Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
The father of a soldier listed as missing-captured in Iraq since 2004 said Sunday that the military had informed him that his son’s remains were found in Iraq.
The man, Keith Maupin, said at a news conference in suburban Cincinnati that an Army general told him DNA testing had identified the remains of his son, Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin, or Matt, as he was known.
Lt. Lee Packnett, an Army public affairs officer in Washington, confirmed that the Maupins were notified Sunday that their son’s remains had been identified. Lieutenant Packnett said an official statement about the identification would be released Monday.
Sergeant Maupin was a 20-year-old private first class when he was captured on April 9, 2004, after his fuel convoy, part of the 724th Transportation Company, was ambushed west of Baghdad. A month after his capture, he was promoted to the rank of specialist. In April 2005, he was promoted to sergeant.
A week after his capture, the Arab television network Al Jazeera broadcast a videotape showing Sergeant Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.
That June, Al Jazeera broadcast another tape purporting to show an American soldier being shot. But the dark and grainy tape showed only the back of the victim’s head and not the actual shooting.
The Maupins refused to believe it was their son, and the Army had listed him as missing-captured. The Maupins lobbied hard for the Army to continue listing their son as missing-captured, fearing that another designation would undermine efforts to find him.
“You never stop hoping. You never know,” his mother, Carolyn Maupin, said in 2006 after an Iraqi Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a American airstrike, leading to speculation that American intelligence could be getting closer to learning Sergeant Maupin’s fate. Not forgotten, and now home.
Last month, I was half-way through a post "Critique of the Critiques" about the lack of good commentary on The Maritime Strategy outside blogs (stuff in Proceedings has been horrid on the subject; i.e. Lehman's punt), when it morphed in to this.
I think I may have been ahead of myself though, as more and more is starting to come out from quality old-school people and mediums that are starting to poke and sniff at the MARSTRAT with a clear, slow, methodical process. With time, the MARSTRAT's inadequacy and "leadership by committee" feel has set in for most who read it from Congress to the YN3 - and the 100# heads are starting to join the party.
It came out last Tuesday while I was gone absorbing taxpayer money, and I believe you were all ordered by Galrahn to read it. If you haven't - please follow the link above and block out 15 minutes then come back and throw in your $.02 in comments after giving this post a quick read. Here is my brief take on it.
Being that the MARSTRAT is out there, we have to deal with it and its implications. It is to late to fix it. In that respect, Work and van Tol's article is a valuable addition to the discussion on where we as a Navy are going, as it is a combo critique and explanation of the MARSTRAT. It is the later part that gave me a grin early, as this is the added value of this article. The MARSTRAT is, as mentioned after it came out, a mush-mash of a read. The explanation of our Navy's MARSTRAT needs explanation, though it really needs a v2.0. We won't see that for awhile, so the larger Navy community has a lot of work to do to fix it. Consider yourself like the USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD-17) plankowners. You have a lot of work to do, because what you were given is the possibility of a great thing - but not quite ready for prime-time as delivered.
As a suggested guide, even if you are comfortable with the MARSTRAT, go through the explanations part as it sets up the detailed critique that is folded in. Don't cheat.
Early on, the authors mention the useful part of the MARSTRAT along the same lines we did back in OCT - the 6-6-3.
Aside from listing its strategic imperatives, core capabilities, and implementation priorities, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower is relatively short on how the core capabilities will be “synchronized and integrated” to achieve its strategic imperatives beyond a spirited explanation of the benefits of forward presence in a globalized world ...
I still believe that is the only functional part of the MARSTRAT, but they also go a bit further and make a very good point,
... the strategy suffers the same general weakness that inflicts many US strategy documents, which are often long on lists of laudable goals, sub-goals, and core capabilities, but short on how these goals and sub-goals might be achieved.
Bingo. The MARSTRAT isn't really a strategy. It is, by proper meaning, a "concept." Words mean things - and this shortcoming is a critical weakness of the whole MARSTRAT document. It didn't happen in isolation though.
In short, the document does not address what should be a core element of any strategy—namely, how both the goals and the capabilities needed to pursue them will be brought into balance with available resources.
Lack of clear, upfront, direct discussion, a type of intellectual cowardice I call Happy Talk, is rampant throughout our service from FITREP language, the inability to develop a clear plan for a warship from design to pier, to the complete lack of challenge to the cancer of the discredited theories pushed by the Diversity Bullies.
We have few who want to use clear and precise language in what they do, or who want to challenge the concepts of those in a senior position. When you round all the sharp edges, compromise away any firm positions, edit through a too cautious chop-chain you get the predictable result of rudderless drift.
Getting back to the Strategy vs. Concept point; if you look at the MARSTRAT in that context, things do look a little better - a bit.
By recognizing A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower as a maritime strategic concept instead of a comprehensive strategy, its glaring lack of resource priorities and implications and concrete organizational initiatives becomes more understandable, as does its sweeping, visionary style.
They make a very solid point about one of the examples of the areas of excessive hyperbole that weakens the entire MARSTRAT.
It is also difficult to support the claim that the concept’s very laudable emphasis on more closely integrating the three Sea Services is something radically new. While it may be true that this is the first time that all three leaders of the Sea Services have actually signed a joint strategic concept, it is simply factually incorrect to assert that the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines have never come together to follow a “unified maritime strategy.” Indeed, the three leaders will be hard-pressed to match the thorough integration of the three services in World War II, when the Coast Guard fought forward in the Atlantic and Pacific and manned over 300 Navy ships, or when the Navy-Marine-Coast Guard team fought the brilliant island-hopping campaign in the Pacific. Similarly, although the 1980s Maritime Strategy was not signed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, it was based on a close integration of the three Sea Services.
That comment in the MARSTRAT still bothers me, and I am glad they hit on it too. It is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
In the Empty Bottles section of the article, they point out what they consider four significant omissions.
The first and most obvious is that although the concept argues that maritime security is central to the success of globalization, it fails to acknowledge that the threats to the maritime commons are now likely as low as or lower than at any time in the last century. ... The concept’s second notable omission is the absence of any discussion of China. The 2006 QDR said, “Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional US military advantages absent US counter-strategies.” Yet beyond an oblique reference to preventing great power war and announcing the concentration of combat credible maritime power in the Pacific, the concept is completely silent on the impressive growth in China’s maritime power, and what that might mean over time for the three Sea Services.
Did China-friendly ADM Fallon have a part in that?
A third obvious omission is the concept’s lack of any substantive discussion of “seabasing.” The idea of using the sea as a joint base of operations in both peacetime and wartime has been a central theme of the Navy-Marine Corps story since the mid-1950s, and especially since the late 1990s. Its absence suggests that this central theme no longer pertains in the Global Era’s cooperative phase. When asked why seabasing had been dropped from the Sea Services’ primary narrative, one of the authors of the strategy responded that the Services had purposely steered away from addressing or highlighting any specific “program.” This answer is itself quite revealing. It suggests that framers of the concept now view seabasing simply in programmatic terms (e.g., what platforms to buy) rather than as a strong foundation for any maritime strategic concept.
That is my favorite pull-quote of the whole article; the best part of the critique. The point he makes about "programmatic" is something we should all ponder and ask where else we see that mindset.
I would add that a large part of that problem is too many leaders and decision makers are spending too much time in DC and its environs and not enough time at sea or forward deployed. Too many SES and all the attitude that comes with them (NAVSEA spy knows what I mean). Not enough pier and plane focus. Get that right, and the programmatic issues will work themselves out - not the other way around.
And the 4th,
The fourth important omission is the general lack of any acknowledgement of how joint forces contribute to the maritime strategic concept, and how their contributions allow the Sea Services to re-allocate their own resources for other purposes.
Funny thing is, all the authors were JPME I & II complete, right? Haruph, I won't tip over that rock today. That is so critical, right? Goldwater-Nichols fixed everything and is perfect, right?
Good summary and clear point.
None of these four omissions are damning in and of themselves. Collectively, however, they may work to undermine the concept’s long-term relevance.
I would add credibility as well, but the authors make a boldface point (boldface in the original) that I think they got exactly right.
It explains neither how the three Sea Services will help win the war we are in (the Long War against radical extremists) nor what wars the three Sea Services are most interested in preventing.
And we are all still working on it, mostly because this whole thing was started and constructed poorly. The authors touch on one of those poorly constructed failures at birth.
While having open and frank discussions with the American people about the role of seapower is a worthy endeavor, and perhaps well worth the effort for other reasons, designing a maritime strategic concept to “meet the expectations and needs of the American people” based on “Conversations with the Country” is highly suspect intellectually. Who participated in the conversations? Did these efforts offer the participants clear choices? ... the whole idea of designing a strategic concept based on “conversations with” or polling of the American people overlooks a fundamental reality. It ignores the central fact that it is the Members of Congress (the elected representatives of the American people) and the appointed officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (who are responsible for the development of the military component of national security policy), who are the true target audience of the concept if it is to have any practical impact. These two groups have little time or interest in rhetoric. They deal in specifics that can help them make decisions and choices.
...he may give it back if you promise to support the new Navy BDU TFU created though....
Background: Still pouting that I missed it, I read over the transcript from Blogger's Roundtable where SJS, Galrahn, Eagle1, David (from War is Boring), and some dude named Greg had a chance to talk to VADM Morgan on The Maritime Strategy. All did a good job - but none more than VADM Morgan (callsign Heisman). He proved why he is a 3-star and I might be fit to get his coffee in the morning. It also proved that he listened in class when they brief him on how to answer questions and handle questioners. I want him on my team.
Buddha bless him - David came close to throwing Salamander's pitches but got schooled with the non-answer. It's funny to read, mostly because, having been there, asking questions over the phone when you don't do it every day is like trying to run up a greased ramp.
David gets a 5.0 for the good follow-up, but read the below and see if you don't both giggle, respect VADM Morgan's verbal jujitsu, and get a little frustrated David didn't get an answer all at the same time. Anyway, a fun read.
Q Hi. This is David Axe from War is Boring.
Hey, I think the maritime strategy is great and it's -- encouraging to see the Navy thinking about these things and coming up with a pretty reasonable answer to the Navy's place in the world today.
But what I think we haven't seen is a connection between the strategy and acquisitions. In other words, okay, you've got a great strategy, but what kind of ships do you need to make it happen? And in light of the sort of turmoil in Navy shipbuilding, it looks like the Navy hasn't quite answered that question.
Can you tell me is there somewhere a coherent plan to pull off this strategy with shipbuilding, or to use shipbuilding to help execute this strategy that we're just not seeing?
ADM. MORGAN: Is it David, is that correct?
Q David, yeah.
ADM. MORGAN: Yeah, David, great point. There are some things that you're not seeing that I'll be happy to discuss. And one of the central notions that motivated us to write this strategy in the first place was this: We said simply every budget is a strategy, and if you agree with that notion, then we argued that if that's true, then you ought to give some strategic thinking to your budget. And what that has led us to is a new process in the Navy, and the process is this, and it's part of what you're not seeing.
We wanted to make sure that we could articulatestrategically where we think the Navy should be, along with the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps in the future. So we wanted to have that coherent, strategic story first.
Then the question that you're really getting at, David, is well, how does the strategy inform our budget? And there's a document that you're not seeing, and that document is a classified document. I can't tell you the content of it, but I can tell you what it tries to address, and that document is called the Navy Strategic Plan.
And what the Navy Strategic Plan does, it takes the strategicimperatives from the maritime strategy and translates it into risk guidance that's issued to the folks who build our budget and program our budget on the front end of the cycle. And then we're going to gear that and synchronize that with the general DOD budget so every two years I don' think you're going to see a new maritime strategy issued every two years, but what you will see is a Navy Strategic Plan that is issued every two years in synchronization with the development of the Department of Defense budget.
So that's how we intend to make it coherent. David, the phrase that I use is all right, we started that every budget is a strategy. We want the strategy to inform the budget. Our challenge to the coherency issue that you raised is we now have to make the poem rhyme.
And we're beginning to see that already. We're beginning to see where we say this strategicimperative is important; we write the risk guidance -- it's based upon war gaming, intelligence assessments, considerations of what other services are doing, and say we can accept more risk here or less risk there, and then that document then is really translated into our budget.
So that's the process that we have in the works. We're seeing some evidence it's already working. We're seeing where we've issued risk guidance and yes, we can match that to where the Army and the Air Force are investing their dollars. And so we think this will be more synchronized, more integrated and more synergistic approach to the budget responsibilities that you talked about.
Q Can I follow up real quick? ADM. MORGAN: Sure, go ahead.
Q Let's approach the strategy starting from the shipbuilding plan then. Shipbuilding's a mess. I mean, LCS has effectively fallen apart, right? And depending on who you ask, the DDG-1000 is costing up to 5 billion (dollars) apiece. And so light of the shambles that is shipbuilding, can you pull off this maritime strategy in 15, 20 years?
ADM. MORGAN: Well, David, time will tell. I'm not the best guy to talk to about the acquisition stuff. It is a complex field. Perhaps I have the easier job, and that is to think about strategically where we think we need to be.
But then that's a debate I think we have to have in front of the American people. Let's talk about that. Let's see what we have to do. And the bigger role that I think is at the core of your concern, and it's a rightful concern, is what role is sea power going to play in America's future? I mean, it's been at the heart of our rich history and it's gotten us where we are, along with a lot of other things today in our position in the world. But what role is sea power going to play in a global system that is so dependent upon commerce that flows across the sea?
Ninety percent of that commerce comes -- flows across the sea, 80 percent of the world's population lives within 200 miles of the coast and 70 percent of the Earth's surface is ocean.
But the core that you keep coming back to is how are you going to build the types of ships and the systems and the people that you need in order to implement the strategy? I think the jury is out. I think time will tell and we'd better roll up our sleeves.
Dave, I think he was toying with you - especially with the use of the "random answer generator" in reply to your follow-up. I feel your pain.BTW, I am not being snarky with VADM Morgan - I think we should all buy the guy a beer for doing this and you can't fault the guy for doing his job real well and opening up about as much as he can - I hope he will do it again in the future. The Blogger's Roundtable folks should get a thanks as well - though it would be nice to get more Navy topics ... but I know this is an Army and USMC war.
Islam has as a breakout into denominations just as Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism has. I am not just talking Sunni and Shi'ite. Both of those are broken into all little bits - to include the funky Alawite sect that runs Syria.
But .... they knew that - they just wanted the headline. Vatican, MSM, and "other" are all using this to get traffic. They describe teh stoopid nature of this breathlessness later on,
"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," Formenti told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview, saying the data referred to 2006.
He said that if all Christian groups were considered, including Orthodox churches, Anglicans and Protestants, then Christians made up 33 percent of the world's population -- or about 2 billion people.
The Vatican recently put the number of Catholics in the world at 1.13 billion people. It did not provide a figure for Muslims, generally estimated at around 1.3 billion.
Formenti said that while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.
He said the data on Muslim populations had been compiled by individual countries and then released by the United Nations, adding the Vatican could only vouch for its own statistics.
You could also say the Muslim numbers are low-balled as where in the West you can say you are not a practicing Christian and no one really cares if you are some average Joe/Juan/Jean - try saying something like that as a citizen of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Bleche on all of you. The world is fine. Peas be upon you all.
I only had a few minutes a day that I could check UNCLAS email and I still have a fair bit of catch-up to do. Reading through the comment, it seems everyone had plenty to keep themselves busy and the steam up.
So, what broke through the background noise for me over the last week or so? In no specific order...
The host of the Olympics this summer brought out something interesting. I guess it is a nice multi-mission platform; you can use it for a fire or Tibetans; whatever.
- How many MK-71’s could you buy for all the money and time (time being the most critical) that we pissed down the dream-hole over ERGM? An idea many saw, rightly, as a “I will gladly pay your Tuesday …..” Once again; the evolutionary are told to sit down and shut up to the revolutionary - the the revolutionary failed. They failed again – now who gets fired?
See Freedom? I did, it's called Fitna. Funny thing; all it did was show the truth - and all "the right people" either don't want to show it or want to kill it. Remember that next time they ask for some of you freedom for a little protection they will provide you. Michelle, LGF, Allah, Ace, GatesOfVienna, and of course Jawa were raising the standard high and proud while I was gone on a project (the Dutch as the Canary in the coal mine for Europe) that I have been reporting on since I started this blog. If you want to see it, you can follow the above links and check where it is in comments, wade through the pr0n on PirateBay, or just DrawMohammedWeek where I took her out of mothballs for this post.
Think you have some JOs in need of a little more deployment time and a little less self-esteem and narcissism? Ha! You don’t have anything like this jewel. An Army of One, indeed. Roll narcissism and too much self-esteem - bask it with some cluelessness mixed with economic ignorance of the time-value of money - and there you go!
Mike reminded me that at least Japan knows how to fire people where we promote them … and they left the little sword at home at least.
A great way to stick a finger at the Middle East. We should be so lucky…
About Stufflebeam, the irony is who the Navy’s IG is - something Skippy and I could babble about if we had extra O2. Bubblehead covers it well with his commenters.
Remember Yankee Sailor? Check out DestroyerMen. BZ to his CO, ISIC and others. Nice project. Put it on the blogroll.
Finally, I missed what was a great opportunity while I was away. Sniffle. Good thing is that we had the A-team (without MTH...) take advantage of the opportunity to hang out with VADM Morgan on the smoking sponson talking about the new Maritime Strategy. Check out the transcript to see how Galhran, SteelJawScribe, and Eagle1 did. Sniffle.BTW, I am trying to get an national award, but as Sen. Obama (D-IL), might say, I am a "typical white officer" and am having trouble getting nominated. So.....I tried this. What'cha'think?"
I will be going off the Grid for a bit; but I'll be back - most likely about the 29th.
Consider this an Open Post, but I will leave you with something to ponder. Ponder:
Look forward to coming back. LBG; keep everyone inline, especially T1 and tell CoRev to read the WHOLE post before he comments... ;)
Byron; keep the BS meter working. Sid & Gal; find something interesting that is relative to whatever comes up in the next week. C-14; maintain a fire watch. Mike & Tim; hold fire until I get back. Skippy; no porn links. Everyone else; take advantage of the open post and don't get your feelings hurt I didn't single you out above.
Do you do just the minimum, or do you ask for extra time to get it better and better? Do you train and inspect hard? How many times have you gone through different scenarios with your crew?
Do all your watch standers know how critical their position and responsibility is? From the OOD to the YN3 on the 50cal.; do they appreciate that they are as important as the Commanding Officer?
Discipline. Discipline and obedience in the time of stress, strain, and unimaginable threat to life an honor. Have you and your crew's training been built to refine and demonstrate those qualities? How do you address shortcomings? Are your Chiefs and First Class focused, demanding, masters of their team and duties?
As the Sydney approached the starboard beam of the larger Kormoran, the cruiser used a daytime searchlight to flash the signal “NNJ,” the maritime code ordering the merchant ship to identify herself. After a delay, the Kormoran ran up the signal flags of the Dutch vessel Straat Malaaka, although their location ahead of the freighter’s single large funnel purposefully made it difficult for the Sydney’s spotters to read. The warship requested the freighter to re-position the flags, and as German crew slowly complied, the distance between the two ships, still sailing due west, shrank to a mile.
“Where bound” came the second signal flashed by the Sydney. “Batavia” was the reply from the Kormoran, indicating the capital of the Dutch colony of Java lying over a thousand miles to the north.
Aboard the German raider, Detmers and the bridge staff watched the exchange of signals anxiously and urged the enemy cruiser to sail away and leave them alone. Their fear rose when they saw the Sydney’s crew prepare to launch the spotter plane from the amidships catapult. The plane, once airborne, would easily spot the hundreds of naval mines strewn about the Kormoran’s high deck, giving away its identity as a raider. But the launch crew apparently received new orders and returned the plane to its storage position.
According to the recollections of Heinz Messerschmidt, a 26-year-old lieutenant commander aboard the Kormoran at the time, Detmers turned to his officers and reassured them again, “Ah, it's tea time on board. They'll probably just ask us where we are going and what cargo and then let us go on.”
By luck and guile the Kormoran had survived for almost a year by preying on isolated Allied merchant ships. But this was its first encounter with a warship brandishing guns of equal firepower. Still playing on its disguise as a helpless merchantman, the Kormoran’s radio operator began broadcasting the alert signal “QQQQ” meaning “suspicious ship sighted.” The anxious signal likely confused the Sydney, whose radio operator would have received the transmission, as did a wireless station 150-miles away in the Australian coastal town of Geraldton.
As the parley continued, the distance between the two ships shrank to less than a mile. Lookouts on the Sydney scanned the freighter for suspicious markings or signs of weapons.
But carefully concealed behind special screens and tarps on the Kormoran’s decks was an arsenal of naval guns, torpedo tubes, and anti-tank guns, all manned, loaded, and trained on the unaware cruiser. Later investigations would attempt to determine why Captain Burnett approached so closely to the Kormoran, or if he was lured into false sense of security.
Although both ships possessed guns of similar caliber, the Sydney’s fire control system and experienced turret crews only would be an advantage at longer ranges. Whether by inexperience or trickery, the Sydney’s vulnerable position would soon turn perilous. Over an hour after the cruiser first sighted the freighter on the horizon and gave chase, Burnett ordered the Sydney to flash the signal “1K”–one half of the secret Allied call sign for the Straat Maalaka—across the short gap between the ships. The actual Dutch freighter of that name had a codebook with the corresponding two-letter response. The Kormoran did not. Detmers realized that the time for hiding was over. He ordered the Dutch flag taken down and the German naval ensign run up the mast as the camouflage screens fell away to reveal the line of gun barrels trained on the Sydney. The Kormoran’s 5.9-inch guns fired first, while the rapid-fire anti-tank and machine guns opened up on the officers visible on the cruiser’s bridge. It was shortly after half past five in the afternoon.
The first two 5.9-inch salvos from the Kormoran missed the Sydney, according to reports from the German gunners. But the third volley crashed into the bridge and gun director tower, crippling the cruiser’s ability to return accurate fire just seconds into the battle.
Meanwhile, the raider’s anti-tank and machine guns raked the Sydney’s bridge, presumably killing or wounding many of the officers standing there. Other guns sprayed the exposed portside 4-inch gun mounts and torpedo tubes, preventing their crews from manning them. According to German witnesses, the gap between the two ships was between 1,000 and 1,500 yards—a distance more appropriate for the muzzle-loading cannons of Trafalgar than the rapid-fire guns and high explosive shells of the Second World War.
The Sydney’s first response was a salvo of 6-inch rounds that passed over the now exposed raider. However, the next shells from the Kormoran smashed into the cruiser’s forward “A” and “B” turrets and put them out of action. Another German shell exploded the spotter plane amidships, spilling burning aviation fuel over the decks and black smoke billowing into the sky. Sydney’s “X” and “Y” turrets located in the rear of the ship continued to fire under local control for a few more minutes, but only the crew of “X” achieved hits, sending three rounds into the high-sided freighter. One shell struck amidships, and another punched into the engine room. But the third shell tore through the raider’s funnel, severing the oil warming lines and sending burning fluids cascading down into the motor room to ignite a major fire.
At about this time the Kormoran reportedly launched two torpedoes; at least one struck the Sydney between the mangled “A” and “B” turrets tearing a huge gash in the bow and igniting even more fires. Locked together like two wavering boxers, the warships exchanged constant blows that crippled them both within a few minutes. A storm of shells swept across the water as impacting rounds blossomed into fireballs and pillars of smoke from burning fuel climbed into the evening sky.
Fifteen minutes after firing began, the stricken Sydney made a sudden turn to port, passing close behind the Kormoran and allowing the raider’s rear guns to engage the previously sheltered starboard side of the cruiser. But the Sydney’s turn also permitted her crew to launch a spread of four torpedoes at the raider, all of which missed.
By this time the fires in the Kormoran’s engine room had spread to destroy the machinery, causing the freighter to stop in the water. The Sydney limped slowly away to the south still under fire, down severely at the bow and burning ferociously. Around six o’clock the now immobile Kormoran loosed a final torpedo from an underwater tube at the fleeing Sydney that apparently missed. The 5.9-inch guns on the raider continued to engage the cruiser for another half hour as the range increased and darkness fell. The Germans’ last view of the Sydney came a few hours after sunset—a burning glow on the distant southern horizon that slowly flickered and faded away.
Detmers soon realized that the Kormoran’s uncontrollable fires threatened the hundreds of volatile mines stored on the deck. He ordered his crew to set scuttling charges and abandon ship. Without panicking, the German crew launched lifeboats and watched as the charges detonated along the ship’s keel shortly after midnight, sinking the Kormoran on her 352nd continuous day at sea.
Of the raiders crew of 397 officers and men, 317 survivors reached the Australian coast over the next few days. And in an outcome that has fueled controversy ever since, neither the Sydney, nor her crew of 645 officers and men, were ever seen again.
That is why we have standards. That is why we have qualifications. That is why we should demand excellence and discipline. Are your standards and expectation focused for the same reasons as Fregattenkapitän (Commander) Theodor Detmers?An epic story.
You want to that hard truth? I am to the left of Rep. Dingle (D-MI) - though actually I consider my idea much more Red American than Blue.
What am I talking about?
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, ...
$.50 is chump change. I want $2.00 a gallon on gas ($3.00 paid at the point of entry for imported oil or imported refined oil products), increased $.25 a FY Quarter (that would take 2 years to take full effect for those in Middleburg, FL) until you reach the $2 to $3 mark; and my proposal has nothing to do with "greenhouse" gas either.
At current oil prices, this country sends overseas $460 billion per year to finance the daily buying of 12 million barrels of imported oil. This amount of money is about the size of our defense budget and three times the size of the ''economic stimulus'' package recently passed by Congress. But the real economic impact of oil dependence is hidden to most Americans. Energy economist Milton Copulos (who passed away this month) calculated last year that the grand total of all external costs associated with foreign oil dependence -- including the cost of oil-related defense expenditures, amortized cost of supply disruptions, and lost economic activity and tax revenues -- stands at $825 billion per year.
A double whammy
To put the figure in perspective, this is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil, making the cost of filling the gasoline tank of a sedan $214, and of an SUV $321. At today's oil prices, these costs would be even higher.
For the U.S. economy, oil dependence is a double whammy. While it contributes to our economic decline, it allows OPEC governments, many of which do not have our best interests in mind, not only to laugh all the way to the bank but to literally own the bank. The recent buyout by foreign governments of chunks of America's prime symbols of economic prowess -- like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns -- is only the preview to what is yet to come should the petrodollar fueled transfer of wealth continue.
To understand the forces at play it is instructive to visualize the scale of OPEC's potential wealth in comparison to that of the consuming countries. At $100 a barrel, OPEC's oil assets stand at roughly $92 trillion, equivalent to almost half of the world's total financial assets and nearly twice the market capitalization of all the companies traded in the world's 27 top stock markets. If one adds the worth of OPEC's huge gas reserves as well as additional oil reserves that have not yet been discovered, the wealth of OPEC more than doubles.
If oil prices climb to $200, as President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela recently warned, this wealth would double again. While the value of the dollar and the U.S. economy is shrinking, OPEC's monumental wealth enables its countries unprecedented buying power. As an illustration, at current oil prices it would take OPEC just six days to buy GM and three years to buy a 20 percent voting block in every S&P 500 company.
Put all that new tax money in a fund to supply rebates for those that buy hybrid cars, flex fuel cars, LPG cars, or cars that get over 40 MPG in the city, any money left over goes towards the solar rebates listed below.
Bring diesel regulations in line with Europe so we can get moving towards 40% of US cars as diesels (next time you are in Europe, rent a VW diesel and then talk to me if you don't like diesels). That brings the 30-40% greater MPG of a diesel and expanded use of the more effective than ethanol/gas mixture bio-diesel online.
CAFE standards are for Leftists. Excise tax on every vehicle sold based on MPG and year. Stiff. If you want a 1976 El Dorado, then send $2,000 extra to the Hybrid-Flex Fuel fund. If your wife needs an Expedition to get groceries from Piggly Wiggly, then pony up $1,500 to the fund.
With that tax increase, we would also open drilling for oil and natural gas off Florida, California and Virginia (before you moan, actually spend some time on the beaches off the LA area - everything is fine) - open ANWAR. Wind farms off the Eastern Shore and Nantucket, Mass - in addition to significant tax breaks for all off-shore and on-shore wind farms based.
More nuke plants. 100% tax rebate for installation of solar panels on single family houses. 20% rebate on installations of solar panesl on new construction houses (i.e. $40,000 in panels and you get $8,000 back in addition to your tax rebate). All will be adjusted for inflation.
There is your political compromise. Slam the gas guzzlers, promote wind and solar. Move on nukes and support domestic production. Diversify transportation fuels.
Let China pay Saudi Arabia and Iran's bills.
Oh, and before you have a cow, in some places in Europe, they are paying about $8.50 (5.50 Euro) a gallon, and their economies are doing just fine.
Mr. and Mrs. America; welcome to the Long War. Glad you are willing to lean in and do your bit.
So yea; I will support a tax. Anti-terror tax that is; as part of an anti-terror comprehensive plan for domestic energy and economic security.
Everyone needs to take a bite of this sandwich - and who knows, in the end you might like it.
But - to make that happen you need Congress to do its job.....
Think about 2006/7. Think about what our Sailors and Marines have done. Think about where we need to place our resources and efforts towards the defeat of an existential threat to our civilization. Think about how we we should recognize and reward every contribution that leads to victory.
Behold!
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//DNS// TO NAVADMIN UNCLAS //N02300// NAVADMIN 066/08 MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/DNS/MAR// SUBJ/2006-2007 NAVY VISUAL INFORMATION (VI) PRODUCTION AWARD WINNERS// REF/A/DOC/OPNAVNOTE 3104/25JUL2007// AMPN/REF A IS NAVY VISUAL INFORMATION (VI) AWARDS PROGRAM.// POC/MR. PAUL xxxx/CIV/CHINFO/LOC: WASHINGTON DC/TEL. 703- 695-xxxx/EMAIL: PAUL.C.xxxx(AT)NAVY.MIL// RMKS/1. PER REF A, THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTIONS ARE THE WINNER AND RUNNER UP BY CATEGORY: A. TRAINING CATEGORY WINNER: SEXUAL ASSAULT: MEGAN?S STORY (NAVAL MEDIA CENTER), RUNNER UP: LOOKOUT WATCHSTANDING PROCEDURES (NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER). B. RECRUITING CATEGORY WINNER: NATIONAL DISASTER MEDICAL SYSTEM (NDMS): DELIVERING MEDICAL CARE IN TIMES OF CRISIS (NAVY MEDICINE SUPPORT COMMAND), RUNNER UP: NAVY SEAL WARRIOR (NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER). C. INTERNAL/PUBLIC INFORMATION CATEGORY WINNER: NAVAL OPHTHALMIC SUPPORT AND TRAINING ACTIVITY (NAVY MEDICINE SUPPORT COMMAND), RUNNER UP: ASSURING A SUSTAINED PREPAREDNESS: A FEDERAL, MILITARY, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP (NAVY MEDICINE SUPPORT COMMAND). D. ALL OTHERS CATEGORY WINNERS: VETERANS DAY 2006 TRIBUTE ? SOME GAVE ALL (NAVY MEDICINE SUPPORT COMMAND), VETERANS DAY 2007 ? VOICE OF THE VETERAN (NAVY MEDICINE SUPPORT COMMAND). 2. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE COMMANDS ON THEIR OUTSTANDING EFFORTS AND PROFESSIONAL WORK, AND PARTICIPATION IN THE VISUAL INFORMATION PRODUCTION AWARDS PROGRAM. VISUAL INFORMATION PRODUCTIONS ARE A VITAL AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION FOR THE LEADERSHIP THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PRESENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO OUR SAILORS. 3. RELEASED BY VADM J. STUFFLEBEEM, DIRECTOR, NAVY STAFF.//
A friendly note to VADM Stufflebeem. Admiral, tell your Staff Weenies to stop using MSWord to draft their messages. That is why you get all the awkward and unprofessional "?" in your messages. You can use special characters in record message traffic, but only if you use the correct procedures - and don't cheat. General beatings for all, my recommendation. Start with those who merged RM with DP so now we have underemployed NMCI'd ITs (different rant for different day). My 'ole RMCS would have never let that message leave his shop......oooohhhhhh nooooooo! Heads would roll! But that was then; this is now.
According to Army statistics ... 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal.
Read the report here. More detailed discussion here.
What do I have so say after 5-years? Not much, I just think folks should look at where we are. For the best answer, check Roggio, Yon; that should say more than I can.
Cost overruns are nothing new, but for some reason we seem to have perfected our own formula that we keep repeating over and over. The one common thread - clear, direct, precise and disciplined leadership, or lack of it, keeps coming up. The Reign of Happy Talk continues.
A year after Sept. 11, 2001, the White House set out to build a fleet of state-of-the-art Marine One helicopters for the al-Qaeda age that would be safer, more powerful and more reliable than the iconic white-topped aircraft that have landed on the South Lawn for decades.
But the al-Qaeda age has met the military acquisition process. Six years later, the cost of the new helicopters has nearly doubled, production has fallen behind schedule, and the bulk of the program has been put on hold while the government tries to figure out how to salvage it.
The Pentagon confirmed this month that the cost of the fleet of 28 new super-sophisticated helicopters has jumped from $6.1 billion when the contract was signed in 2005 to $11.2 billion today. Outfitted with cutting-edge communications equipment, antimissile defenses and hardened hulls, each of the VH-71 helicopters, to be dubbed Marine One whenever the president is onboard, will cost $400 million -- more than the most recent Boeing 747 jetliner outfitted to serve as Air Force One when it was delivered in 1990, even when adjusted for inflation.
Why? Well for one, people have forgot how to say "no." What do they want it to do?
The 64-foot-long helicopters must carry 14 passengers and thousands of pounds of additional equipment while being able to fly farther without refueling than existing Marine One choppers can. They must be able to jam seeking devices, fend off incoming missiles and resist some of the electromagnetic effects of a nuclear blast.
They also must have videoconferencing and encrypted communications gear to allow the president to instantly reach advisers, military officers and foreign leaders.
Did anyone from the "6" shop talk to them about the bandwidth, blindspot, and square footage problem you would have getting VTC on a helicopter? Someone watching too much TV methinks. Secure VOX is fine. Secure data transfer is fine. VTC? In a mid-sized helo? With all that other stuff mixed in?
Why LCS of the sky? Hmmmm, sounds familiar.
Although Lockheed Martin does not make helicopters, the Navy chose it over longtime contractor Sikorsky Aircraft because the company's European partner had a three-engine model that seemed a logical off-the-shelf base for a new presidential helicopter. But modifying the EH101 has proven so complicated that the company is essentially building a new helicopter.
There is also this.
"The Navy and industry team did not clearly realize the full implications of the White House requirements," John J. Young Jr., the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said in a written response to questions. To meet those requirements and retrofit a commercial aircraft to Navy standards, he said, "the Navy and industry teams are having to complete substantial redesign" of the helicopter. He added that "this redesign work is driving significant cost growth into the program."
Let me translate that for you,
The Navy and industry team did not know what they were doing, did not have enough people qualified on the job, used the best case scenario, and generally gun-decked the process. No one was fired either - they were actually promoted. Please reward me too, and send more money.
This "the laws of physics are no fun" quote kind of makes me giggle.
“Because of cost growth issues and congressional funding cuts,” Increment 2 also is under a stop work order, they said. While the White House has not changed Increment 2 requirements for the 23 helicopters there, no existing medium-lift helo can meet the requirements.
Once again, without accountability and clear communication, this will continue to happen. There will be fewer shadows on the ramp and fewer ships at the pier.
Sanity at the Supreme Court. First impressions here. Good news I hope.
The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election. ... A majority of the nine justices, including the crucial “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, who often holds the balance of power on the court, appeared to believe the amendment guaranteed an individual right to weapons.
Justice Kennedy repeatedly insisted that the amendment must have been intended to allow citizens to protect their frontier homes and families against dangers such as attacking Indians or bears, and should provide a similar right to protect the modern home.
Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that the DC law would not meet his test as a reasonable regulation of firearms ownership. “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession of handguns?” he asked. But several other justices defended the ban as a reasonable response to the crime problem in America’s capital city.
Take to to the Supreme Court? Sure, more chances to out Alvarez and show is face to more people so they will know him as the lying coward that he is.
When Xavier Alvarez was asked to say a few words about himself at a meeting of a California water board last summer, he decided on these: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”
Only the last three words were true.
You can't get away with that as easy as you used to.
Mr. Alvarez is scheduled to go on trial next month in federal court in Los Angeles for violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which makes it a crime to lie about having received certain medals. ... Mr. Alvarez is facing the possibility of two years in prison and a $200,000 fine.
Now, hold your Constitution close, you are going to love this.
He is represented by a federal public defender, Brianna J. Fuller, and he has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the First Amendment protects him.
Nice; firmly attached to the public teat the whole time.
Free speech experts say the motion is unlikely to succeed.
“On the other hand,” Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote on his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, “the legal issue is not as clear as one at first might think.” He cited the somewhat muddy Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area and an October decision of the Washington Supreme Court that struck down a state law making it illegal for politicians to lie about candidates for public office. ... “My instinct is that there probably would not be a winning First Amendment defense because of the confluence of two factors,” Professor Smolla said. First, he said, it is hard to identify anything positive Mr. Alvarez contributed to any debate. Second, he said, “the integrity of the honors that the military bestows is very important.”
I don't think it will get too far either - but we are talking CA and the 9th Circuit. Speaking of CA, any CA tax-payers out there?
In California, where Mr. Alvarez continues to sit on the board of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, an elected position, patience is wearing thin.
“There’s no question he’s pathological,” said Bob G. Kuhn, the board’s president, recounting some of what has come out of Mr. Alvarez’s mouth. “He’s had three helicopter accidents. He’s been shot 16 times. These are all fabrications.”
But Mr. Kuhn said the board was powerless to expel Mr. Alvarez, who continues to receive $200 per meeting and health insurance. The board has censured him, though, for putting a woman he falsely claimed was his wife on the board’s health plan.
At first, Mr. Kuhn said, he took no position on the wisdom of the criminal prosecution of his colleague.
“But we’ve had 40 or 50 veterans parade before our board, asking him to publicly apologize,” Mr. Kuhn said. “He has refused to do that. With that said, I have no problem with the prosecution.”
When looking up snarky comments for yesterdays post of the creeping authoritarianism in DC, I came across this article that has the picture of the CNO on the right to go with it.
Of course, the article is a Pravda-esque bit on the Commissariat's Diversity Bully Bureau's Diversity Push. Going with the subject of the article, the picture brings with it an other-worldly tone deafness that does the Navy and the CNO no good whatsoever. His Staff should be keel-hauled.
I am having trouble finding a more out of touch policy in my ~two decades of service than the archaic Ethnic Studies babble that, under threat of Congressional bothering, gets shoved in front of the CNO for his signature. TQL had more of a grounding in reality than this stuff that reads like nothing has happened since 1968.
The patronizing, retrograde nature of the Navy's Diversity Cant is perfectly demonstrated in the picture above. Big White Boss and Black Underling ..... geezzzzzz that is about as bad as the MLK dinner menu at Annapolis.
Seriously, someone get the CNO (wearing civies) to an all-hands social or holiday event with families from any UIC outside of DC; and don't tell them he is coming. Ignore the Boomer navel-gazers and get out there and see the racial interaction of those in the service born after the first episode of Room 222, instead of acting on and supporting discredited theories that looks like they were written in the Johnson Administration.
Diversity? We live it. Without getting in to all the great Sailors we have from Guam, Bosnia, Vietnam, Mexico, Barbados, Egypt, and Canada - we take our diversity to our bloodlines too. Black marry White; White marry Black; Asian of every stripe and the already well mixed "Hispanic" marry all and everyone - as does everyone else - not to mention the dating scene. You get the great "Half Black (which in the American context usually means 70% African and 30% European anyway) & Half Philippina" combo having children with a "Half European & Half Guatemalan" (...and you seriously want us to classify by race, eugenically like, both the parents and children?...) running around in scads with everyone from the red-haired O'Brien brats to the obsidian hues of the children of the YN2 from Ghana. Give us all a break - we are doing just fine if you would quit shoving your insecurities about race in our face.
I wish that the Boombers would just go on a retreat together and have a drum circle and work this out and quit polluting the younger generations with "your issues."We can't make progress when the older generations keep pulling us back.
As Senator Obama (D-IL) could tell you, passing on hateful and divisive ideas to the next generation isn't helping anyone advance anything - and distorts and obscures the real progress real leaders made against real racism.
I wish the Ethnic & Gender Studies majors and Diversity Bullies would just let us get on with the business of the ship...and leave my CNO and my Navy out of it. Your ideology is a cancer.UPDATE: Today, someone said something that I think applies to our Diversity Bullies.
...he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
As usual, VDH hits it in the center. The truth is sometimes uncomfortable - especially when you have to give it to your friends.
Iraq, as no one ever imagined, ended up as a landscape in which the United States and al-Qaeda would battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab world on the world stage. And in Anbar Province, the jihadists are losing — losing militarily and losing the support of the local Sunni population. Again, whereas the conventional wisdom holds that we have radicalized an entire generation of young Muslims, it may turn out instead that we have convinced a generation that it is not wise after 9/11 to wage war against the United States. In any case, there is no other constitutional Arab government in the Middle East that actively hunts down and kills al-Qaeda terrorists.
When the insurgency took off in late 2003, Europe immediately triangulated against the United States, courted the Arab world, and hoped to deflect jihadists by loudly proclaiming they were vehemently against the war in Iraq. This is in itself was quite remarkable, since the entire recent expansion of the European Union to the south and east had been predicated only on a partnership agreement with the United States to extend NATO membership — alone ensuring these weak new European affiliates American military protection.
Irony abounds: Since 2003, Europe — not the United States — has experienced a series of attacks, and near-constant threats, ranging from bombed subways and rail stations to Islamic demands to censor cartoons, operas, films, and papal exegeses.
It is in Europe, not in post-Iraq Kansas, where a Turkish prime minister announces to Muslim expatriate residents that they must remain forever Turks and assimilation is a crime; it is in post-Iraq Europe, not Los Angeles, where politicians and churchmen talk of the inevitability of Sharia law; and it is in post-Iraq Europe, not the United States, where honor killings and Islamic rioting are common occurrences.
Why? A number of reasons, but despite all the misrepresentation and propaganda, the message has filtered through the Middle East that the United States will go after and punish jihadists — but also, alone of the Western nations, it will risk its own blood and treasure to work with Arab nations to find some alternative to the extremes of dictatorship and theocracy. Europe, in contrast to its utopian rhetoric, will trade with and profit from, but most surely never challenge, a Middle Eastern thug.
Like I keep telling you, if you are not listening to Gary Kaltbaum on the radio or getting his PodCasts - you might as well throw money out your window.
If you are listening to Cramer - just pass out your credit cards at the nearest day-laborer station while you are at it.
Even though he has been disappeared; I would wonder what America would be like if we all had Rev. Wright as our mentor and guide. What if we inculcated his teachings in all we do.
There you have Senator McCain (R-AZ) in Baghdad with the MV-22 turning in the background.
Nice visual.
Can you see any of the Democrats (OK, Sen. Clinton (D-NY) maybe), handle this visit list?
He was joined on the trip by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.
The senators are also visiting Israel, London and Paris.
Also, one of the leaders of the conservative right, Gov. Sanford (R-SC) has weighed in with a tone in line with what Uncle Sam is telling you.
To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game.
I sat out the first half, not endorsing a candidate, occupied with my day job and four young boys at home. But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same.
It's easy to get caught up in the pursuit of political perfection, and to assume that if a candidate doesn't agree with you 100% of the time, then he doesn't deserve your support. In fact, Mr. McCain is a lot closer to 100% than many conservatives realize. He has never voted for a tax increase in his 25 years in Congress. He holds an 83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He is listed as a taxpayer hero by Citizens Against Government Waste. And he is supported by noted conservatives Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp and others.
The process of iron sharpening iron is good for the GOP. But now, I believe, the time has passed for focusing on what divides us.
I also note that there is significant high-level IT backing: the PowerWomen of the IT world - are forming up to back McCain.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has tapped Silicon Valley for another top female corporate leader.
Retiring eBay Chief Executive Meg Whitman will become a national co-chair for the McCain campaign. Whitman, who steps down from her eBay job at the end of the month, had been a major fundraiser for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who dropped out of the Republican race last month.
Last week, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who campaigned for McCain in the primaries, was tapped to lead the party's fundraising efforts for the November campaign and to go on the road touting the presumptive GOP nominee's economic policies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are stuck in the past with their Ethnic & Gender Studies navel gazing.
Take time to read the set-up in The Carden Chronicles, and then remind yourself that there is a reason we have the Bill of Rights - as it was actions like this (though a lot harsher with no option) by the British that started it all.
D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they're offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.
The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.
"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."
That is how it starts. First voluntary, then not. First amnesty, then not. First knock, then not.
If the people of DC (and soon Boston and Philly) are citizens and not slaves they will simply say, "He11 no!" and close the door.Of course, for those who think good, solid gun laws will keep the government police powers away from you need to remember that, in all the USA Washington DC has the toughest gun laws in the country - and it could get a lot tougher for all of us depending on the outcome of what starts this week at SCOTUS.
As with much of Leftist police powers, they find it easier to go after innocent law abiding citizens than to go after the criminals.It will be interesting if DC's citizens are willing to be treated like slaves - slaves who only have the rights the State grants them, and then hold so weakly that they are meekly given back.
The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.
Now, I want you to click here and review the Ward profiles from a "Diversity" perspective for Wards 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 that roughly outline Washington Highlands SE, Columbia Heights NW, and Eckington NE.Notice there are no plans (yet) to do this in in SW? Now click the data for Ward 2 & 3. Hmmmm, my history brain remembers something....
Not forgotten, and now home.
