DADT…

…is gonna be law awhile longer:

The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ fighting ability.

New policies and regulations must be “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces,” Gates said.

After certification, there’s a 60-day waiting period for the military.

Expect court challenges and attempts to get around the ban. More whining from the blogs (left and right). As for the military, we’ll make do.

Colleges? I’m not sure they are ready.

Chewbacca Defense

A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that intentionally or unintentionally has the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

Foxnews talks about Justice Breyer ‘s dissent on the Heller decision.

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.

Patterioco, Instapundit and others take down this argument.

I think it’s a good thing. For almost 20 years, from the 80’s (remember teflon bullets?), the 90’s (which gave us the “Assault Weapons” Ban) those of us who have a weapon or would like to own one had to put up with BS.

Want a supressor? “They are for gangsters and hitmen” say the gun control crowd. A plaintiff in a court case is compared to a mass murder. A major paper just assumes that armed citizens will harm park rangers. (all the aove are via SaysUncle).

When pressed for stats, driving kills more than guns. But the media loves to hype “assault weapons.” Politicians love to appear to be doing something, bureaucrats love to expand their power and some ‘citizen’ love to go on a crusade.

But the truth is that they are attacking law abiding citizens. If they told the public what they really think they’d never get anti-gun laws passed. So they lie. They hype, they dance on the graves of the dead. Many gun ‘control’ groups are the first to jump into action after a shooting. Never mind that violent shootings (while tragedies) are rare. Never mind that most of the guns and rifles in private hands don’t get fired all that often.

So on it goes. Made up arguments about the origin, meaning and intent of the founders. Of “well regulated”. If they can win via elections or the courts or by a good argument, they will riddle us with BS.

Well Played Lefties!

Via FlightGlobal:

Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon has jumped on the bandwagon fired up by the US deficit reduction panel, which last month recommended eliminating the Lockheed Martin F-35 and BellBoeing V-22.

1999: The Plane Truth: Fewer F-22s Mean a Stronger National Defense

They hate America and wish to see us fail. Deficits or not.

For those who want to upgrade the F-15/16 series (New airframes, rebuilds, new avionics etc). Guess what their answer will be?

Wikiwacky

From the BBC (Via Hotair):

This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation…

What the list might do is to prompt potential attackers to look at a broader range of targets, especially given that the US authorities classify them as being so important.

It is not perhaps a major security breach, but many governments may see it as an unhelpful development.

It inevitably prompts the question as to exactly what positive benefit Wikileaks was intending in releasing this document.

As I suspected, most lefties HATE the US with the burning passion of 10,000 suns. Dead Americans, blown up innocents…nah, American “imperial power” must end. They just don’t care who gets hurt.

The left (ANSWER) now embraces North Korea. The nation that uses prisoners to test their ammo and new recruits (They have new conscripts kill prisoners).

“That’s why we’re worried. This clown is impotent, suicidal, and incredibly stupid!” Airplane II

Wikileaks and the Left in a nutshell.

Put up or shut up time on the F-35

The Joint Strike Fighter was is the future of American air power. We need this to work. Sadly, Lockheed Martin seems to have lost it’s way.

Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich must be turning over in their graves. The F-117 was built with parts and avionics taken from several existing aircraft. The SR-71 was designed with the slide rule.

What does the taxpayer get for billions spent? Redo...after redo…several re-starts…

Whereas the F-22 has many boosters, the F-35 has many, many skeptics.

The F-22 was canceled because of the chattering class that called it a “cold war era” fighter. Some claimed that existing aircraft were enough, that we’d never have to fight another war against a real air force.

The problem is that the F-35 is having major teething pains. All project do so some extent. However, the DOD wants 3 aircraft out of one: a conventional fighter for the Air Force, a carrier version for the Navy and a VTOL (think harrier) for the Marines.

Lockheed has to admit that having over 50% commonality between version was a pipe dream (the real figure is lower). Other problems about.

Will the pundits kill the F-35? Of course they’ll try. They’ll trot out the same arguments. Many call for building more F-16s/F-15s. The argument that we don’t have to update our aircraft died out when F-15’s started to fall from the sky due to metal fatigue. Our fleet is aging and re-builds will only delay the their retirement (and may even cost as much or more than a new aircraft).

The tired argument of using the F-22’s radar in existing aircraft has been around since the early 90’s. Many a book was filled with “experts” saying that the F-15 and F-16 can keep working until…some date in the future.

They are wrong. Dead wrong.

The PAK-FA and the J-XX from Russia and China mean that we have to step up our game. Either we build aircraft that can kill the enemy or we go back to Korean war when foreign air forces strafed our military. Yes, it’s been that long as Lex reminds us.

Lockheed needs a new Ben Rich. Someone who can light a fire under the program. Why is the software so bad? Why is the aircraft gaining weight? Instead of shilling for Lockheed, the Administration should hold their feet to the fire.

Just flat out canceling the program will not fix the problem.

The left and the deficit hawks won’t let another aircraft fly. At least for a while. While new F-16’s and F-15 may buy us 5-10 years, we need new aircraft.

We need to go big or go home.