So we see that the Swedish martial spirit did not die out with the Vikings of the 11th century (Swedish Vikings mostly sailed up rivers into what we now know as Russia. It was left to the Norwegians and Danes to harass Britain and Western Europe).

And, strange as it seems in the light of their constant peacnikery of the 20th century, that spirit is still alive today. For good reasons the proximity of Russia gives everybody at the Eastern end of the Baltic the heebie-jeebies. Going by their invariant and very successful form since the 11th century, we would expect the English to deal with such a peril by forming alliances with other countries. Not so the Swedes. They cherish their independence. And they can realistically do that because of confidence in their military. They have been prepared to fight Russia alone if need be. The Finns did it under Mannerheim in the early stages of WWII so they have a successful example to go by. But the Swedish military has to be independent too — so we come to the Swedish defence industries.

With a population about the same size as Israel, it is amazing what the Swedish defence industries have produced. The famous Bofors gun was used for antiaircraft defence by BOTH sides in WWII and is still in use today. And Bofors are not sitting on their laurels. I could go on to talk about Swedish military aircraft and submarines but I think that for the moment I will just say a few words about Bofors.

Aside from nuclear weapons, the most fearsome thing about the old Soviet Union was their vast fleet of tanks. And Bofors produced an answer to that in the form of the BILL1, a fearsome antitank missile. Bofors turned out tens of thousands of them, quite enough to wipe out the entire Soviet tank fleet with a bit of luck. It is a guided missile that flies just a bit ABOVE the tank and fires a shaped charge down onto the turret of the tank at just the right time — the turret being a tank’s weakest point. That must be a considerable challenge to the missile’s controller but the Swedes must be confident that trained operators can pull it off. Below is a video of it in action:

(Note: Some mischievous person has been circulating the above video together with a claim that it shows an Israeli missile using white phosphorous to destroy a Syrian tank. Israel has been much criticized for its limited use of white phosporous in Gaza but insists that it only used phosphorous in accordance with the laws of war. Using it in an anti-tank weapon would heap criticism on Israel so the false claim attached to the above video is malicious)

And to keep up with advances in tank technology Bofors have produced a BILL2 missile that is even more capable than BILL1. (The “B” stands for Bofors)

It seems sad that such an apparently effective weapon is not held in the arsenals of Western countries but Swedish neutrality forbids it. Only a few other “neutral” countries such as Austria and Brazil have it. So Sweden has had to bear all the costs of developing and deploying the weapon by itself — a considerable challenge. Most armament manufacturers are keen to sell their stuff to all and sundry — to help defray the development costs.

And even if Sweden did decide to sell BILL2 more widely, it might not get much uptake. I remember when I was in the Australian Army during the Vietnam war, we deployed the prime Swedish antitank weapon of the day, the Carl Gustav. But as soon as we entered the Vietnam war, the Swedes stopped supplying ammo for it! Tanks featured little in the Vietnam war so it was not a great setback but it was a salutary lesson in being careful about the source of supply of your weaponry. The Swedes have no worries on that score.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

(Marjorie Clifton at HuffPo) I am the product of 14 years of Catholic school and am a practicing Catholic, actively involved in the church all of my life. As a woman with a career in politics and women’s leadership, I have quietly worked within the church to make change and have cautiously offered my voice only when I felt it was essential. But, I can be quiet no longer.

You are welcome to speak out. It’s your Constitutional right. You are not free to push your beliefs on others by government law. That is against everything this country was founded on. Oh, and violates the portion of that same 1st Amendment regarding religion

Recently, the Catholic leadership came out in opposition to the mandate in our new healthcare law that all health insurance providers offer coverage for prescribed birth control, even for employees in some Catholic Institutions. But, let’s be clear about what the real issue is here. It is not about government controls, and it is not about infringement of our religious beliefs. It is about a church that has lost touch with reality. The leadership of the Catholic Church either is ignoring or is unaware of the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic reality.

No, it is about government, and using the out of control force of government to make Catholic institutions, and other religious institutions, offer birth control. Also, sterilizations and the morning after pill. Ms. Clifton rationalizes this as “well, Catholics have sex, so, their health insurance provider should be not only forced to offer this products, but do so with a zero deductible.” So, the church is left with the choice of either offering the health insurance which violates their beliefs or dropping coverage.

Essentially, it boils down to people forcing their beliefs on other people. This is America. The religious institutions have the right, and the constitutional right, to offer insurance that adheres to their beliefs. The people who work for them have the freedom to go out and get their own insurance if they want free birth control and morning after pills. Liberals do not want anyone to have a choice. It’s their way or no way. They aren’t very tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

One has to wonder how the Obama admin. and liberals would react if the Muslim leaders came out against this decree.

Of course, these mandates are not direct: they require insurance carriers to offer the measures, but, then the religious institutions won’t have choice themselves. All are forced to offer birth control, sterilization, and abortion pills.

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

He and other church prelates asked that the message be read from pulpits over the weekend.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” Naumann’s letter stated.

An Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains from reading the letter over the weekend, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Liberals constantly tell us about this mythical separation of church and state. Funny how all of a sudden the State is allowed to dictate to the church.

(Fox News) In an effort to cut the unemployment rate among veterans, the Obama administration is calling for a new conservation program that would put veterans to work rebuilding trails, roads and levees on public lands.

Let’s give him some credit for wanting to reduce the unemployment rate among veterans, even if it is surely politically motivated, geared towards peeling off some veteran support from the GOP for Election 2012. But, let’s face it, it is pathetic that Obama thinks the best use of men and women who served in the most professional, educated, modern, and high-tech military ever seen is to get them jobs as menial workers. Granted, they would get paid well, being federal money and all. But, they are certainly more capable then being offered ditch digger jobs. Not to mention simply creating new government jobs, rather than private sector ones.

Of course, much like with his Stimulus, the jobs probably do not exist. Furthermore, the idea, like most of his ideas, isn’t particularly original

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the Civilian Conservation Corps that operated during the 1930s could be viewed as a model for what the administration will try to accomplish through its “Veterans Jobs Corps.” He said that the administration will propose spending $1 billion that would be used to put an estimated 20,000 veterans to work restoring habitat and eradicating invasive species, among other activities.

So now the Obama admin. is looking towards Depression era make-work programs that failed to stimulate the economy, and helped keep the USA mired in depression for a decade.

After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.

He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take f*cking pictures with them?”

True? Not true? Exaggerated? I’ll give Obama a bit of the benefit, since we weren’t there. But, like Ron Paul and his newsletters (donations from neo-Nazi white supremacists, hanging with Truthers, etc), the appearance can be more important than the truth. Is Ron Paul a racist? Maybe. Maybe not. But, there is the appearance of being a racist, hating Jews, hating Israel, being a Truther and conspiracy nut. And with Obama, there is already the appearance of not being particularly pro-military, and being part of a political Party that is not exactly pro-military. There is also the appearance that with Obama, it is all about Obama. No other president speaks more about himself than Obama.

Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim “spiritual advisor” and chaplain from Boston-based Northeastern University, was a key speaker at a fundraiser for al Qaeda’s Ma Barker, the criminal female terrorist named Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady al Qaeda.” This man, Faaruuq, is living off American taxpayers yet advocates for his followers to use “the gun and the sword” to advance Islam in America.

The fundraiser for Siddiqui was held at the Islamic Center of Worcester, Mass. on Dec. 8 with the stated goal of raising $30,000 to assist this female terrorist convicted in 2008 of attempting to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

As Steve Emerson of Family Security Matters reports, Abdullah gave Siddiqui high praise.

“What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time,” said Faaruuq, an imam at Roxbury’s Mosque for the Praising of Allah. “It is said that we’re trying to raise $30,000 tonight. I would say it’s better that we’ve raised your awareness and raised your ire, as your anger against a government who would level the charges that they have against this woman and they say she is guilty. I would say she’s only guilty of defending herself.”

In addition to lauding Siddiqui’s “bravery,” Faaruuq also condemned American soldiers, the very people who defend America, as “kafirs,” meaning infidels.

“And if my mother was in the same place,” he said, “she would have took (sic) her West Indian machete and cut her way through those kafirs.”

According to the Northeastern University website, “Imam Abdullah serves as Northeastern University’s Muslim chaplain, as well as spiritual advisor to the Islamic Society student group.” Sadly he is advising students at a public university in the ways of violent jihad. And our taxes go to fund his actions.

Imam Abdullah has for some time been a controversial figure. As part of a violence-advocating, jihad-pushing, terror-funding mosque that was helped to come to fruition by public officials and politicians in Massachusetts, Abdullah has been advocating violence against Americans for years.

No wonder radical Islamists think America is the “weak horse” in the world. We are with our own taxes funding our own home-grown terror supporters like Abdullah.

(LA Times) The final compromise mandates that terrorism suspects thought to have ties to Al Qaeda and planning attacks against the United States be taken into military custody, even those captured in the U.S. In response to some complaints, though, the bill carves out an exemption for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The bill also allows the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S.

As I wrote, I never posted anything about this because I was behind the curve on the story. Also, because I spoke with an aide to a politician who said that the language would never survive to make it to the president’s desk. There was too much opposition in the House and Senate.

(The Hill) One of the more controversial provisions of the bill is language that reaffirms the authority of the administration to detain people found to be associated with al Qaeda, and requires military detention for anyone who plots an attack against the United States. In both cases, the bill does not create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens, ensuring their rights to a fair trial, and the military detention language does exempts U.S. citizens.

The redone provisions apparently are more than just giving the POTUS the power to waive indefinite detention for American citizens and legal residents caught on US soil. It gives them the normal legal protections already accorded.

Just to be clear, the final version of HR 1540, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Subtitle D, Section 1032(b)

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the ones cited, and the above language comes from the final legislation. They won’t be able to haul off US citizens even if captured outside of the US, nor to lawful residents captured within the US.

While there is still some concern by some Congress critters (who still voted for the bill), the language regarding US citizens is pretty cut and dry, with no exceptions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“Atheists and radical church-state separatists have taken particular offense to the continued uttering of the Pledge of Allegiance. To these individuals, the words “under God” have no place in the public square, even when utterances are voluntary in nature.

Now, there’s a new epicenter in the debate over the Pledge. Following the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the University of Connecticut’s interim athletic director, Paul Pendergast, decided to add the recitation as a viable way for individuals to remember both the nation and U.S. troops.

Following his decision, the Pledge was first uttered after a home football game on September 16 and the response was so positive that it was extended to all football and basketball games.

Geno Auriemma, UConn‘s women’s basketball coach, agrees with the decision to include it and has been open about his support for saying the Pledge. ”It’s like anything else, you’re gonna have people that complain about it and people that love it,” he said at a press conference last week. “And then you have the wackos that say ‘well we shouldn’t bring God into this,‘ because you have to say ’one nation under God’ right?”

The decision, which has now led to the Pledge being uttered before most athletic games, is angering fans who believe the action violates the nation’s separation of church and state sentiment. Others claim that it puts non-American athletes in an unfair position — even though these individuals are obviously studying on U.S. soil and can opt out of pledging any allegiance to the country.

Some legal experts, though they may personally disagree, claim that the university is within legal bounds — so long as the pledge remains optional.

Source

Hearing someone else say something patriotic is going to do some terrible damage to you? What rubbish! This is just the “hate America” brigade at work.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

(CNN) Authorities have arrested a man they claim was plotting to detonate pipe bombs in and around New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sunday night.

The intended targets of Jose Pimentel, 27, were U.S. military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. postal facilities and police in New York and Bayonne, New Jersey, according to Bloomberg and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The suspect was described by Bloomberg as an “al Qaeda sympathizer,” though he is not believed to have ever worked with or received training from anyone in that terrorist organization.

That’s weird, since the Paper Of Record doesn’t bother mentioning the Islamist connection. I wonder why?

The police commissioner identified the suspect as a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric who rose to become a top figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Pimental allegedly tried to contact al-Awlaki directly, but never got a response. (snip)

“He was a reader of al Qaeda’s slick online magazine Inspire — and inspire him it did,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said. “His stated desire to attack our servicemen and women … could have come from an al Qaeda playbook.”

He’s described as a “lone wolf”, and he probably was. But, he was certainly inspired by the more hardcore elements of the Religion of Peace. One of these days, the so-called moderate Muslims are going to have to choose whether they take their religion back, or continue on the road they are currently traveling.

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

A recent New York Times article revealed that the Pentagon briefly considered engaging in cyberwarfare at the outset of the actions in Libya, but decided against it for a variety of reasons. This reminds us all that as a nation we really need to discuss the use of cyberwarfare. The first question asked must be: should a president be able to simply order such an attack on his own hook?

The Times noted that one of the concerns about the use of cyberwarfare is how it would be justified under the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

One unresolved concern was whether ordering a cyberattack on Libya might create domestic legal restrictions on war-making by the executive branch without Congressional permission. One question was whether the War Powers Resolution — which requires the executive to formally report to lawmakers when it has introduced forces into “hostilities” and sets a 60-day limit on such deployments if Congress does not authorize them to continue — would be required for an attack purely in cyberspace.

One would think that the answer to this would be somewhat obvious — though nothing seems obvious in Constitution-based discussions, sadly.

We know that the Founders vested in Congress the power to declare war not in the president. They wanted to avoid a repeat of the historical outrage of a King’s untrammeled powers to declare wars without the consent of the people and their duly elected representatives.

Presidents have had certain restrictions for war-making ever since because the Founders wanted to make sure that war was something duly considered not easily engaged.

This should hold as much for use of computer-based warfare as it does for any other type of military attack. Currently computer-based war, or cyberwarfare, presents a new field of military application and we have no legal precedent to govern its use.

Despite the last 200 years of presidents slowly stealing away power from Congress to initiate military actions, we should really think long and hard about allowing any president to unleash cyberwarfare at his discretion. In fact, we should set a precedent immediately to prevent any president from using cyberwarfare without the consent of Congress.

Why? Because cyberwarfare is a far, far different animal than use of conventional military forces and indiscriminate use of it would endanger our way of life in harsh and immediate terms if used against us. For that reason, we should be very careful when we use it against others. We should have solid legal definitions behind its use so as not to give enemies the excuse to resort to it quickly themselves.

You see, cyberwarfare is a relatively cheap war power, easier to implement, and requires far fewer in personnel and facilities than launching an invasion using conventional military forces. This is not to say that cyberwarfare is easy — far from it. But it is cheaper and easier than deploying regular military forces.

So, we should casually resort to cyberwarfare no more easily than we would to using conventional forces. But if we do not set down specific and binding rules for its use we risk giving this power over to a president which could cause less considered use of this sort of warfare. That in turn, would give enemies an excuse to do the same. Further, remember that setting legally binding reasons for warfare is a long and proud American tradition, one that legitimizes our nation and one we should not casually toss aside simply under the assumption that enemies will not be as thoughtful as we.

We should lead the world in considered use of cyberwarfare and we should do so now. Any of those that felt we illicitly launched into the war on terror should no less worry about indiscriminate use of cyberwarfare. But illicit use or no, we should be deadly certain of what powers our president can have, when and how he can use them, and where the line should be drawn, even in cyberspace.