Friday, December 31, 2010

Big Sis in Afghanistan?

I read about Janet Napolitano being in Afghanistan this New Years. At first, I was annoyed as I could not figure out a legitimate reason for the head of Homeland Security being in a foreign country, especially Afghanistan. And, then it hit me. The Obama Administration is truly the theater of the absurd.

Napolitano is supposedly going to Afghanistan to visit her personnel stationed there. Now, why are U.S. Homeland Security personnel in the ‘stan? Could it be to identify bad guys who might come here, there? Or, is DHS acting as a sales agent for Michael Chertoff’s scanner company to sell them to Afghani government and security personnel for viewing dancing boys before they buy their services? I am certain that was part of the reason, but there had to be more.

What is it that Homeland Security does? Besides keeping us imperiled by promoting the unwarranted use of electromagnetic radiation emitting equipment that will cause cancer, abusing the constitutional rights and dignity of the average U.S. traveler trying to board an aircraft and causing unnecessary delays by searching needlessly any but the adherents of the religion of peace, and to avoid doing anything to make our borders secure, not to mention aiding and abetting illegal human trafficking and drug smuggling across our borders? Oh, I know. DHS costs a lot.

Well, the name implies making the homeland safer . . . no, I do not think that works, either.

Ahhh. DHS is an equal opportunity employment agency, obviously. DHS through TSA provides meaningful employment for sexual abusers and pedophiles. The scanners will cut down health care costs by eliminating some of us from making to old age.

Therapists are busy with new clients because of those suffering trauma from the TSA screenings.

When you’ve been sexually abused, it never goes away, and to have someone touch you intimately without your permission will cause trauma, intended or not. I wonder if DHS gets a cut from any referrals to shrinks?

So, what can Big Sis offer the Afghanis officialdom besides peek a boos of their favorite dancing boy? Well, she is an expert on border security. Sort of, well, maybe if you really stretch the meaning of security. Or should I say, who is secure in the efforts of Obama’s Big Sis’s DHS.

After all, DHS lets the illegals in without any restriction. The drug cartels and the human traffickers have avenues of ingress and egress across our border to such an extent and with such impunity that the DHS classifies areas of our public lands as dangerous and warns U.S. citizens to stay away from these areas. Why build fences when you make money off of the drug trade and the human trafficking. Somebody has to be taking la mordida for looking the other way. Why not DHS and Big Sis?

Big Sis is in Afghanistan to learn better how to look the other way. After all, she cannot be there to help the Afghanis secure their border with Pakistan or Iran. That aspect of security is completely missing in her job description for her responsibilities to the people of the U.S.

Maybe, she is there to gain a better understanding of why Afghan men prefer Afghan boys to Afghan women? Or, to see the latest in burqa fashions?

Big Sis is probably there to assure the Taliban and Al Qaeda that they don’t have to worry about airport security or worrying needlessly about getting caught slipping across our borders from Mexico. Profiling and border security to ensure the sovereignty and safety of the U.S. population is not the objective of DHS.

Big Sis is probably telling Osama and Mullah Omar that DHS is their friend. Feel free to visit any time. Oh, and don’t forget the nukes. You won’t be searched.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Parnell is briliant--he's going to reduce the size of Alaska!

Our new old Governor Sean Parnell is slowly steaming ahead with his agenda. I would have never given him credit for this, but . . . Gov. Parnell and the Legislature have come up with a pretty clever way to cut local government and the population of the State of Alaska by about 50% almost immediately! This plan is insidious in its brilliance.

Gov. Parnell’s economic plans should have included –by now—news of TransCanada and Exxon’s plans for a pipeline. Yet, all we hear from industry and other sources is that there will be no pipeline to Canada or to the U.S. for at least 20 years—per Larry Persily, the federal pipeline coordinator. Nor, will any LNG be sent to the U.S. from Alaska. It is just too cheap to ship all of that natural gas Exxon and Conoco converted in their LNG trains in Qattar 15,000 miles to the U.S. by LNG tanker, off load the LNG tanker, recondition the LNG, load it back onto the LNG tanker . . . and export it to Asia another 10,000 miles—and, still make a profit.

Yes, I remember Ralph Samuels sagely opining that it was just too expensive to ship North Slope gas 800 miles to Valdez by pipeline, convert it to LNG, and then ship it to a foreign market. Man, am I glad that we did not make that mistake! We would be just like all rest of those fools shipping LNG all over the world and making far more than the domestic price! Wow. We almost blew it, big time!

What would we do with all of those LNG tankers coming into Valdez to move 3 billion cubic feet of gas a day to market?! Not to mention that the gas liquids would have stayed in Alaska for fuels and industry, thereby creating more jobs. And, why would we build the 250 million cubic feet per day spur line from Glennallen to the Enstar Hub at Palmer to relieve the gas shortages in the Kenai/Cook Inlet gas fields? What would the pols have to commiserate over?! We did not need those jobs, either! Thank you Ralph and Sean!

Alaska did not need all of the jobs and businesses that would have been created by building the natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Remember, 138,000 Alaskans voted to build that pipeline. Just foolishness! Why, we don’t need to worry! We can all work for the State! Right, Gov?

After all, Conoco let the cat out of the bag just before the elections. The intent was to warehouse North Slope gas for at least another 20 years. Yet, Conoco is still going forward with Denali . . . ? Uh . . . some things are better left alone, I guess, otherwise it hurts your head trying to follow the logic.

Oh, you folks that opposed building the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and shipping our gas to Asia markets were so sage. . . .

What was it Larry Persily opined? No pipeline for 20 years?

I guess that we are just supposed to forget that we have a gas shortage that will result in brown outs and a loss of heat and power for up to two years in south central if a compressor fails in the Kenai fields. What fun that promises!

Just think, over 300,000 Alaskans without heat and power during the coldest part of the winter, maybe two winters. And, most of them . . . armed. Uh, oh.

If that is a means to get property values down, that will do it, alright.

I guess we should also forget that during this last election, it was revealed that TAPS will reach a critical juncture much sooner than expected. The point at which TAPS cannot be restarted due to a shutdown is now much closer.

We were all fat dumb and happy thinking that TAPS would continue to transport oil down to 300,000 barrels per day production. Oh, no. This has been revised to 500,000 barrels per day. Meaning, that within the coming four years, we may see an end to TAPS moving our oil once production reaches 500,000 bpd or less, and there is a shutdown of the pipeline for any reason. With that shutdown ends 90% of the State’s revenue.

Do you think there will be an income tax, not to mention a State sales tax and, maybe even a State property tax proposed over the next two Legislative sessions?

Wait a minute.

We have the Permanent Fund! Let’s see, that’s about $35B or so. At a yearly budget of $11B growing by at least 10% per year, we can hold out for . . . 3 years? Then what? Don’t think about it, our legislators and governor aren’t, so why should we?

How long will the PFDs last? Anyone want to make a bet past 2013?

The only “pipeline plan” being discussed publically is the idea of building a 36 inch or 48 inch natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Fairbanks. After that . . . who knows? Indecision reigns supreme. Gone is any mention of the “bullet line” from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Avoided like the black plague is any mention of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Now, all we hear is that importing natural gas to Cook Inlet is inevitable.

In Canada, poly pipelines are being installed year round for gas distribution to market. You see it all over the west. Just awesome their expansion and aggressive development of their NG resources. The Canadian government just approved the MacKenzie River Delta 1.5 bcf natural gas pipeline project. In the mean time, the success of the LNG export facility at Kittimat, B.C. is no longer doubted by any here or there.

The MacKenzie River Delta pipeline is going ahead, the national energy board in Ottawa said it needs to be done, all the aboriginal malarkey is settled, and it is and will always be . . . Canada first. That project will pretty much see an end to the hot air expounded over any idea of moving our gas to Canada. We won’t be able to give our gas away if this dodo bird attitude on the part of those in Juneau continues regarding LNG exports and instate use of the gas liquids.

Yet, in Alaska . . . well, the sage heads in the Legislature and the Governor’s office have decided that in about 5 years or so the Grinch is going to visit all of us, if not before. “Before” may be a compressor failure on the Kenai, or the inability to restart TAPS after a maintenance or leak shut down. Then what? The silence has been deafening.

The Alaska Legislature and our governors have been very successful in ignoring the obvious. We have to trust them to keep doing just that. After all, a little misery and cold never hurt anyone. Right? Just suck it up and keep moving, soldier.

Enjoy heat and lights while we have ‘em!

And, then, when we all get cold enough and angry enough, let’s enjoy tar and feathering the legislators and the governors who served from 2002 forward who ignored our will. There will still be diesel to heat the tar.

Sarah looks good in black, too.

Just before we do Parnell, we should give him an award for the success of his brilliant plan. After we finish tar and feathering him, we will send him to Washington to advise President Obama on resource development, cutting government, and population control.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

DADT and the aftermath

The Senate decided to ignore the needs of the troops, the needs of our wounded in hospitals across the country, and the impact upon the services by forcing homosexual priorities upon the services. Why was the military chosen for this gay agenda goal? The military can be ordered to comply with no recourse for the individual soldier who is opposed, other than to resign.
There is no civil rights issue in this. Where is the prejudice against the homosexual soldier who does not openly flaunt their sexual proclivities?
What of the legal, religious, moral and morale issues associated with dealing with openly homosexual soldiers in one’s unit? Those issues are ignored. The secular state has decreed what is to be, and the military will obey . . . or else, the Joint Chiefs and others will be replaced with more amiable types who are more concerned about their careers than the troops’ concerns.
Art. 125 UCMJ
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Apparently, Art. 125 will be ignored from this point forward. Now, it will be every goat and sheep for themselves.
Yes, I recognize the contributions of homosexuals in the military. I remember that the most highly decorated enlisted airman in the USAF to serve in the Republic of Viet Nam was homosexual. Did his homosexuality make him brave? No, but his personal courage, his devotion to duty, to his country, and to his comrades gave him the ability to do what he did. He was a man who served honorably, nothing more, nothing less.
What is the problem, then with homosexuals serving openly in the military? Well, the idea of a homosexual in one’s unit, sharing one’s shower, the same latrine, the same dressing area, living area may make some uncomfortable. However, that is not the worst. The worst comes in two forms.
One is the second layer of DADT repeal. The political correctness will now be imposed. Penalties will be imposed for insulting homosexuals. Hate speech will become the lever to make a small minority much more powerful. The need to redress inequities in rank and position that do not now exist will be played out to the detriment of those more qualified. All of sudden, how good a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will matter not. It will be “Congress says there must be X number of homosexual 1st LTs this promotion cycle, or we don’t get the new whiz bang Taliban thumper deluxe!”
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda will be to eliminate “hate speech” by military chaplains. The Bible says what it says. How that will be reconciled will resemble the Canadian solution. Censor the Bible . . . and the Koran.
Working one’s butt off to be the best that one can be will not count. I will bet you that whose butt the general has will. Sexual politics of the male female variety are one thing, but male on male or female on female will open up a whole new dimension to this age old problem. What was once the venue of rumor will now be in your face.
The playful slap on the back, shoulder or butt that is common amongst male soldiers at times will now be regarded from a new perspective.
Yes, sex will play a new role in the military.
Then, there is the second issue. The morality and religious convictions of those troops whose religion dictate the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. These individuals will have the unfair choice of not accepting the lifestyle and giving up their military career, or to accept knowing that they are accepting something that is an anathema to their religion.
The figures given in the Pentagon’s so called study were flawed, and those who did the study knew it. Only a small fraction of the Army personnel sent the survey responded. The majority response was by USAF and Navy personnel. The two ground combat arms, the Army and the Marines, were not in favor of any change to DADT. The impact upon combat units will not be favorable with the imposed change.
This is not a matter of civil rights where the color of one’s skin was concerned. With prejudice in treatment and advancement were visible. This is now a matter of individuals who had before the repeal the same right to promotion and benefits and who were not otherwise prejudiced by their conduct, so long as they did not proclaim their sexual preference openly, the same as any heterosexual soldier, airman, sailor or Marine. Now, things will change.
Only by fiat of the secular state can one be forced to choose between religion and one’s military service.
Uncle Sam’s military will never be the same. Now, there is another layer of privilege based upon sexual preference. Just what our soldiers needed instead of new equipment, better weapons, and better support after they get home, more political correctness that puts soldiering second and CYA first.
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, this vote of yours will be remembered come reelection.