Category: Born again Cynic!
If I was a Boer in today’s South Africa. I would either get out of there or get a gun, a LOT of Ammo & as many like minded friends as I could find ASAP . All I can say is Thank The Lord that I am an American! Grumpy
NY Post – DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro notched a significant legal victory Monday after retired four-star Navy Adm. Robert Burke was found guilty of bribery charges related to a scheme to steer government contracts to his future employer.
Burke, who served as the vice chief of naval operations during part of President Trump’s first term, was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery, performing acts affecting a personal financial interest and concealing material facts from the US after a five-day trial. Formerly the Navy’s second-highest-ranking officer, Burke is now the most senior member of the US military to ever be convicted of a federal crime.
“When you abuse your position and betray the public trust to line your own pockets, it undermines the confidence in the government you represent,” Pirro said in a statement after the verdict. “Our office, with our law enforcement partners, will root out corruption — be it bribes or illegal contracts — and hold accountable the perpetrators, no matter what title or rank they hold.” 
A U.S. M109 Paladin howitzer drives off the vessel Liberty Peace during offloading operations at the port of Koper, Slovenia on December 28, 2024. This Reception, Staging, and Onward Movement (RSOM) operation in the port of Koper is bringing in 1-3ID, the next Regionally Aligned Force (RAF), into the European Theater. These forces will be then transported by the 21st Theater Sustainment Command to their forward operating sites across NATO where they will conduct interoperability training with Allies and partners. The intent of these RAFs is to assure our allies and deter all adversaries.
NATO’s June summit in The Hague will present a critical opportunity for America’s allies to reaffirm their commitment to collective security. The worsening security environment in both Europe and the Indo-Pacific can only be met by increased burden-sharing from all NATO members.
NATO: An Alliance Ripe for Change
Longstanding imbalances in defense expenditures and strategic responsibilities within the alliance have culminated in a vital need to undertake four reforms.
Reinforce Article 3: Commitment to Self-Defense
Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires NATO members to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” There are legitimate concerns that many nations may not be fully capable of defending themselves, let alone aiding the collective capacity to support one another in conflict.
According to a recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation, America’s NATO allies have collectively underfunded their defense commitments by more than $827 billion. Notable shortfalls include Germany ($249 billion), Italy ($150 billion), and Spain ($150 billion). These shortfalls represent a decade of underinvestment in capabilities and maintenance. The end result is less-capable militaries
During this period, the U.S. averaged defense spending equivalent to 3.42 percent of GDP, while the average NATO member spent 1.59 percent—less than half as much as the U.S. spent and well below NATO’s 2 percent benchmark first articulated in 2006 and reaffirmed by all members at the 2014 Wales Summit.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 exposed the consequences of decades of underinvestment. European nations have struggled to deliver on promised military support to Ukraine, with depleted stockpiles and limited industrial capacity—especially in munitions—undermining their ability to take the lead on military aid to Ukraine.
The 2 percent minimum has become a political bellwether in Washington, and fulfilling these obligations will strengthen transatlantic relations.
Raise NATO Spending Targets to at Least 3 percent
NATO’s current defense-spending target of 2 percent has proven insufficient to deter aggression. There are now growing calls for a 3 percent threshold—not as a new obligation, but as a necessary correction for more than a decade of underinvestment. In fact, most countries that have a deficit in spending will likely take until 2030 to 2035 just to reach the original 2-percent minimum target agreed upon in 2014.
This higher minimum threshold would accelerate rearmament in munitions production, military mobility infrastructure, and training. It would signal strategic resolve.
Reform the 20 Percent Equipment and R&D Requirement
The 2014 Wales Summit also set a target for NATO members to allocate at least 20 percent of their defense budgets “on major equipment, including related Research & Development.” However, many nations only met this metric by spending below the 2 percent minimum target, undercutting the policy’s intent.
For example, Spain has consistently met the 20 percent equipment requirement, but only spent 1 percent of overall GDP on defense. When looking only at the equipment expenditure target, Spain could claim to have overspent the minimum target by $1.3 billion since 2014. However, when considering that the target is to spend 0.4 percent of GDP on equipment—20 percent of 2 percent of GDP—Spain is down $28.4 billion on equipment since 2014.
Therefore, NATO could explore reforming its guideline by setting a floor on equipment spending that uses GDP as a reference. For example, a new standard could be to spend 0.6 percent of GDP for equipment—20 percent of a revised 3 percent GDP minimum. Given Europe’s travails in delivering military equipment to Ukraine on promised timelines, these conversations are both timely and germane. Further, implementing such a policy is prudent for any individual nation, whether or not it is formally codified in a declaration.
Address the Fiscal Realities of the United States
After decades of overspending, the United States is approaching its fiscal limits. Interest payments on U.S. national debt are set to exceed annual defense spending. Washington cannot afford to subsidize allies while bearing an outsized share of global security burdens. As China adopts an increasingly bellicose posture toward Taiwan, deepens ties with Iran, and provides support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, NATO must grapple with global instability and embrace genuine burden-sharing . The most significant thing European NATO members can do to help America deter China is to provide the bulk of conventional deterrence in Europe so that U.S. forces can shift to the Indo-Pacific.
An F-35A Lighting II takes off for a Red Flag-Nellis 24-2 night mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, March 18, 2024. The presence of the F-35s offers the U.S., Allies, and partners a versatile and highly capable system, enhancing collective defense measures while reinforcing the NATO Alliance’s commitment to leveraging top-tier military capabilities for regional security and deterrence. (U.S. Air Force photo by 1st Lt. Jimmy Cummings)
NATO must use the Hague summit to recommit to Article 3; adopt a robust 3-percent-of-GDP defense-spending target; consider setting equipment-spending standards to 0.6 percent of GDP; and recognize the fiscal limitations facing the United States.
Failure to act now, individually and collectively, will increase the likelihood of future conflict. Decisive reform, however, will ensure NATO remains a credible force for peace and deterrence well into the 21st century.
About the Authors:
Miles Pollard is an economic policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Kyle Mendelson was a member of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program.
Categories
How far we have come huh?
Four years ago, when the country was still reeling in the aftermath of the 2020 election and the Capitol protest of Jan. 6, 2021, every loudmouth liberal — politicians, editorial writers, opinion columnists and barstool boors — was mouthing the same thing about people on the losing side: They were all branded “election deniers.”
It was nothing new, really. Back in 2017 and for the next couple of years, Hillary Clinton was travelling around the country and even around the world, blaming everyone and everything other than herself for losing in November 2016. She simply couldn’t acknowledge she was a lousy candidate and her campaign people weren’t very good at counting Electoral College votes.
Same Old Same
And so it goes with gun prohibitionists. Whether they are federal court judges, state-level politicians, members of Congress or members of the media, there are legions of people who stubbornly refuse to recognize U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 (Heller), 2010 (McDonald) and 2022 (Bruen), all of which affirmed the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The definition of this problem is DENIAL.
Even today, with all of the evidence and settled law running against them, gun control zealots continue insisting the high court was wrong. They claim the bearing of arms applies only to members of the militia, whom they define as members of the National Guard. If they get tripped up on that argument, they zero in on the term “well-regulated,” insisting it refers to strict gun control, which it certainly does not.
Long story short, the gun prohibition movement — a label which they will vehemently reject — is fresh out of rational arguments and truth left them in the dust a long time ago.
Some months ago, I had an exchange of emails with a liberal newspaper columnist who didn’t think people should be upset about having to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to purchase a firearm. It became obvious this fellow wasn’t concerned about infringing on someone else’s rights, especially rights with which he did not agree. Background check? No big deal. Waiting period? No great inconvenience. It wasn’t his ox getting gored, and besides, I was reminded, guns can be used to kill people.
Yeah, and so can knives, scissors, golf clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, claw hammers, hatchets, axes, bricks, rocks, screwdrivers, shovels, jack handles, ropes, table lamps, skateboards and a host of other objects which all have one thing in common: None of these things require a background check at time and point of purchase. There are no waiting periods. You don’t have to provide identification, proof of citizenship or anything but cash or a credit card.
The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment, is the only constitutionally enumerated right subjected to this degree of prior restraint. No other tenet in the Bill of Rights is so encumbered with prerequisites as the Second Amendment.
“But guns need to be regulated,” is the stock argument from the gun ban crowd.
Our answer should be, “We’re not talking about guns; we’re talking about rights!”
Talking point — What other right do anti-gunners think should require getting a permit from police before exercising it?
Talking point — Nobody would tolerate having to wait three, seven or 10 days to speak with an attorney if they were arrested and charged with a crime.
Talking point — “Mandatory buyback” is gun confiscation with compensation, and is tantamount to committing sexual assault but then tossing $20 to the victim.
Talking point — Saying nobody is coming after anyone’s guns in one breath, and then immediately saying so-called “assault weapons” should be banned is absolutely contradictory. Banning an entire class of firearms translates to taking someone’s gun(s). Insisting otherwise is delusional.
The Next Big Thing
If the Supreme Court hasn’t already done so by the time you read this, sometime this spring the nine justices will hand down a ruling in the case known as Garland v. VanDerStok which will either affirm or reject the ability of the government (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” These are firearms built by home gunsmiths using parts kits that are not serialized.
If the Court says unserialized guns are protected by the Second Amendment, listen for shrieks of agony and predictions of the downfall of modern civilization from the same people who insist there really is no individual right to keep and bear arms. This, too, would be an exhibition of denial from a crowd who believes constitutional protections only apply to rights they favor.
On the other hand, if the Court says homemade firearms must have serial numbers, it may not alter the social/political landscape all that much unless there is an effort to build a registry of those firearms. Then watch for a flood of litigation based on Second and Fourth Amendment grounds.
Such a scenario would put liberals in a very tough spot because they would be immediately faced with a challenging dilemma: How will this be enforced? Police simply cannot just walk into someone’s home and start searching for unserialized firearms, same as they cannot just walk into someone’s home and search through private papers, or look for other items. Civil rights attorneys will get rich because more than one right would be trampled on, and at that point, we’re talking about constitutionally protected rights liberals do value and will zealously protect.
Which brings us back around to rights, and denial. Rights are special, they are all equal in importance and are therefore entitled to the same ferocious defense. Gun owners are already well aware of this principle, while anti-gunners are behind the learning curve.
So long as we keep in perspective this conflict is not about guns, but about rights, the Second Amendment community will continue to hold the high ground. We cannot afford to give it up without a fight.