Giving disability benefits to a grown man who wants to wear diapers and live as an “adult baby.” That’s just the start of it. Hilarious but pointed news reports.

Every so often, I share news stories about the ridiculous and outrageous way in which the federal government squanders our money.

Doing interviews – at a per-person cost of $6,000 – about erectile dysfunction and sticking the tab on us.
Giving disability benefits to a grown man who wants to wear diapers and live as an “adult baby.”
Squandering $400K on experimental underwear that detect cigarette smoke.
Paying 35 times the market price for some Kindles.
A $100,000 library grant to a city without a library.
Throwing $100 million in the garbage by subsidizing a leftist bureaucracy in Paris that advocates for higher taxes in the United States.
Forcing taxpayers to pay millions of dollars for pro-Obamacare and pro-IRS propaganda.

So when I saw this New York Post story about the feds pissing away a six-figure sum on condom research, I figured this would be a perfect addition to my collection of government waste stories.

“The federal government is stretching your tax dollars — in search of the perfect condom. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will spend $224,863 to test 95 “custom-fitted” condoms so every American man can choose the one that fits just right.”

And it’s a good match with this story about Washington flushing away more than $400K on research about men not liking to wear condoms.

The United States No Longer Knows How to Win Wars, but it Continues to Start Them: Andrew J. Bacevich

The U.S. military is like the highly skilled, gadget-toting contractor who promises to give your kitchen a nifty makeover in no time whatsoever. Here’s the guy you can count on to get the job done. Just look at those references! Yet by the time he drives off months later, the kitchen’s a shambles and you’re stuck with a bill several times larger than the initial estimate. Turns out the job was more complicated than it seemed. But what say we take a crack at remodeling the master bath?

That pretty much summarizes the American experience with war since the end of the Cold War. By common consent, when it comes to skills and gadgets, U.S. forces are in a league of their own. Yet when it comes to finishing the job on schedule and on budget, their performance has been woeful.

Indeed, these days the United States absolves itself of any responsibility to finish wars that it starts. When we’ve had enough, we simply leave, pretending that when U.S. forces exit the scene, the conflict is officially over. In 2011, when the last American troops crossed from Iraq into Kuwait, President Obama proudly declared that he had made good on his campaign promise to end the Iraq war. Sometime late this year, when the U.S. terminates its combat role in Afghanistan, he will waste no time consigning that war to the past as well.

Yet the Iraq war did not end when the United States withdrew. Even with Washington striving mightily to ignore the fact, the violent ethno-sectarian struggle for Iraq triggered by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion continues. In recent days, events such as Al Qaeda’s ferocious welcome-to-the-new-year assault on the cities of Fallouja and Ramadi — roughly the equivalent of a Confederate army laying siege to Gettysburg sometime during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant — have made it impossible to pretend otherwise.

Events in Afghanistan are likely to follow a similar trajectory. No serious person thinks that the war there — launched even earlier, back in 2001 — will end just because U.S. troops are finally packing up to go home. No doubt the American public will forget Afghanistan as quickly as it forgot Iraq. Yet as with Iraq war, the struggle to determine Afghanistan’s fate will continue, its duration and outcome no less uncertain.



“Robert Gates, the former secretary of defense, got considerable attention this week when, speaking in Norfolk, Virginia, he said American officials should make it clear to the government of Israel that “they do not have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests.” Strongly objecting to an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, he claimed, “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”Gates has offered such views before. Jeffrey Goldberg reported a year ago, in September 2011, that Gates (then still our defense secretary) told a meeting of the “Principals Committee” of top national security officials in the White House Situation Room that Israel was an “ungrateful ally.” In return for all the United States had done for Israel, Gates said, we have received “nothing in return.” Ungrateful ally, nothing in return, blank check—do we see a pattern here? In fact an important incident from the George W. Bush administration suggests that whether or not Gates is hostile to Israel, his judgment is badly flawed when it comes to evaluating the risks Israel faces and the likely results of Israeli action to address those risks.” Elliott Abrams- http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bob-gates-and-israel-there-he-goes-again_653750.html
For the last five years, I have waited for the other shoe to drop.

In 2008, the American people elected an incompetent and foolish president, Obama. President Obama knew that he could only trust a handcuffed politician and loyalist like Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. He then later appointed the pompous John Kerry to fill this capacity. Yet this “gang that couldn’t shoot straight” was a ticking time bomb.

Three strikes and you’re out. Let me list them:

Obama: incompetent and disinterested in policy (president).
Clinton: interested in policy but a potential rival politician, so she could not be assigned to do anything too productive (secretary of state).
John Kerry: assigned to do productive work but totally incompetent (secretary of state).

Imagine former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates–who recently published Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, in which he criticized Obama and his administration–seething. Certainly, he never would have gotten as far as he did if he hadn’t been an opportunist, but U.S. interests, not politics, was his duty. He knew that Americans were being sacrificed uselessly to make the situation “work.”



On a visit to Buenos Aires in November I noted a sense of foreboding hanging over the city. With the economy in a stall, consumer prices rising and capital fleeing the country, porteños from every walk of life seemed to be bracing for a storm—and resigned to the hardship it would bring to this harbor city.

The city infrastructure looked defeated too: The wide boulevards and grand 19th-century buildings are now tired and grungy and the streets smelly. Angry graffiti and tattered posters deface walls, adding to the general feeling of lawless decay. It takes a long time to destroy a nation’s wealth but a decade of kirchnerism o—government by President Néstor Kirchner and now his widow, Cristina —seems to be doing the job.

In recent weeks things have gotten worse. The way out also looks more difficult. Three big developments in December raised the specter of descent into full-blown chaos. The first occurred when the police in the provincial capital of Cordoba suddenly walked off the job to protest low salaries. Hooligans took the work stoppage by law enforcement as an invitation to sack the city. More than 1,000 stores were looted and two people killed.


Chalk up a big victory for the First Amendment. On Friday a Wisconsin judge struck a major blow for free political speech when he quashed subpoenas to conservative groups and ordered the return of property to the targets of a so-called John Doe campaign-finance probe.

John Doe probes operate much like grand juries, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches while gag orders require the targets to keep quiet. We wrote about the kitchen-sink subpoenas and morning raids by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz that targeted dozens of conservative groups that participated in the battle to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker (“Wisconsin Political Speech Raid,” Nov. 16, 2013).

Now we learn that Judge Gregory A. Peterson ruled on Friday that at least some of those subpoenas were improper. They “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws,” he wrote. His opinion remains under seal but we obtained a copy.

The Islamization of Belgium and the Netherlands in 2013 by Soeren Kern

In January, the gangland shootings of two young Moroccan men in downtown Amsterdam drew renewed attention to the growing problem of violent crime among Muslim immigrants. The two men were gunned down with AK-47 assault rifles in a shooting the mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, described as reminiscent of “the Wild West.”

In March, the Dutch public broadcasting system NOS television reported that the Netherlands has become one of the major European suppliers of Islamic jihadists. According to NOS, about 100 Dutch Muslims are active as jihadists in Syria; most have joined the notorious Jabhat al-Nusra rebel group.

Belgium and the Netherlands have some of the largest Muslim communities in the European Union, in percentage terms.

Belgium is home to an estimated 650,000 Muslims, or around 6% of the overall population, based on an average of several statistical estimates. The Netherlands is home to an estimated 925,000 Muslims, which also works out to around 6% of the overall population. Within the EU, only France (7.5%) has more Muslims in relative terms.

Belgian and Dutch cities have significant Muslim populations, comprised mostly of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, as well as a growing number of converts to Islam.

The number of Muslims in Brussels—where roughly half of the number of Muslims in Belgium currently live—has reached 300,000, which means that the self-styled “Capital of Europe” is now one of the most Islamic cities in Europe.

In 2013, Muslims made up approximately 26% of the population of metropolitan Brussels, followed by Rotterdam (25%), Amsterdam (24%), Antwerp (17%), The Hague (14%) and Utrecht (13%), according to a panoply of research.

Guy Millière: Europe’s New Crowd-Pleasing Jew-Hate

D ieudonné, in a video posted on YouTube, and widely seen before being removed, expressed a longing to bring back the gas chambers in which the Nazis gassed the Jews. Everything he posts goes viral.

On Saturday December 28th 2013, a French Muslim soccer player, Nicolas Anelka (aka: Abdul-Salam Bilal), scored a goal for his club, West Bromwich Albion, in front of thousands of cheering fans and millions more around the world watching on television. He showed no joy. He did not even smile. He extended one hand straight down and touched the other to his shoulder. Most of those who saw did not understand. For many others, the meaning was clear: he was performing a “quenelle”, the reverse Nazi-style salute invented by the French “comedian” Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala. For the last couple of years, “quenelles” have become a trend in France and throughout Europe.

Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala demonstrates the “quenelle” salute with NBA player Tony Parker. (Image source: Twitter)

Pictures of people performing “quenelles” also multiplied: “quenelles” in front of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin; on the train tracks leading to the Auschwitz death camp; beside a picture of Anne Frank in Amsterdam; and in the courtyard of the school where three Jewish children and a teacher were murdered by Mohamed Merah in Toulouse.

The photos also show “quenelles” by famous athletes: soccer players, such as Nicolas Anelka; basketball players such as Tony Parker (he recently apologized, saying he did not know the meaning of the gesture), and world judo champion, Teddy Riner.

It has long been common knowledge in France that Dieudonné is an anti-Semite and that “quenelles” were performed by countless people. It is also common knowledge that Dieudonné’s shows were explicitly anti-Semitic and attracted large crowds, but until recently, nobody paid attention.

For many, however, Nicolas Anelka’s “quenelle” during the soccer match went a step too far, and occurred at the wrong moment: only one week after Dieudonné himself, for many, went a step too far. In a video posted on YouTube, and widely seen before being removed, he expressed a longing to bring back the gas chambers in which which the Nazis gassed the Jews. He also added an ambiguous sentence that unambiguously meant it was “too bad” that a Jewish journalist, Patrick Cohen, could not be gassed. A few hours after the video was posted, a hacker tracked down some of those who posted their own “quenelles” pictures on Dieudonné’s website and made their addresses public.

Immediately after Anelka’s “quenelle”, Valérie Fourneyron, French Sports Minister, called Anelka’s gesture “a disgusting provocation” and an “incitement to hatred.” A few hours after that, Manuel Valls, French Minister of the Interior, spoke of “the need to ban” Dieudonné’s public appearances — the first time since World War II that the French government and France’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, have ordered a ban to go into effect.

Protests are being organized by Jewish movements in front of the Paris theater where Dieudonné’s performances are still scheduled, and the famous Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld have said they will participate.

All the fuss, however will be almost certainly useless.


On November 7th, 2013, the former Commander of the US Strategic Air Command and Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Larry Welch, (retired), spoke at a Kings Bay, Georgia symposium on the enduring requirements of the US Strategic Nuclear Triad, an event I planned and hosted and which is one of a continued series of such events which will continue in April 16-17 at Crane/NavSea, Indiana. Here is my introduction and the remarks of General Larry Welch.

MR. HUESSY: General Welch has been speaking at my breakfast seminar series since he was SAC commander, and that’s 29 years ago, I believe. I think he has spoken at my series more than any other individual. I once noted at my seminar a couple of years ago that he was a national treasure, to which he replied that he had not yet taken up residence in the U.S. National Archives.


He is, nonetheless, a voice of extraordinary wisdom and common sense. Would you please welcome our former United States Air Force chief of staff, our former SAC commander, former president of IDA, General Larry Welch?


MR. LARRY WELCH: When Peter asked me to do this, I thought this is a really good idea. I’m going to give a keynote speech and find something really useful to say to one of the most experienced, knowledgeable, committed, dedicated groups that I could imagine. But since Peter asked me to do it, I did what I always do when Peter asks, I said yes.

But I said yes for another reason, because I do have a message for a knowledgeable, experienced, committed, dedicated group of people. And the fact is, my message is about the message. It’s specifically about staying on message – staying on message about the strategic nuclear deterrent, the triad that underwrites that deterrent, and all the capabilities it takes to keep that triad effective. And I’m talking about policy, people, platforms and weapons.

And I raise that issue tonight because I think we need a much more intense focus by a knowledgeable, committed, experienced group of people in order to get us back on message. The issue is that the nation, in some respects, has drifted off message and it has created confusion in places where we don’t need confusion. Most certainly confusion in places where I expect confusion: those who believe that somehow if we just ignore them, nuclear weapons will go away. But I’m not talking about those people.


George Bernard Shaw famously said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.” There couldn’t be a better description of our president, who proclaimed in Berlin in July 2008: “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.”

The vice president was not far behind, just as persuasive but less vivid. “I think it is manmade. I think it’s clearly manmade. If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That’s the cause. That’s why the polar icecap is melting,” Joe Biden said, outlining the administration’s position on global warming; apparently, “Apocalypse Now” is threatening a host of calamities. Although the vice president sounds terminally confused, if he says “I think it is manmade,” then there should be no more debate. It is settled. We should take it as gospel and blow trillions of dollars in an effort to save the planet. And according to those two delusional alarmists, this is it. There will not be another moment. Must act now!!!

I am old enough to remember that not so long ago, in the mid-1970s, the world debated “global cooling” with the same intensity and urgency as we are debating global warming today. It was also very urgent and potentially catastrophic although, back then, we needed to save the planet from freezing. The cover of the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek proclaimed “The Coming Ice Age.” In the article “The Cooling World,” the magazine suggested that, among other disasters, cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.” In the June 24, 1974 issue of Time magazine, the article “Another Ice Age” painted a bleak picture for the future of our planet. These same publications now advocate global warming.

I recently raised this argument with a renowned defender of global warming. His response was that science is a lot better today than it was forty years ago. “Does that mean science was wrong in predicting a new ice age?” I asked him sarcastically. I got my answer when he did not respond: It really does not matter what science says; we simply must believe in global warming. This and other discussions with the supporters of global warming convinced me of the futility of citing scientific and historical records to initiate an intellectually honest dialogue. I also became aware that these people would never relinquish their convictions and will continue to find arguments to justify them-even if these new arguments are diametrically opposed to those they previously espoused.


http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/what-have-they-wrought-at-st-james-church?f=must_reads Those who have perpetrated a deplorable anti-Israel falsehood and outrage on the grounds of St. James Church in Piccadilly, London have done so fully knowing that their intention is to promote the ugliest PLO and Palestinian Authority propaganda. The church has installed a life size 8 meter tall/30 meter long replica of Israel’s security wall in […]