What’s Russian for “Buyer Beware?”

December 26, 2010

The Russians have agreed to purchase two amphibious warships from France:

After a long hesitation and arduous negotiations, Russia has decided to buy at least two of France’s advanced Mistral-class amphibious warships in an unprecedented military deal between Moscow and the West, the two nations said Friday.

The multimillion-dollar sale, announced jointly by the Elysee Palace and the Kremlin, marks the first time in modern history that Russia has made such a major defense acquisition abroad, illuminating a fast-evolving relationship with former Cold War enemies. The swift changes were dramatized at last month’s NATO summit in Lisbon, when President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to work with NATO on ways to cooperate with the U.S.-led alliance in erecting a missile defense system for Europe.

The Mistral sale, whose financial terms were not disclosed, also signaled a triumph for French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s relentless salesmanship and a boost for France’s sagging defense industry and 10 percent unemployment rate. It will, the Elysee declaration noted, provide the equivalent of 5 million hours of work over four years for 1,000 qualified French employees at the STX shipyards at St. Nazaire on the Atlantic Coast. And it might lead to the purchase of two more vessels.

“Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy hail the concretization of this unprecedented cooperation, which will benefit industry and employment in our two countries, and which illustrates the will and capacity in France and Russia to develop large-scale partnerships in all areas, including defense and security,” the Elysee said.

Dear President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin: You may want to rethink that deal.

More seriously, the article notes the strenuous objections of the nation of Georgia, parts of which were recently ripped away and occupied by the new Czars, and also objections from Republicans in Congress. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has been silent. Still hitting that reset button, I guess.

To be honest, though, I doubt we could have done much to stop the sale without putting a serious strain on our relationship (such as it is) with France; they have a problem with high unemployment, too, and have a national interest in maintaining a naval shipbuilding industry.

Whether the ships they build work or not is another matter…

*To answer the question in the subject: Покупатель Остерегайтесь

via Gabriel Malor on Twitter

Advertisements

They stand against civilization itself

December 26, 2010

Such brave jihadis, using a woman to attack innocent people — refugees waiting for food:

A female Taliban suicide bomber killed 42 Pakistani civilians in an attack at a World Food Program ration distribution point in Pakistan’s tribal agency of Bajaur.

The female suicide bomber detonated her vest in the midst of a crowd of more than 300 people waiting at a checkpoint outside for handouts from the World Food Program in Khar, the main town in Bajaur. Those waiting for food were among the internally displaced people who fled the fighting between the military and the Taliban over the past three years.

Pakistani officials said that 42 people were killed and 72 more were wounded, some critically.

(…)

In the pamphlets, the Taliban “threatened the people, particularly the government employees and security forces, not to support the agenda of the US and its allies,” The News reported. “The militants said that they would continue their ‘jihad’ against the US and its supporters. They also urged the Taliban fighters not to surrender to the government and warned them and security forces of stern action.”

Emphasis added.

Tell me again that this isn’t a religious war, that its “root causes” are instead found in poverty, a lack of education, Western colonialism, or any of a dozen other leftist shibboleths… Anything except what the barbarians say it is: a war against the non-Islamic, against Western civilization and its values.

Maybe ought to listen to what they’re telling us, instead.


Barney Frank: “It’s not my job to know what I’m doing” or something

December 26, 2010

Unbelievable.

Congressman Bawney Fwank (D-MA) says it’s not his job to know whether a law he votes on is constitutional or not — that’s the Supreme Court’s job, silly!

In the next Congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.

The rule is a mostly symbolic overture to the Tea Party, for which an animating cause was that much of the congressional agenda over the last two years, including the president’s health care law and the bailouts for Wall Street, has been unconstitutional.

But some House Democrats are steamed at the charge their agenda has gone beyond Congress’s constitutional authorities.

“It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the Tea Party,” said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank about the rule. “Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court. Some of them interpret the constitution very differently, but no, that will not be a problem.”

In other words, “anything I’m do is going to be checked by those guys, so why should I bother to understand the driver’s manual?  Just because I have the keys? Oh, please.”

Bawney, there’s a big difference between accepting judicial review and just throwing up your hands and saying it’s not your danged problem. In fact, it is your danged problem, like it or not. Allow me to remind you of your oath of office — you know, that thing you recited between accepting fat envelopes from lobbyists:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Those highlighted parts are there for your benefit, Bawney. It’s a fair bet that carrying out your oath means understanding the document you swear to protect and defend. You might try it sometime, and try less of the arrogant jackass routine.

Be sure to read the whole article, folks. It’s just chock-full of charming quotes like that from “Representative” Fwank’s fellow oligarchs Democratic colleagues.

BY THE WAY: I have a question for the voters of the 4th congressional district of Massachusetts. What were you thinking? How in God’s name could you people ever choose that spiteful, arrogant, contemptible toad over Sean Bielat last month? Enlighten me, please; I’m really at a loss here.

h/t Jennifer Rubin via Gay Patriot

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)