Government Sponsored Terrorism

Cliven Bundy ain’t moving his cattle from the reported 600,000 acres of Nevada range they have grazed on for years. He also refuses to pay the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the fees they charge for allowing the cattle to graze. He has also attracted volunteers some armed, to help protect his ranch from being terrorized by the BLM. Nevada Senator Harry Reid calls them “domestic terrorists.”

The government claims Bundy owes $1 million in grazing fees. Bundy says he isn’t going to pay. He has claimed, “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

The BLM had had enough and decided to take Bundy’s cattle that roamed the government’s range. Reports vary, but anywhere from 900 to 1000 head were gathered by the BLM and driven to pens for eventual disposal. In the process, six head reportedly died or were killed. The BLM admits to six dead cattle. Four had been “euthanized”, including one bull deemed too dangerous to handle. The remaining two unbranded dead cattle, a bull, and cow are said to have simply died during the roundup. They were all found buried in a mass grave. Bundy claims they were driven to death running from BLM helicopters.

Bundy’s claim to ancestral grazing rights under state authority seems to stand on shaky ground. A deed filed in Clark County, Nevada, on January 5, 1948 lists Raoul and Ruth Leavitt as owners of the property where the Bundy ranch now stands. Cliven Bundy claims to have inherited the grazing and water rights from grandmother, Ruth Leavitt.

The Bureau of Land Management was created in 1946 – the same year Clive Bundy was born. Although I have not been able to ascertain exactly when the land now claimed by Bundy for grazing was sold to the BLM, it stands to reason that rights derived earlier than 1948 would be hard or impossible to establish. Bundy claims the ranch has been in his family since 1870 and has been grazing family cattle with permission of the State of Nevada.

Suffice to say that Bundy’s ancestral claim is a bit more than murky. In any event, at some point, the land was sold to the government .Whether taken by eminent domain or actually sold for profit, the land Bundy’s cattle are now grazing on belongs to the US government. Bundy can only show private ownership for the immediate160 acres where his ranch stands.

I come from a ranching family. My relatives own one of the largest ranches in Arizona, and yes, the cattle graze on some BLM property, for which they pay grazing fees. I find it hard to sympathize with some who grazes his herd on government land without paying, as other ranchers are required. Still, I have several problems with the government in this case.

Yes, the government has been patient with Mr. Bundy. This dispute has been reportedly going on since 1994. The heavy-handed action taken by the government at this time is totally unwarranted. Confiscation of Mr. Bundy’s livestock without compensation is a blatant violation of his rights guaranteed by the 4^th amendment to the US Constitution. The subsequent killing of at least six cattle without compensation is nothing short of theft and terrorist tactics on the part of the BLM.

But the problems go even deeper. I have witnessed the heavy-handed tactics used by our government in the process of “acquiring” private property for government use (or non-use). The threat to use eminent domain proceedings is always intimidating for most property owners, especially when the property they have improved and paid taxes on for years is destined to be part of a National Park, Wilderness, Federal Reserve, or BLM acquisition.

Of course, the government is required to pay the least amount possible for property. This often results in a scheme called “checker boarding.” In order to pick up a property at a bargain basement price agents will pay fair prices for surrounding properties, thereby land-locking one property that they can claim is now worthless and pick it up for next-to-nothing. It may sound absurd, but I have seen it happen.

The final issue I have is the amount of land being taken every year by the government and placed out of bounds for the citizens who now own it and paid for it. Parks should be places where people can go for recreation. If the government takes the land, it should be for the benefit of the people, not placed off-limits to all uses. I have little problem with charging reasonable use fees, but the land should be used or left in the hands of the private owners.

In the West, private landowners are under attack by continual massive land grabs for expansion of National Parks, National Monuments, and National Wilderness areas. Much of this action could be attributed to the United Nations policy of relocating people from urban areas into jammed cities. The infamous UN agenda 21—now accepted policy – calls this “sustainable development.”

It now appears the government may have backed off their planned confiscation of Bundy’s cattle, despite Nevada Senator, Harry Reid’s diatribe and liable against those assisting Bundy. What is clear is that the terrorists here are actually our own government.

Down in the Dirt

 Warning: I am about to talk dirty! If you are offended by language that includes words like politics and government, then read no further. After all, who could deny that a process where the candidate that slings the most mud gets elected is dirty? Ergo, I am going to talk dirty.

Fact: government in this country – Federal, state, and local – is big and getting bigger all the time. It is the nature of the beast that legislators must create laws. It is what we elect them to do. Each law enacted comes with a price tag that we the people are forced to pay.

So, who are these monkeys on our backs with their sweaty little hands in our pockets? This is the “land of the free”; we have choices! Right, we can choose who we like to control our lives and take our money. That is how our democracy works.

But do we really have a choice? We vote and our vote is counted. But how do we decide whom to vote for and who chooses the field of candidates? If you think anyone can run for office, you are dead wrong. Just ask Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan or any of the other candidates not sanctioned and financed by a major political party. And what are the qualifications for candidates? Well, not much. Usually one must have a pulse, but there may be exceptions. There are age and residency requirements for some offices, and for the highest office in the land, one must be a native born citizen – although it looks like there might be a precedent against even that in the offing.

There are no firm requirements for religion, education, health, sanity, ethics, honesty, or morality. If you can hoodwink enough people to vote for you, you are in, and you can stay in as long as you don’t commit a serious crime. Even then, your party may be able to finagle a way to keep you in and voting for their programs.

Just how does one go about getting elected? Well, if you are running for a partisan office, you usually need to “pay your dues” by working for the party. This could take anything from actively campaigning for their candidates to raising campaign funds, with greater weight given to the latter.  Of course, kissing babies helps, but kissing the rings of party Titians helps far more.

Let’s say you actually have a message to get out, one that will distinguish you from the normal drivel offered up during campaigns. Now, if you have kissed enough rings of party bosses, you might be allowed to run with the message. To get it out to the public, though, requires money – lots of money. You will need every medium available in order to reach enough voters to get elected, and media isn’t cheap.

In the 2012 presidential election nearly two billion dollars was spent by both candidates.  Considering that there were some 273.5 million people 18 years or over in the US at that time, that amounts to $7.31 per person for the message. Cheap? It isn’t so cheap when you consider that they could have sent a one-ounce letter with a position statement and full resume to every citizen for 45 cents apiece.

But wait a minute; you probably did get a slick cardboard flyer with the candidate’s information. Now, be honest, just how informative was that political ad. Did it spell out the candidate’s qualifications, inform you of important issues facing the country, or even say what the candidate will do about them? Not likely. Most of the flyers you received – yes, there are always more than one – probably just told you what a disaster it would be to vote for the other guy.

To state the obvious, there needs to be election reform if we are ever to have a fair and honest government. Unfortunately, there have probably been more words wasted on this subject over the years than any other. With each attempt at reform, we get worse government and dirtier elections.

Here’s an idea. First, outlaw political parties. Next, allow only one, postage-free, letter sent to every citizen by US mail, which only includes a candidate’s resume, qualifications, and statement of important issues with the candidate’s solution to them. Finally – and this is most important – ensure that only qualified live, citizens vote.

Too simple? Yeah, probably. But it would be a start on the road to cleaner government. Then we would only have to listen to dirty talk in the movies.  

Even Food For Thought Costs More

Of the many things humans can live without, food and water are not among them. We live in a global society, so drought and disease rarely affect the overall supply of food. What is affected, however, is the prices we pay to survive.

California’s central valley is often called the “breadbasket of America.” True, California consistently far outranks other states in production of dairy, fruits, vegetables, and meat. Also true is that most of California qualifies as desert. Unlike most central and eastern states, the crops we raise are produced through irrigation.

What happens when the water spigots are turned off? Well duh… crops die. Does that mean we will starve? Probably not, but we will pay more for our food – maybe much more.

We could be seeing that effect right now. When my wife returned from buying groceries the other day she shook her head in dismay at how much money she left at the supermarket.

“Did you buy something special or more than usual?” I asked. “No!” she exclaimed, “I couldn’t even buy much of what I always get.”

Yes folks, the crunch is in the works. Of course, our global economy will always allow us to get food grown outside of the country, but at what price?

No, this isn’t the first drought California has been through. I’m sure it won’t be the last. This time, however, the stars have aligned in a particularly bad configuration.

It was around 2003,when ethanol production began in earnest. Since that time, we have seen crop production take a drastic shift toward growing corn – not for livestock feed, but for fuel. That’s right, the fuel you are putting in your car contains corn that might have otherwise gone for livestock feed. Or the land it was grown on might have otherwise been used for soy, wheat, potatoes, or any other crop to feed the population. Mandated levels of ethanol have bumped crops that would undoubtedly have keep food prices lower.

Well that corn is gone -- sent up in vapor from your exhaust pipe. As it turns out, the livestock industry probably wouldn’t have been able to use all that corn anyway. The drought in the central states over the last few years had ranchers selling off their herds and others not replenishing the their stock. Because of the drought, they couldn’t grow feed, and due to the now higher corn prices, couldn’t afford to buy feed what they had.

Again, the price of food went up. Now comes another drought, this time in the nation’s breadbasket, California. Someone, I’m not sure who, made the decision that the burgeoning population in this state must take priority over the farmers in receiving the now scarce water resources. After all, food is available from other sources water is not so easy to come by.

Unfortunately, that formula only works when everyone can afford to pay higher prices for food. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that allows you to have “disposable income” (whatever that means), you may grumble about the high cost of food, but are not likely to suffer from malnutrition. But the recession isn’t over yet. There are many people still out of work or earning less than could be considered a living wage. Then there are those of us on a “fixed” income. Times are still hard. Do we pay the rent or mortgage, or do we eat? That is the decision.

So, what ya gonna do? Well, fortunately, it is springtime. Planting a vegetable garden might be a wise thing to do this year. If you don’t have the space for one, you could find a farmer’s market specializing in local grown produce. Those with the land for it could also raise some livestock.

All those endeavors require water, you might say, and you would be right. Remember, even though the water companies have shut off water to the farms and ranches in the state, they still provide water to the population. It may be a little pricey, but in the long run it could be better and cheaper than getting food from overseas. You may be able to offset the cost by not washing down your drive, or not washing your car. You can always lower your water bill by not drowning your lawn – especially on hot summer days. And if you simply MUST have green grass (why is beyond my comprehension), make certain you don’t water the sidewalk or street too – asphalt and concrete do just fine without water.

Yep, our Easter ham this year will probably be a few slices of bacon. By Thanksgiving, we may have to substitute a few doves for the usual turkey. I just hope that by Christmas we won’t be reduced to eating wild Jackrabbit. 

Remember Holodomor?

As I watch the news about the Ukraine invasion by Russia, I am amazed by those holding up Russian flags and pictures of Stalin. Apparently, they are unfamiliar with or have simply forgotten about Holodomor.

For the benefit of those in this country who may not be familiar with the term, it roughly means “Extermination by Hunger”, and refers to the mass extermination of Ukrainians through a fabricated famine crafted by Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. By most counts, some 10 million men, women, and children starved to death in the Ukraine. These deaths were part of a systematic practice of genocide against the Ukrainian peasants ordered by Stalin in 1932 and 1933. There are pictures of people walking past dead bodies in the streets reminiscent of the plague years in Europe.

Granted, there may not be many Ukrainians still around from that era, and those that are probably never heard of Holodomor. I strongly suspect the Soviet school system probably conveniently left that episode out of the history books.

Vlad Putin would like the world to believe he is only protecting the rights of Russian speaking people in another country. Russians are uber-nationalists when it comes to the “Motherland.” Under Soviet rule, however, all of the people in their satellite countries had to learn Russian. It was an absolute requirement. So, does Putin mean to reclaim all of the former Soviet countries?

When Hitler began to gobble up countries, he used the same excuse. Austria spoke German – albeit a strange dialect of the language. There were German-speaking minorities in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Denmark, and Holland spoke something that might resemble some sort of German dialect. France, Norway, and England? Well what the heck, there might be someone in those countries that knows a little German. Take the bunch.

By the time he finally set his sights on Russia and the Soviet Union, Hitler was already bogged down in fighting to keep the countries he had “annexed.” Hitler’s appetite for taking other countries was his downfall. Unfortunately, world leaders – particularly England’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain – only fed Hitler’s hunger by not standing up to him at the onset of Hitler’s “annexation” quests.

Is Putin destined to he another Hitler or even Stalin? Only time will tell. History is often a good predictor of the future, and in this instance, Putin must be stopped at his own border. He is playing a dangerous game of chicken with superpowers, the outcome of which cannot be good for any party in the game.

Why Ukrainians would ever want to be part of Russia is a complete mystery to me. Maybe the Russians have successfully managed to eliminate Holodomor from the Ukrainian mind and vocabulary. I am sure Iran and the Turks would love to know how they accomplished that feat.

Good-bye Afghanistan

It is looking increasingly like we will be completely pulling all our military from Afghanistan at the “end of the year.” Obama wanted to keep some 10,000 soldiers there for continued training of the Afghan forces. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who we have paid an astounding amount of US dollars from the CIA “black” funds, doesn’t want the extended help.

Due to term limits, Karzai is due to be replaced after the April elections, and all of the candidates hoping to replace him have expressed the desire to keep some US training forces in-country for an unspecified time. Well, why should Karzai care? His bribe money will quit coming in after the election.

For a reason that I am at a complete loss to fathom, this guy is being vindictive against his major benefactor, the United States. Until the US took action in Afghanistan in 2001, Karzai was taking refuge in Pakistan.

The most dangerous faction within the country, the Taliban, refuse to recognize the Karzai government as legitimate, and won’t even negotiate a reconciliation deal. So what does he do? He empties the jails setting known Taliban fighters and terrorists loose on the Afghan public.

When the Russians left the country, the Taliban took over in a new reign of terror. Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan was terrorized by fanatical 7th century Muslim thugs trying their worst to suppress the 21^st century world. Under the Karzai government, and with the help of NATO countries, the Afghans may have seen some advancement, but they are still a heavily tribal oriented population. Since 2001, the NATO troops have been playing a deadly game of Whack-A-Mole with the Taliban. We clear them out of one area only to see them infiltrate another area that was previously cleared out. How long will it be before the Taliban take over and force the country back to the seventh century life once all NATO troops leave?

And what of Hamid Karzai when we are gone? Will he quietly retire to an Afghan country estate to live a life of leisure and go on the lecture circuit? Not likely. If he remains in Afghanistan, he would probably be publicly stoned in one of the Kabul sport arenas. Or maybe the Taliban might merely lop off his head.

No, with the riches he has undoubtedly squirreled away – at our expense – he will likely flee to some villa in a country where he can live protected from fatwas (death sentences) of the new ruling Taliban mullahs.

What will become of the Afghan people? They will probably return to a life where music and dancing are strictly forbidden, where only boys can attend school – and then only to learn to memorize the Quran. A life where female rape victims are stoned to death in public arenas; all women must wear head-to-toe burquas, and can only go out in public accompanied by a male family member; where young girls are bartered to old men as wives, and beatings are expected and as common as smoking cigarettes. Of course, wife beating is never prosecuted, because it is never reported. If a woman reported a beating, she would be tried and severely punished for disobeying her husband.

In this bizarre world of Taliban rule a woman dare not get sick. Women can only be examined by female doctors, and of course, girls and women are forbidden from being schooled. So, who are these female doctors? What training could they possibly have?

Then what about the barbers? These poor souls will have to find another line of work. Under Taliban rule, it is a sin to shave or cut one’s hair – and sins are dealt with very harshly.

Despite all efforts to instill democracy in the country, Afghanistan is determined to remain stuck in the past. It is a tribal land ruled by mullahs and tribal leaders. It has been that way for centuries. Even Alexander the Great couldn’t change it. It is also a land where the chief domestic product is Opium, despite drugs being strictly forbidden by Islam. 

Okay, just what do we care? Pulling our troops out will save precious American lives. Besides, we have trained the Afghan Army, what could possibly go wrong? Just because many of the troops we have trained wind up turning their weapons on the trainers, does that mean they won’t fight their fellow Muslim fanatics? In a land where mullahs wield far more power than politicians, why would anyone think that would mean trouble when the “infidel” troops leave?

In Vietnam, despite some iffy agreements with Hanoi, we essentially turned-tail and left the South Vietnamese people to the whims of the North Vietnam Army. Today there are no two Vietnams. The communists easily overran the South Vietnamese Army and wrought havoc on the people in the south.

Are we prepared to see the same disastrous consequences when we pull out of Afghanistan? We were relieved when we pulled out of Iraq, but hardly a week goes by without hearing about another bombing and sectarian violence in that country.

So maybe you don’t really care what happens to the Afghan people. Why should we care? They are clear on the other side of the globe? But then, Bin Laden’s Al Qaida was headquartered and trained on the other side of the world. That includes the terrorists that flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center in New York. Are we setting the stage for a re-run of that tragic event?

Well gee, I’m sure our esteemed commander-in-chief knows what he is doing. After all, he gave us that widely popular health-care institution. What could go wrong?

Taxes: The Elephant in The Room

I took my dog Chelsie to the veterinarian the other day. She was certain nothing good would happen in that place. As the technician literally dragged her into the back, Chelsie left a nice mess on the floor for the staff to clean up.

That’s kind of the way I feel every year when I get my taxes done. Going to the tax accountant’s office, I just know nothing good will happen in there. And while I don’t usually leave a mess for the staff to clean up, I feel I could.

Taxes, we are told, are a necessary evil. Fairness dictates that those receiving the benefits of our government must pay for the services. While the government prints our money, it appears they really don’t have any of their own other than what they take from the citizens. It is a strange relationship, and frankly, one I have yet to understand.

The wealth of ours and most other nations used to be backed by gold. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 nationalized all of the gold held in banks and forced them to surrender it to the US Treasury. We are told, it was all held in Fort Knox, Kentucky. In 1976, we officially went off the gold standard and our currency is now “fiat”. Although the gold is assumed to still be in Fort Knox, it is now a moot point. Today there are no nations with monetary standards backed by gold.

Our nation’s wealth is presumably set at whatever value it will trade for on the international market. Somewhere in the calculation, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and a host of other factors probably play a part in the valuation too. Like I said, I don’t profess to understand economics. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone truly does.

The point that really confuses me is why we must pay taxes. The US Treasury prints money that then goes into circulation. This paper money represents the wealth of the nation. Our government then borrows boatloads of money from other nations to pay its bills. The borrowed money is backed by the promise of revenues from taxing the citizenry.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to just take what is needed to run the country directly from the printer where it is manufactured? This would take the same amount of money out of circulation that the government would otherwise get from taxes. I suppose the idea is too simple. Or maybe our government enjoys seeing us mess the floor when being dragged to the accountant’s office each year.

Each election year, we hear the politicians make noises about “tax reform”. The taxes levied are intended to cover items in that year’s budget that was hashed out in the House and Senate – plus the national debt. While the debate on tax reform is merely aimed at how the budget number will be divided among the citizens, the real reform needs to take place in the budget.

For some reason cutting big-ticket items -- like military spending, NASA, social services and “entitlements” – seem to provoke the greatest debate. In the end, cuts made to these items usually don’t amount to much. If the politicians would bother going through the budget with a fine-tooth comb, they would find myriads of items that … well, just don’t make sense. Here is a sampling of items I found on Commercial Observer (commercialobserver.com):

• The government spends about $100 million every four years to subsidize parties at the political conventions.
• Last year, $120 million was paid to dead federal employees.
• The government spent $2.6 million to encourage Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly.
• A total of $146 million was paid for federal employees to upgrade their flights to business class.
• The U.S. government spent $27 million to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.
• The National Institute of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.
• The National Institute of Health also spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.
• The U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research spent $300,000 on a study that concluded the first bird on Earth probably had black feathers.

There is much more, but this sampling just shows how much of the budget – and our money – is being funneled to projects and services that have absolutely no benefit to the tax paying citizens of this country. Have you yearned to know why chimps throw poop or the color of feathers on the first bird? Well, you are paying for the answers, like it or not. I somehow doubt that drunk Chinese prostitutes acting like bimbos is a serious national interest. It’s certainly nothing worth sacrificing my beer money for.

Then there is our “Black” money that doesn’t even show up on the budget. Money, like the bags of hundred dollar bills dropped off on Hamid Karzai’s desk each month. Then look at the billions handed out for “good will” to countries that don’t even like us (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.).

Individually, these items don’t look like much. If you divide each item singly by our 260 million taxpayers, it comes to pennies apiece. But when you start adding a million here and a million there, then throw in a billion or two, it can add up to real money.

Yep, death and taxes are unavoidable in life. I guess we are not meant to understand either, but we don’t have to like it.

The Toothless Lion

The lion is called “King of the Jungle” partly because of its regal appearance but mostly because if you poke him, you will be eaten. It is indeed very dangerous to mess with a healthy lion.

Following WWII, America has been seen as a militarily strong nation – the lion in the jungle, if you will. Until WWII, our military experienced sharp drawn-downs in the aftermath of military action. Conscription was the primary means to build up enough manpower to wage a war. When confrontations were realized, soldiers often found themselves not armed with sufficient modern weapons or even trained in tactics applicable to the situation. Following the Revolutionary war, there was heated debate on whether there should even be a standing army.

Until the end of the Vietnam war, we always seemed to be fighting a current war with the past war equipment and tactics. Today, warfare has evolved to be a very complex matter involving high-tech and expensive weapons, situation and environment specific tactics, and intense situation specific training. We no longer stand rank-and-file in front of each other on a battlefield and charge in a conflict where the outcome is more a matter of attrition than tactics (also known as linear warfare). Today we have un-manned drones that make surgical strikes to take out individual targets and bunker-busting guided bombs.

Unfortunately, the one constant in our military strength remains politics. In our country, the “Hawks” believe we should have a strong, well trained and equipped military at all times, while the “Doves” would rather eliminate the military or reduce it to a part-time national guard force with minimal weapons.

Bill Clinton drew down the military and closed bases. Some of this action may have made sense at the time, but may also have been shortsighted on his part in light of what transpired in the aftermath of 9/11. The reality, however, is that we could not have fought a war in Afghanistan with the weapons and tactics used in Vietnam.

Despite the initial quick success with airpower in removing the Taliban and Al Qaida fighters, along with their administration, from Afghanistan, we eventually had to put “boots on the ground” in an attempt to keep them out. This presented yet another challenge. The full-time forces had been drawn down to inadequate numbers. A decision had to be made to either re-institute the draft or use Reserve and National Guard troops. Suddenly, Guard troops were no longer guaranteed a worst-case scenario of working in times of national disasters and riots. Dentists, lawyers, and grocery clerks were now outfitted with loaded weapons and sent half a world away to fight a war in repeated deployments. They were no longer “weekend warriors”.

Somewhere deep in the Pentagon there is a group of war-wise military leaders that is supposed to be able to predict where and how the next war or wars will be fought. Since there are always dozens of armed conflicts going on at any time, I’m pretty sure they aren’t saying we won’t be involved. Why, then has Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to draw down the military to pre-WWII levels?

North Korea has over a million men in a standing army, and more than eight million reserves. China has some 2.25 million people under arms and another 7.5 million in reserve. Even Iran keeps some 500, 000 troops active and can muster an additional 2 million for duty. Hagel wants to put our active troop level at 440,000.

Granted, we no longer line up across from each other and fire weapons until the last man standing wins. But our secDef also wants to scrap perfectly good and serviceable weapons systems and not fund new or replacement weapons.

One of the targets for elimination is the venerable A-10 aka. The Warthog. This weapon system – calling it an airplane is like calling Niagara Falls a faucet leak – is literally a cannon with an airframe built around it. Originally intended for use in the steep river gorges of Vietnam where other jets flew too fast to make effective surgical strikes, it proved invaluable in both Iraq wars as a highly successful tank killer.

Today, soldiers on the ground are equipped with the M4 rifle. This is a re-hashed version of the Vietnam-era M16. Troops have been reduced to – at their own expense – buying aftermarket parts to make the rifle work reliably. Of course, the weapon of choice for our enemies and potential enemies is the low-cost ultra-reliable AK47. It too dates to the Vietnam-era but has been proven to be reliable under almost any adverse condition – dirt, mud, ice, or underwater. While there are currently many far better weapons than the M4 available, the search for a replacement has been scrapped.

I cannot dispute that there could be better oversight of spending by the Armed Services, and old-boy networks, nepotism, and outright corruption probably still exist in military procurement. We can’t afford to emasculate our military might. A toothless lion is vulnerable to attacks from smaller and much weaker creatures. It will eventually die of starvation or be consumed by hyenas.