In 2011, the Jew stands before corrupted international judges, the judges loyalties to eliminating the Jews revival of faith and nationhood, by its very being a reflection on pervasive oppression throughout the lands of the majority of judges and others who bow to their rulers. That mirror cannot be tolerated.

In 1948, a foreign army conquered Jerusalem and surrounding areas. Until 1967, the Jew could find no shelter there and was forbidden to visit his sacred sites. Many of the holy sites were destroyed or desecrated by the foreign army, and the international judges – distributors and recipients of thirty gallons of oil – turned away and said nothing. The residents of the conquered areas lived in poverty. Now, all faiths have access to their holy sites, and the Jew increased the residents standards of living. But, the international judges want to find the Jew guilty of defending that freedom of worship and benefits to existence, in favor of those who reject peace and cooperation. Many who share the Jews values hide or turn away; many of them are persecuted and slaughtered as they try to worship in some of the lands of those who reject peace.

National security at risk in repeal of 'don't ask'

Yesterday I spoke with my mother-in-law in Dusseldorf, where she’s snowed in and may not reach her mother for Christmas eve. She saw on CNN that San Diego was suffering from torrential rains, as TV news searches for exaggerations to fill airtime.

Actually, San Diego got from several inches to over ten-inches of rain, varying by spot. That’s very unusual in our semi-arid location, where sunny days are usual and average temps range along the coast from winter 60s to upper-70s in summer (today’s newspaper editorial calls our usual weather “bland”). Still, as most of our soil is sand and roads get flooded, there are commute difficulties and some small landslides (the Coaster rail is blocked for several more days). We have tickets to the Poinsettia Bowl tonight. We’ll have to go hours earlier and stall in heavy traffic; bummer. At Qualcomm, next to the overflowed San Diego River (usually a trickle), pumps are removing over 2,200 gallons of water a minute from the flooded stadium (I guess that favors Navy, versus San Diego State University).

On the way back from the movies yesterday to see Narnia #3 (good, especially with 3D, but #2 was best), Jason and I stopped at Sports Authority for a quick purchase. Instead, we spent over an hour in the baseball glove aisle helping confused parents choose gloves for their sons (we sold over 20; should have been on commission). Almost all the buyers departed wishing us Happy Holidays; not one Merry Christmas. This is not a Jewish neighborhood (nor Muslim), so I thought that unusual, even bland.

For those to whom Christmas is something special, two items in today’s emails tell of their deep loss.

A fellow Vietnam veteran sent me this artist rendering of a photo taken at the Wall in D.C.  These and other veterans never got to celebrate another Christmas.

Another friend sent me this AP clip that Iraqi Churches cancel Christmas festivities because of Al Qaeda threats, following increased but hardly new brutalities and murder against them by Islamists, a million Christians having left Iraq since 2003. Christians in most all Muslim countries suffer violence and death at the hands of Islamists.

Wherever you are, whatever your weather, whichever and however your faith, whenever you pause, give thanks for the freedom to celebrate Christmas in America, compared to the alternatives, and remember when it wasn’t Blandmas or an invitation to be slaughtered.

Makes me want to be a lesbian!

My good friend Dan Blatt, of GayPatriot blog, has a worth reading column today at AOL, What's Next for Gays After the DADT Repeal?

Though we disagree on the repeal of  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), Blatt neutrally links to and quotes from my previous post, DADT Repeal: What Comes Next? Pentagon Asked, Tells Combat Troops Not To Tell, and I reviewed his draft for accuracy.

Respected defense and foreign policy guru Max Boot writes, as does a combat Marine’s wife, with confidence the able military will adapt, though they opposed the repeal.

For one thing, there may be far fewer gays in uniform than claimed by the pro-repeal advocates. One indication of this comes from data that most of the approximately 14,000 discharged under DADT from the military over the past 17 years were probably not even gay, but slackers who falsely “outed” themselves for an early out.

Good summary, looking forward:

There are, however, two possible means of repeal. There is actual legislative repeal, passed by both Houses and signed by the president, which cannot happen until 2013 at the earliest. And there is effective repeal, in which the body politic rejects the substance of the bill, seeks waivers and exemptions, supports defunding important provisions, and challenges it in court, all of which would have the effect of making the whole scheme unworkable. This could be the ultimate fate of Obama’s signature legislation.

Many Democrats are sure to keep telling themselves, as President Obama has, that “the outcome was a good one.” That conviction should comfort them as they continue to deal with the consequences arising from the intensity of the electorate’s rejection. The Pyrrhic victory Democrats secured for themselves in March 2010 may prove not to have been a victory at all but rather an ever-roiling, ongoing, and recurring act of political and ideological self-destruction.

I care that some friends who are gay or defend gays, as I have at corporate career risk many times, have an opposite view of the immediate congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). But, I care more about the immediate effect on the welfare of US combat troops and for US national security.

Yes, “national security” is a BIG term, and can be read as overexpansive. Yet, that is precisely what is stake, in immediate and longer-term consequences. Neither the US nor our military will fall off a cliff. However, the immediate repeal of DADT is another slip down the decline of a strong US foreign policy. Most liberals may see no problem or that as desirable. The majority of Americans and nations do not see the US policies of which this is part that way.

There is no reason to doubt, and to even applaud, that the majority of Americans and of military servicemembers do not have strong objections to, or favor, gays serving openly in the US military. It is a commendable affirmation of American fairness. Further out, a less rapid and more measured elimination of DADT may be more practical.

Some Western nations have openly gay military service, almost all in non-combat positions, but their militaries are weak and dependent upon US forces and umbrella, none of them taking the commitment and responsibility for the magnitude of the tasks the US does. Israel’s military is raised as an exception, but that ignores the different realities there which even official US reports recognize.

At the same time, it ignores or is a repudiation of the warriors who now serve in the front-lines, whose tight bonds with and complete trust and reliance upon the guy next to him determines his very survival, as the New York Times interviews of Marines makes clear. The majority of combat troops see the possible negative impacts, as clear in the Pentagon report, and some will pay with their careers or lives. The official Pentagon summary says 70% of the military see a positive or neutral effect, but that skews the actual poll result: 20% saw no and 19% positive impact, 30% negative, and 32% some of both. The majority of Marine and Army combat troops saw negative impacts. Nothing in the Pentagon report says there will be betterment of military effectiveness, which should be the key issue. Our military exists to accomplish combat missions, first and primary, above all. The major veterans organizations and the largest number of retired generals and admirals ever to publicly speak out on a military issue – 1167 – expressed their opposition to immediate repeal of DADT.

The immediate repeal of DADT is especially dangerous to the combat units and troops, already under severe stress. Further, both Admiral Mullens testified to Congress and General Petraeus’ Command Sergeant Major clearly stated that combat troops can either stifle or get out.

If you look at the Pentagon “implementation plan” attached to its survey of attitudes, focus on the supposedly guiding “Vignettes” appendix (p.69 fwd). The New York Times comments of the implementation plan, "The plan offers few specifics on the substance of the training to be provided." In almost every case, there is no real answer to how to deal with challenges to military order or living conditions. Instead, the Vignettes repeatedly just rely upon command judiciousness, which in effect will mostly mean accommodation or acquiescence, for the sake of their own careers. There can be little doubt, under the best of circumstances, that boundaries will be constantly disputed, will take up much time and resources, and thus distract from focus on military effectiveness issues. The limit on the military’s costs and troubles of accommodating gay marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) only recognizing heterosexual legal unions, is under judicial challenge. Gay rights activists intend for DADT repeal to be the precursor to DOMA repeal. So, expect further turmoil in the ranks and defense budgets.

The actual repercussions will be less than the worst case in most cases. No one expects gay – or liberal or libertarian -- enlistments or service in combat units to surge or, even, increase by a tiny fraction of a percent. However, the efforts to accommodate that relatively tiny number will still consume much effort and resources, and will establish conditions that significantly affect the majority of combat troops. Similarly, no one expects newfound support from those opposed to our military’s missions or who ignore our troops’ safety. Meanwhile, a much larger number of those who do enlist will not or will not re-enlist or will be ushered out of the military.

Talk to combat troops and veterans, as I frequently do, and the resentment quickly comes out at the excesses of “political correctness” unrealistically imposed on them, especially when it puts their lives at increased risk. Most stay, but a great many do not. Military commands turn to alternatives, like targeted predator bombing instead of face-to-face killing. In both cases, of course, there is infrequent collateral damage (meaning of innocents or non-combatants), but predators are less personal so less protested by domestic liberals. Still, that alternative is less effective than on-the-ground eliminating or neutralizing foes and holding territory so that conditions can be created for more lasting civilian safety.

Support for our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan declined for many reasons, including the difficulties and potential futility of accomplishing even modest lasting objectives with too few troops committed and backed to do what’s necessary. Other countries see and retreat from supporting the US or from taking a stand against encroaching threats, whether from Islamist radicals or from other anti-Western states.

The world sees the Obama administration “incensed” at the UN removing explicit protection of gays from its official policy, and nowhere near this firmness in defense of US allies – or US troops -- who confront existential enemies.

I have two young sons, and like many others have serious doubts whether they should choose to follow me into military service.

Look, my dog can poop! Perfect gift if you don't want to go out to walk a real one on chilly mornings.

Make the Ten Commandments relevant.

A major question is, what are the effects of the Virginia federal district court ruling that the individual mandate within ObamaCare (officially titled PPACA) is unconstitutional?

For now, and even if the Virginia ruling is eventually sustained by the US Supreme Court, the effects are relatively minor. The ruling took a conservative stance on severance, allowing the rest of the law to stand. The impact of the individual mandate on the other parts of the PPACA, although arguably substantial, is actually weak.

However, revealed are, once again, several of the serious failings of the PPACA, which if implemented can mean far higher insurance premiums and, perhaps, the implosion of the private insurance industry – and individual choice -- in near the condition it is today.

The Ruling: Section 1501 of PPACA mandates that individuals purchase medical insurance or face penalties via the IRS. The Va federal judge finds this goes well beyond any previous extension of the Constitution by requiring a behavior that otherwise wouldn’t occur, commenting that the possible extensions of federal power would then be endless.  Two other federal district courts did find this constitutional. Other challenges are in process of first hearing, most notably the one in Florida federal district court brought by 20 states and expected to get a favorable ruling, as well as appeals of preliminary judgments elsewhere. The Virginia judge did not grant an injunction on the individual mandate, as he expects the Supreme Court to deal with it before it becomes effective.

Severance: A severance clause in a law holds that if any part is found unlawful, the rest of the law will stand. This clause was removed from PPACA by its drafters. PPACA supporters and most lawyers didn’t think any of PPACA would be found unconstitutional. But, the Virginia judge took a conservative stance toward severance, “the time-honored rule to sever with circumspection…Accordingly, the Court will sever only Section 1501 and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to Section 1501.”

A pdf search of PPACA finds no other such key provisions. The Obama administration argued that many other provisions of PPACA are seriously impacted but although implicit in the crafting of PPACA such language is not in PPACA.

States and government employee unions are united to hide the true extent of the cost of pension promises, and the impacts on other basic government services. Leading Republican congressmen have introduced legislation to shine light on these costs.

The Pew Center On The States reported last February that:

$1 trillion. That’s the gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises.

Why does it matter? Because every dollar spent to reduce the unfunded retirement liability cannot be used for education, public safety and other needs. Ultimately, taxpayers could face higher taxes or cuts in essential public services.

Actually, the gap may be closer to $3-trillion, as this National Bureau of Economic Research study lays out. In April, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) study reported a $3.04-trillion shortfall in funding. The AEI recommended that pensions must disclose greater detail regarding investment risk and pension plans should reform their accounting methods to include the market value of plan liabilities. Then, legislators could have a better idea of how to reform and plan.

One of the sectors who won’t directly benefit from the tax deal -- which evicted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is demanding revisions even though it hasn’t even been written – is about 5.7 million state and local government workers and about 600,000 federal workers. They don’t pay Social Security taxes, as they contribute to government pension plans, so they won’t benefit from the proposed 2% reduction in employee Social Security tax.

The New York Times reports, “’We are aware of it,’ said Gregory King, a union [American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] spokesman, ‘and we are discussing it with the appropriate leaders in Congress.’”  The NYT mentions that union alone “spent $90 million to help elect Democrats during the last election cycle.” Add in the other campaign spending by other government employee unions, like about $50-million from the SEIU, and the grand total is in the hundreds of millions, almost all to Democrats.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: Let the government unions cut their dues from government employees, instead of spending the dues on electing Democrats, even though many of the unions' members vote Republican.

The rump Senate may tonight try to force a vote on repeal of DADT. 

One of the arguments raised for the US Congress repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the experience of Israel’s military in allowing those openly gay to serve. Israel’s Defense Force (IDF) is generally considered one of the more able in the world and there is little reporting of major reported problems with the policy. But, prominent studies of the matter are deficient to argue from the Israeli experience.

(It well may be so that DADT should be repealed at some point. Not now. There are too many issues of fact to be determined. There are too many effects that are yet unclear. There are too many management issues to be decided and implemented. There are too many more pressing stresses on the US military today, particularly upon our combat forces who are in majority opposed.)

The DADT report from the Pentagon released November 30 offers little worthwhile information regarding Israel, or other countries’ experience with the impact on combat effectiveness.

After live-blogging President Obama's presser, John Podhoretz comments:

Well…that was interesting…he spent the first half insulting Republicans and the conclusion screaming at Democrats and left-liberals…All in all, one of the strangest political events of my lifetime.

Look at the rest of Commentary's Contentions blog for more insights.

I checked Google News to see what the nation’s press has to say this year on the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and throughout the Pacific. Very little. A little about how few survivors are still alive today. A little about the dedication of the renovated Memorial over the USS Arizona. A few scattered services.

What does December 7, 1941 mean today?

If advocates of capitalism want more sympathy, it’s past time to expose and shuck many so-called capitalists whose self-interest undermines capitalism.

Objectivist Richard Salsman cries for capitalism in Forbes, Where Have All The Capitalists Gone?

The collapse of socialist regimes two decades ago didn’t mean capitalism was finally being hailed for its many virtues; the historic event only merely reminded people of capitalism’s productive ability–an ability that already long-proven and long-acknowledged even by its worst enemies. Persistent animosity toward capitalism today rests on moral, not practical grounds. Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.

All true. And, misses much.

After all the manifest advantages of capitalism are appreciated, the inclination of some who are unproductive to take from the productive is discounted, and the false bravado is revealed of some who are wealthy – protecting their own with expensive lawyers – to suggest higher taxes, there’s great and increasing unease and anger at many of the biggees of capitalism.

My sons and I were at the pancake breakfast last Saturday morning at Camp Pendleton paid for by Congressman Darrell Issa’s Family Foundation to gather toys and contributions for Homefront San Diego. Issa’s Family Foundation is matching all contributions.  Homefront San Diego has no overhead and no payroll. Every cent of tax-deductible contributions directly benefits the lower enlisted active duty military families in the San Diego area. Just go to the Homefront site and make your contribution to those who serve.

As a former Marine Sergeant, of course I enjoyed who worked the line serving us Saturday morning, though they serve us every day.

Most of the arguments are weak from proponents and opponents of the Pentagon study on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Defense Secretary Gates argues that if repeal is not now then the intrusions by the courts into military discipline would be more disruptive. However, he fails to mention the failure of this administration’s Justice Department to vigorously defend DADT, the Congressionally-passed law, and that activist courts will continue to undermine many aspects of the Pentagon leadership’s supposedly well-laid plans.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen argues that repeal is both the American thing to do and that better leadership within the military will make it work. Simply, the military’s essential warrior culture is different than for civilian or corporate or non-military federal employees. Yes, according to the Pentagon’s survey, there is less resistance among non-combat troops, but they are the tail, and should not, must not wag the dog. It’s the teeth that count for the military’s effectiveness. Further, it’s hard to resist recalling the Pentagon’s mistaken assumptions and severe errors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mullen, also, suggests that the greater discipline within combat units will offset the greater, majority, resistance to repeal.

Mullens defends his attitude toward the combat troops’ resistance by saying he has led troops and cares about them deeply.  No doubt he cares, but he has never been a “grunt” nor led ground combat units. Mullens’ disregard of the impact on retention of today’s warriors and recruitment of tomorrow’s is simply disgraceful, even if the actual impact is lower than the troops themselves say, and will not be offset, under any scenario, by liberals, libertarians or gays enlisting or serving in combat units. There is also the claim that the relative youth of combat troops makes their views less worthy of mature judgment.  Guess what Mullens, combat troops are necessarily younger. According to the data file sent to me by the Defense Manpower Data Center, through January 31, 2010, of the 250-thousand active and reserve Marines deployed to Iraq, 66% of the active duty and 57% of the reservists were age 24 or under. They were mature enough to judge whether to enlist to risk their lives.

Opponents of repeal make some other weak arguments.

The focus of the Pentagon survey is criticized for not asking “should” repeal occur, and the methodology for relying upon a less than 30% voluntary response. The Pentagon is correct to argue that “should” is properly a Congressional issue and the survey provides useful info on the “how” and “impacts.” There are some weaknesses in the survey report, as in any, but neither crippling nor ignoring most of the impacts.  The response, the Pentagon says, has been adjusted for representativeness. There’s no reason to doubt that, except the adjustments are not provided to make that conclusive.  Further, analyses of voluntary responses in polling show that those with the strongest views have higher response rates, so – pro and con – there’s again little reason to believe that those with the strongest views were not represented. But, it is unknown whether the responses from combat troops were more than from non-combat, before the adjustments.

Another criticism of the Pentagon report and the media reporting of it is that there are actually relatively few who see the problems or impacts as positive. The bulk of responses to many questions are in the category of positive-and-negative, which the report and media reports group with the positive. The report says that the analysis of cross-tabs, reactions to other questions, justifies these in-the-middle repliers being grouped with the positive. However, that analysis detail is not included in the report, and the report does not allocate to positive or negative based on such an analysis.  There’s important distinctions and weightings that deserve more depth and understanding.  Perhaps the report authors’ judgment is correct, but that remains to be seen. Opponents should be demanding the report’s detail data-analysis. Aside from this, an important refinement of the already published data, the critics of the report’s methodology and conclusions are on weak ground.

The move to repeal DADT right now is criticized as a political move by the President’s Democratic Party, before their Congressional numbers shrink in January. That is so, and that is what Congress is, political. Opponents of immediate repeal can and will use their means to block it being forced through now, or can reverse a repeal in January.

In short, there are too many serious issues to be better understood by and detailed to the Congress, and for all Americans, than in the report or from its supporters statements so far. A few days to digest the report and a few days of Congressional hearings are grossly inadequate.

Tomorrow we hear from the service chiefs, a little closer to operational realities, who as the New York Times reports "All have expressed reluctance about repeal." After them, there are more to hear from. Congress adjourns next week, and there simply isn't enough time for a sufficiently informed and prudently considered vote.

P.S.: Paul Mirengoff at Powerline does an excellent job of Separating Facts From Spin in the Pentagon's DADT Report. Among other things, one of the report's two chief authors never served in the military and is an active liberal and Obama supporter. Opinions abound despite empirical data to the contrary.

Update: Military Chiefs Recommend Keeping DADT For Now

Remember when you carried around one of these, every where you went? Remember what liberation it was not to be tied to an electric cord and you could tuck it in your shirt pocket? It even had small earphones.  The transistor radio only played AM, but AM was all music then. I still have mine (I take care of my treasures), and Jason and I use it to listen to ball games while were out and about.

Remember the music, also liberating, at the 50s start of RnR and pre-Beatles. Remember when you'd stay up late harmonizing with your friends or the song or all night listening. Remember when love was romantic and not another four-letter word.

My friend Charlotte sent me this one. Maybe you'll still like it, and you don't have to stay up late to listen. Or, you can find many of the greats on Youtube, and rock and remember all night long.  Got something better to do?