history is repeating itself, I fear that we will be humiliated as a nation in 10 years because of the actions taken by Obungler and the democraps.  You know the ones that don't believe in American exceptionalism and would like to see us as a nation lessened.

 

 

Obama-Style Defense Budget Cuts Are a Big Deal and Could Bring Back the Draft

By

Dacia Nichol

– July 17, 2011Posted in: Columns, Featured Stories, On the Front Lines

Or so says the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General James “Hoss” Cartwright.
Currently, President Obama’s proposal is to cut $400 billion from the defense budget over the course of the next twelve years. If that doesn’t already sound like a recipe for risk, there’s even more: further cuts are on the way. These concerns don’t just reflect my pessimistic view about the president’s stance toward the military; they stem from Obama’s own words during a recent White House press conference:

“I, as commander-in-chief, have to have difficult conversations with the Pentagon, saying ‘There’s fat here, we have to trim it out’ . . . [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates has already done a good job identifying $400 billion in cuts, but we’re going to do more.”

Of course, the Pentagon has already rung some warning bells about the possible repercussions of thoughtless budget cuts. Prior to retirement, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed to some potential consequences of the current budget proposals; one of his primary warnings concerned the potential for “hollow force.” Less defense investment means higher risk, after all, and a smaller global footprint.
General Cartwright explained to reporters in Washington, D.C. that making cuts on this scale would be done in three stages, lasting 3-4 years each. The first stage would take money from programs that could immediately be reined in, such as training and flying hours; the second stage would hit structural areas, like force numbers and types of forces maintained (e.g., more reserve vs. active duty, or a possible transition to a draft for larger umbers when they are needed); and the third phase would hit big-ticket items, leading to possible base closures and benefit reductions. It would take a decade to even enact those types of cuts, due to the legalities involved.
When the debate is framed in those terms, then, the uproar over defense cuts might seem a little overblown. After all, this would be a gradual project that would be implemented over the course of many years–theoretically giving us plenty of time to absorb the shock. Additionally, when you do the math the cuts add up to approximately 5% slashed each year, or around $35 billion. In the era of the trillion-dollar President, $35 billion is like change for a twenty. It’s that little devil in those flustering details that we have to watch out for, though.
For instance, consider our Fiscal year 2012 budget DOD71l;: Under the “Major Weapons Systems” procurement funding request, modernizing ground systems has a price tag of $16 billion, missile defense asks for $10 billion, and missiles & munitions asks for $11 billion. In sum, modernizing three essential weapons systems is basically 5% of the defense budget. Sure, you can come up with $35 billion from somewhere else in the budget other than weapons this year, but when you have to get rid of that amount every year over the course of twelve years, at some point you’re going to hit some essentials; this will incur some of the risks that Gates referred to.
There’s also a big red flag regarding immediate reductions that shouldn’t be overlooked here: cuts in training and flying programs. Common sense and history agree: money spent in peacetime can save lives, i.e., more training means more prepared troops, which means fewer casualties. In his book How to Make War, military historian James Dunnigan made the argument that the low U.S. casualty rate in Desert Storm was due to all the money committed to training and equipment during the 1980s; I’m inclined to agree. Considering the increasing war fronts we’re facing, with new elements that require new strategies, extensive training and preparations to take that success forward could be crucial.
It’s the second and third combined parts of the 12-year budget cut plan that raise the risk of a draft. When restructuring military forces to fit within budget constraints, having such a large active-duty force will be difficult: It may be that we will need to activate a larger number of reservists more frequently, or resort to conscription.

Patriotism is a big part of American life, but so is self-determination. Becoming a veteran is more than just taking on a job for four to six years. As the saying goes, a veteran is someone who hands over a blank check to the U.S. government which is payable up to and including their life. Yes, there will be a number of individuals that will serve their country regardless of incentive, but if your forces are “hollowed out,” your benefits are slim, and you need large numbers of troops to enter a conflict, where would you acquire them with any amount of expediency? A draft might come to mind.
Again, the problem is not just that there’s $400 billion being cut over the course of a decade or so; it’s the likelihood that even more will be cut following that if the president has his way–and, considering the history of new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, it’s pretty safe to assume the worst.
Considering the risks involved with the current defense budget cut proposal, this debate really can’t be pigeon-holed into that of neo-cons and the “military industrial complex” vs. the American taxpayer, as some would like to characterize it. Being Americans–that is, being the leaders we are in the world–we have huge responsibilities, and at the center of all that is the strength of our military. There’s good reason to be concerned when our ability to meet those responsibilities is threatened.
In other words, it’s kind of a big deal.

In the USA

In the USA - The Homeless go without eating.

In the USA - The Elderly go without needed medicines.

In the USA - The Mentally ill go without treatment.

In the USA - Our Troops go without proper equipment.

In the USA - Our Veterans go without benefits they were promised.

Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first.

Have the guts to re-post this. 1% will re-post, 99% won't have the guts to re-post this.

----------------------------------

  

In the USA........

Yes, and we all know the above is true, painfully so. While the United States is still the BEST and foremost country in which one can reside in, we have our problems and faults. NO country is perfect nor does any country have a spotless, pure Lilly white past when one delves into our history or the history of any other country.

Most of our problems that we are now facing could be solved or the burdens greatly eased by cutting off any and all aid to those countries that take and take from us, and then stab us in the back every way they can. The amount of aid we dump into the muslim world is appalling, especially when we look at how obama, the first muslim potus has reached out to the perverted, backward and violent muslim world. pakistan and afghanistan immediately come to mind and these two are just the tip of the iceberg and are a perfect example.

There are those who will say yes, the above is true and Israel should be included in this group and be cut off from all aid from the United States. One major difference; Israel is our ally(no thanks to obama and his islamist administration) and would stand next to us in a time of war and conflict. Many of our so called European allies cannot hold a candle to Israel when compared to Israel in terms of being a true ally even after all the mullah obamaham has done to Israel.

It is long past time to take care of our own, and those who are not our true allies need to be kicked to the curb.

Thanks to Paul English Whu for the re-post on the opening portion of this feed.

Where is the flag?

I got this from here  A worthy site and worth a bookmark

THE FLAG IS GONE

This is part of the 'change' we were promised. But nobody will question him in fear of being called a racist. What an embarrassment.

For a long time, we have noticed that the decor at the White House has changed since BHO moved in.

The Oval Office is now stripped of the traditional red, white, and blue, and replaced with middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and decor.

The hallway that he walks out of to talk to the press now has middle eastern chairs, drapes, etc. And the thing that has bothered me the most is the bright yellow drape behind him every time he speaks from the White House.

It has Arabic symbols on it and has been there from the beginning.

Today I received this and it clearly shows what I have been noticing. That bright yellow curtain is highly visible, but as you scroll down, you will see what is predominantly absent. Also, as you look at the pictures of other presidents speaking from the same spot, look at the traditional 'American' background and decor as opposed to the new decor. Trust me when I say that this is intentional. It should alarm every American.


What is missing at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference?
No it is not the teleprompters. See the other president's pics for a clue.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

WILLIAM JEFFERSON BLYTHE CLINTON

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

RONALD WILSON REAGAN


That's right . . . no American flags ! ! !



Vote in November like your way of life depends on it! Because it does ! ! ! ! !

Obungler 2012 relection poster

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,

the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,

its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..."

-- Winston Churchill

Hope and change cartoons

Friday, July 15, 2011

Groucho Harpo Barack O

Every now and then, if you keep perfectly still, hold your breath, and have exceptionally sharp ears...you can hear a little "truth" in between Barack Obama's lies. And what a truth it is...

In this week's press conference in which the president was arguing to raise taxes during an economic crisis, he said this: "I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which...I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans."

Let's review that again slowly: Barack Hussein Obama finds it unacceptable that anyone should have an income which provides more than they "need". And others who claim to have needs (but insufficient means) should simply be given the confiscated wealth of the person who earned it.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is Marxism 101: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" And who determines what those "needs" are, and in which direction the money will flow? The government, of course!

But just how can the all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-beneficent government really understand how much of someone's income they actually "need"? If the person is able to meet all their bills, they clearly don't need that extra money, right? Unless they're saving up for a better home, or retirement, or hope to take some time off, or are setting aside money to eventually start a business, or perhaps just want to buy more and better stuff (also called "energizing the economy.")
Or from my own personal experience, how about someone like a writer who may go years earning almost nothing between major published works...then get ONE year that puts them into the "evil rich" bracket (suitable for economic rape). It would be nice - and logical - to be able to bank that "extra" money for the lean times which will follow until the next project comes to fruition. But no, rather than allowing "income averaging" as the IRS did in years past, people who dare to get into the "evil rich" bracket (even if the one year of pay represents multiple years of work) are now treated as despicable robber-barons.

But it's pointless to get into too many specifics when the overall message is so simple and so important. In America, no one - least of all the government - can decide what you do or don't "need," or declare that if your earned income is more than you "need" that it should be confiscated.

Call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism or whatever you like. Call it Liberalism or Progressivism if you prefer to be timely and trendy.

But don't call it American. Don't call it moral. Don't call it Constitutional.

And don't call it an acceptable sentiment for Barack Hussein Obama to feed to the American people in continuing hopes of inciting his very own ass-covering, blood-spilling class war.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability to fight back."
-

Shuttle cockpit

You will not believe this view of the Shuttle's cockpit....

see the interior of the Space Shuttle cockpit.

 

 

  All I can say is "Wow"

a Fast and furious update from PJmedia.

PJM’s Bob Owens has long speculated that the primary reason for Operation Fast and Furious was to perpetuate the lie that 90 percent of illegal firearms in Mexico were from the United States.
Owens’ assertion was buoyed on Wednesday by internal ATF emails obtained by Townhall.com. One email reads:

Can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations.

This would seem to be a “smoking gun” for Owens’ assertion that this operation was never about crime and always about an “under the table” effort to institute the gun control Obama knew he could never push through Congress.
Additionally, Obama has just issued an executive order which requires gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to report multiple long gun (rifle or shotgun) purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in order to combat illegal firearms trafficking along the Mexican border.
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action fired back at President Obama’s order. Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, said they will be filing a lawsuit against the new order the first time ATF tries to enforce it. He noted that criminals generally don’t fill out forms:

$40 billion transnational criminal enterprises don’t fill out paperwork and are not deterred by paperwork violations. This is a blatant effort by the Obama administration and ATF to divert focus of Congress and the general public from their gross incompetence in the Fast and Furious scandal. This scheme will unjustly burden law-abiding retailers in border states. It will not affect drug cartels and it won’t prevent violence along our borders. ATF and the administration lack the statutory authority to do this and the NRA will file suit as soon as ATF sends the first demand letters.

Obama’s order is awash in hypocrisy per the details of the Gunwalker scandal. It was the ATF which ordered gun dealers to make multiple sales of military-style and .50 caliber sniper rifles to known and suspected straw purchasers in the Operation Fast and Furious debacle, in which more than 2,500 weapons were allowed to walk across the border by the ATF. The dealers were already reporting multiple long gun sales and the ATF told them to make the sales anyway.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who has been investigating the mess form the beginning, said the executive order was about politics:

This political maneuver seems designed to protect the careers of political appointees at the Justice Department and not public safety. It’s disconcerting that Justice Department officials who may have known about or tried to cover-up gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious are continuing attempts to distract attention from clear wrongdoing. In Operation Fast and Furious, gun dealers didn’t need this regulation as they voluntarily provided ATF agents with information about suspected straw purchasers. In return for this voluntary cooperation, the Justice Department betrayed them by offering false assurances that they would closely monitor sales of weapons that dealers otherwise did not want to make.

Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-IA), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was equally outraged by the executive order:

We’ve learned from our investigation of Fast and Furious that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. In fact, in just the documents we’ve obtained, we are aware of 150 multiple long gun sales associated with the ATF’s Fast and Furious case, and despite the fact that nearly all of these sales were reported in real time by cooperating gun dealers, the ATF watched the guns be transported from known straw purchasers to third parties and then let the guns walk away, often across the border. This makes it pretty clear that the problem isn’t lack of burdensome reporting requirements. The administration’s continued overreach with regulations continues, and is a distraction from its reckless policy to allow guns to walk into Mexico.

Two U.S. law enforcement agents are dead because of this operation, and a reported 150 Mexican citizens are as well. Additionally, the guns are now showing up in U.S. crimes.

We are in trouble

America is broken and it’s no consolation that the rest of the world is broken along with it. I had to laugh when I stumbled, while web surfing, on a 2007 United Nations ranking for Ireland — whose debt rating has just been slashed to junk — as the fifth best country to live in. If it is, we’re all in a heap of trouble.
For America is still Reagan’s shining light on the hill for everyone, like it or not. We are the daddy. We are the grown-up holding the world together. Everyone knows it even whey they lie about it or bemoan it. Only the grown-up is hurting now too. And the world is badly wounded because of it.
It is against this background that we watch with particular dismay, maybe closer to horror, the budget debate in Washington. Our country is being led by an individual seemingly incapable of thinking beyond his own interest or beyond an ideology as shopworn as a 1962 television set with a blown tube. Is there anybody left who still believes in Keynesian economics? I mean really believes in it with our now prodigiously escalating debt spiraling off into an unknowable future.
Well, our president appears to with his endless references to “fairness” — a fairness that most hurts the very people it pretends to help. Obama has trapped himself in a ideological oxymoron. He wants us to believe, wants himself to believe, that government is the solution when we all know that government is the problem. The more government tries to create jobs the worse the economy gets. The history of the twentieth century has demonstrated that for us from the Great Depression to the sorrow of the Soviet Union.
Someone finally has to cut this Gordian knot. We are living at a time when we need a man or woman in the presidency of true courage and what we have is a smug coward — the worst possible combination. Nothing of significance is likely to happen.
We are already in full presidential campaign mode and America will remain broken — and with it the world — until 2012. Those of us who want genuine change are going to have to buckle up and accept this. Also, we are going to have to keep our eyes closely glued to the 2012 ball.
That means examining candidates more carefully than ever, not just what they say, but what kind of people they are. Do they have the character to follow through and react well under pressure? The person who is going to be confronted with this mess, this broken America, in January 2013 will have a monumental task in front of him or her. It will take an extraordinary combination of traits to succeed, traits not commonly found among our species, unfortunately. It will need someone calm and resolute and able to reach out to adversaries.
Barack Obama promised us that he would do just that — that he would bring together red America and blue America into the United States of America. He broke that promise almost immediately and has never tried to rectify it, exploiting our differences in the manner of the most conventional politician.
Now we must find the person able to carry out Obama’s promise while picking up the pieces of our society and putting them together again. It will not be easy, but we must do it… for our country and the world.

More ways to screw the productive.....

The stupid congresscritters are trying to find out more ways to fleece the tax payers, I didn't see anything about the freeloaders giving back some of their largesses from the treasury.  

 

 

Congress Wants Automatic Wage Deductions To Pay Down The Debt

July 14, 2011 by Simon Black

PHOTOS.COM

H.R. 2411 stipulates that any contribution made to the Treasury in order to pay down the federal debt is not tax deductible.

Folks… you just can’t make this stuff up.
On July 6, at least a dozen busybody Congressmen sponsored the introduction of H.R. 2411, the Reduce America’s Debt Now Act of 2011. They always come up with fantastic names for these pieces of legislation… and rest assured, the better/more patriotic the name, the more ominous the bill. This one follows the pattern.
H.R. 2411 states that every worker in America should be able to voluntarily have a portion of his or her wages automatically withheld and sent directly to the Treasury Department for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt.
“Every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages any amounts so elected, and shall pay such amounts over to the Secretary of the Treasury…”
That’s right. Uncle Sam is so broke that he wants to give all the good little Americans out there the opportunity to contribute an even greater portion of their paychecks to finance government largess.
Desperate? Hmmm… Don’t worry, it gets better.
Obviously, if an employee feels so compelled and should elect to have a portion of his or her paycheck withheld, the onus of responsibility is now on the employer to make it happen. The employer has to do all the paperwork, withhold the money, send the payment to the Treasury, maintain the account records and probably submit to all kinds of new filing requirements.
You can imagine that, if passed, the bill will result in a host of new Internal Revenue Service regulations, complete with a battery of penalties for employers who don’t fill out the paperwork properly or submit filings on time or who make some administrative mistake.
Think about it: If a small business owner has one single employee who is dumb enough to think it’s his patriotic duty to pay down the debt and decides to contribute $1 per month, that owner will have the responsibility for all kinds of new forms and filings, plus submit to new “debt reduction audits.”
But don’t worry, it gets even better.
So let’s say there are millions of sheep out there who elect to donate a portion of their toil and sweat so that the Chinese and big financial institutions don’t have to worry about an American default. How does Congress plan on rewarding its most patriotic citizens? By sticking it to them on their taxes, of course.
H.R. 2411 stipulates that any contribution made to the Treasury in order to pay down the Federal debt is not tax deductible.
“The (Treasury) Secretary shall include. . .  a reasonably conspicuous statement that any amounts deducted and withheld from wages. . .  are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.”
Imagine this scenario: You make $100,000 per year. In a fit of complete insanity, you decide that you want to withhold your entire annual salary to pay down the debt. Hey, you can always move in with Mom for the next year, right?
Well, guess what? Uncle Sam will gladly take your money… and then still expect you to pay taxes on the $100,000 you earned, so you would have to come out of pocket with an additional $40,000 or so.
Don’t worry, though. The Social Security and Medicare wages are reduced by the amount that you withhold, making you liable for only State and Federal taxes. Seems like a good deal, eh, comrades?
There are so many things utterly wrong with his piece of legislation, it’s hard to know where to begin other than by saying that such intellectual and philosophical perversion is only capable of springing from unprincipled sociopaths whose sole capability is the destruction of value.
There’s a great quote from Atlas Shrugged that comes to mind which sums this all up:

(W)hen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.

According to legend, a frog, when put into a pot of water and slowly brought to a boil, doesn’t realize it’s in danger until it’s too late. I think the boiling frog just got a little hotter. Have you hit your breaking point yet?

Gun Owners breaking the law...without knowing it.

When I read this provision in the crime control act of 1995, it was part of the assault weapons ban and the 100,000 extra policeman promised by the Clinton administration,(which was a shell game) I knew that this was a major problem for us gun rights people, the 1000 yard exclusion is designed to trap people, how many  schools are in a district and all of them are on what I call main drags.  We unknowingly break the law everyday if we drive around with firearms are in our vehicles.  And those people that own homes inside the 1000 meter, does this law trump the "castle doctrine" and the 2nd amendment rights of the home owners?

    I got this from here

Gun Owners Violate Law By Driving Past Wyoming School

July 13, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk

A gun rights advocacy group is warning gun owners in Wyoming that they may be unintentionally and unavoidably violating a Federal law by driving down the road with a gun in the vehicle.
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 — which is part of the Crime Control Act — makes it a Federal crime to have a gun on public property, including highways, within 1,000 feet of schools, according to The Casper Star-Tribune. However, the news source points out that Interstate 25 in Cheyenne, Wyo., runs within 1,000 feet of Jessup Elementary School.
This means that those people who drive by the school with a gun in their car and do not have a concealed weapon permit are in violation of the law, which can result in up to five years in prison and the offender losing his right to bear arms.
“Anyone who carries in a populated area without a Wyoming permit is unavoidably committing multiple Federal felonies,” Grant Chapman, who is working with the National Coalition for Amending the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, told the newspaper.

If the people that check out my blog can comment on this, I would appreciate it greatly.

    I got this from here

Defending Your Life

July 13, 2011 by John Myers

PHOTOS.COM

Learn to defend yourself. Study judo, wrestling or mixed martial arts -- anything that involves actual physical contact.

Sometimes, we are in danger because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Knowing what to do to avoid such a situation, or what you must do if you cannot, can be a lifesaver.
As a child, I was bullied, and I took more than my share of beatings in the schoolyard. I grew out of that stage and became a satisfactory football player. But I was never confident that I could defend myself.
At 17, I spent a year taking karate lessons. The conditioning part of it was fine, but part of me knew it was a waste of time. There was never any contact, and our sensei taught us that we had to pull our punches. In football we were taught to tackle through the opponent, so I knew there was something amiss.
Later, I spent a lot of years in the weight room. Even as I got stronger, I never had confidence. I decided to go back to traditional karate classes when I was 30. The kata movements that were taught were more choreographed dance steps.
Each day driving home from work, I would pass Matt David’s kickboxing gym. I finally mustered up the courage to go in.
Matt David was an imposing man. He owned a Spartan Gym in the rough area of town, along East Sprague in Spokane, Wash. Matt had a regulation boxing ring at the center of the gym. Surrounding it were speed bags, heavy bags and a mirrored wall. In the evenings, the Lilac City Boxing Club would train there.
I was not so impressed that Matt David had a 7th dan black belt in traditional kenpo karate, a rank he was awarded from the renowned Ed Parker. What impressed me most was that Matt had been an all-state wrestler in high school and was a former two-time California Golden Gloves heavyweight boxing champion.
When I first sat down with Matt, he asked me if I had any martial arts experience. I told him I had spent a couple of years in karate.
“That’s too bad,” he said. “But I can teach you to lose those bad habits.”
So began the school of hard knocks. No longer did I wear a white gi with a belt around my waist. Instead I wore tennis shoes, shorts, a T-shirt, hand wraps and a molded mouthpiece.
Our training was broken into two parts. First, we did calisthenics, hit the bags and shadow boxed. Then, we sparred in the ring with 16-ounce gloves, wearing full protective headgear.
I learned two things: that I didn’t know how to throw a punch and, more important, I didn’t know how to take a one. I dreaded getting in the ring against experienced fighters, but I was willing to pay that price.
That first summer at the gym, I took some tough rounds and suffered a couple of concussions. After one tough round, the head coach for the Lilac City Boxing Club, Dan Vassar Sr., approached me.
“Are you getting tired of getting beat up?” he asked.
At age 34, I joined the boxing club. I started training five days a week. I soon began to improve and gain confidence.
In three years, I had only three fights. I lost them all. But I finished each one of them on my feet. It was an incredible experience to spar against gifted fighters and with great instructors. It was invaluable.
A few years after I stopped boxing, I was cornered by two men on a stairwell when I was with my 10-year old son. They wanted to rob me.
My son and I were lucky: We got out of that mess without a scratch. Our two attackers didn’t fare so well. One ran away, and the other was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
I was not charged. To this day, I know the outcome would have been very different if I had not practiced full-contact fighting.

Three Rules To Live By

I encourage anyone at any age to learn realistic self-defense. No, you don’t have to join a boxing gym. You should not, however, waste another dollar or minute in traditional non-contact martial arts. Instead, study judo, wrestling or mixed martial arts — anything that involves actual physical contact.
In his book Streetwise: The Complete Manual of Personal Security and Self Defence, Peter Consterdine writes that the self-defense combinations most schools teach are a waste of time, that no one ever uses a karate-based attack and they don’t leave their hand or foot stuck out for you to do your stuff.
Consterdine knows his stuff. He is a former British Karate International full-contact kickboxing champion as well as a reputable bodyguard.
If you are unconvinced, consider the adage: “The way you train is the way you fight.”
If you think you might have to defend against a 2-by-4 piece of pine, then by all means, take up traditional karate or tae kwon do and learn how to break a board in half. Then again, traditional martial art students might want to consider what the late, great fighter Joe Louis once said: “Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit.”
If you want to learn more about real self-defense, pick up a copy of Forrest Griffin’s book, Got Fight?: The 50 Zen Principles Of Hand-to-face Combat. Griffin is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship® light heavyweight champion. Reader beware, he uses graphic language and details the savagery that is a part of his life in and out of the octagon.
The best advice I got from Matt David had nothing to do with throwing punches or applying arm bars. He had three simple rules:

1. Don’t be in a place where you will have to defend yourself.
2. If trouble comes your way, run.
3. If you can’t run, grab the closest thing you can and use it as a weapon.

Hopefully, you can avoid ever having to defend yourself. If you must, you can only hope you have learned a few tactics and that the person threatening you says: “I have to warn you… I have a black belt in karate!”
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report