Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1150, 15 Nov 15

Islamic State Can’t Strike America

So says our government.

Antalya, Turkey (CNN)President Barack Obama’s national security team is sending a message Sunday that might lend at least a glimmer of reassurance to Americans traumatized by the terror attacks in Paris.

Saying that while the ISIS ambition is certainly there to launch similar attacks on U.S. shores, the capability is not great.

My confidence level in the accuracy of that statement is statistically indistinguishable from zero.


1150, 15 November 2015


  1. steveegg

    Strike “statistically indistinguishable from” from the last sentence and you nailed my confidence level. In fact, if it could be negative, it would be.

  2. Kevin scheunemann

    Owen you have more confidence than me. I think an ISIS attack on our shore is imminent. Paris was just the start for ISIS.

  3. Owen

    Sorry, sarcasm sometimes doesn’t come across well in print. I agree, Kevin and Steve. I’ll be surprised if we aren’t hit before the year is out.

  4. Mark Maley

    Please say specifically what needs to be done to guarantee us from getting hit .

  5. Dan

    Gee Mark, guarantee me you won’t die in the next week.
    However, there are things that could be done like seal the border and stop immigration from Syria and other areas of muslim extremism.
    And have the Obama administration daring Isis from hitting stuff, like saying there is little chance they can be successful. To them, that’s a challenge.
    Now Mark, guarantee me you won’t die this week.

  6. Kevin scheunemann

    I did take the sarcasm into account. Not only do I not believe the government’s statement, Obama has made us weak, and denied the war of Islam against civil society for so long, I can see a Paris type attack, or worse happening in U.S. soon. ISIS is recruiting Islamic terrorists in this nation online. In the past the Islamists would travel to the ISIS state to fight, what if they are urging them now to fight this front of the war, in the U.S?

    Democrats are so in denial, they cannot even use term radical Islam in the debate!

    However, it’s typical for liberals to embrace, deny, and enable evil.

  7. old baldy


    “However, it’s typical for liberals to embrace, deny, and enable evil”.

    Just as it has been the practice of christians for the last 2000 yeras to do the same thing. See: Crusades (multiple forays), Inquisition (Spanish et al), Salem witch trials, Oliver Cromwell, Spanish conquest of the Americas for starters. You are a hypocrite of the finest stripe..

  8. Kevin Scheunemann


    What that has to do with today’s war against radical Islam, now being led by France? Find me a Christian that defends any specific evil act associated with those historic periods you describe and I’ll point out where they are wrong.

  9. Pat

    I’m not saying that the United States shouldn’t do anything, but I’m curious as to what specifically the United States should do, and what the end game plan would be.

  10. old baldy


    As is your nature, you made a self-serving statement that is blatantly false. Grow a pair and own up to it.

  11. Kevin Scheunemann


    So you are saying liberalism recognizes, rejects, and disables evil?

    If so, that is the most hilarious thing I’ve heard in quite some time.

  12. old baldy


    First, you need to determine for yourself what “liberalism” means, than share it with the rest of us, and use the same definition consistently. You are all over the board with your use of the term.

    Second, compare your definition with the classical definition as taught in economics and political science classes, at least in the ’60s when I was taking them. See if the two definitions are compatible, then see #1, wash, rinse, repeat.

    I guess I’ll be blunt, I feel you are off base with either statement. I could make the same two statements regarding a modern day right-winger such as yourself, and it wouldn’t make any more sense than what you said. World affairs are much more complicated, and there are fewer hard black and white lines. Maybe some maturity and experience, and a lot less ideology, will give you more gravitas.

    So, if you insist that “However, it’s typical for liberals to embrace, deny, and enable evil”, is true, I have to call you a liar based on historical fact.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    So either statement is untrue?

    Are you willing to make any discernment between good and evil acts?

    Generally, liberalism means to me, someone who supports pre-born baby genocide(abortion), unwilling to exercise any discernment between good and evil acts for fear it will offend someone, willing to stomp Jesus out of public sphere wherever they find him, raise taxes to solve any problem, willing to regulate anything, and willing to let criminals and rogue nations flourish because no one is really evil, just misunderstood.

    When I use liberal I always mean it in modern day Hillary or Bernie sanders sense.

    If you mean it in classical sense, then use “libertarian”.

  14. old baldy


    Your first statement, “However, it’s typical for liberals to embrace, deny, and enable evil”, was false on its face, hence your second statement made no sense.

    So, using your definition a liberal is anyone that disagrees with your position. But you make a habit of making things up to suit your purpose.

    And no, libertarian isn’t the same. You really need some history lessons.

  15. Kevin Scheunemann


    I defined liberal for you because you asked, and yes, I disagree with liberal stance, nearly all the time, on the points I hit in the definition.

    Anything in my liberal definition I got wrong? You may not have liked the terms, and you may have been offended, but it is accurate.

  16. old baldy


    It is your opinion, so I can’t make a right/wrong judgement, just as you can’t make a right/wrong judgement about my opinions. But when you make a claim that something is the truth then I can say you are wrong, as in,”However, it’s typical for liberals to embrace, deny, and enable evil”. That statement has no basis in fact and cannot be proven as true.

    Your definition of “liberal(s)” is an arbitrary one based on your opinion so it is neither right nor wrong, but a restatement of your biased and kevin-centric opinion.

  17. Kevin Scheunemann


    I appreciate the entertainment of that answer.

    I’ll certainly discern whether your opinion is right or wrong. If you want to remain objective, and non-committal, about my opinions, or facts, that is fine too.

    However, I think you love to comment on my opinions, thus making judgements, which is a good thing.

    Hold your head up high that you have discernement about something you disagree with…don’t be ashamed of having judgements about right and wrong.

  18. old baldy


    I’ll make my judgements on things like fact, science and data, while you can keep pulling you judgements out of thin air. Isn’t it great to live in the US, where we can still talk about things like that, as opposed to the theocracy you would like?

  19. Kevin Scheunemann


    Hey, that’s great. You should just admit you make judgements about opinions and free yourself from that denial.

    You do advocate a theocracy as well, a humanist theocracy where it is impossible to discern good vs. evil, for fear either label might offend.

  20. old baldy


    Another lie on your part. I advocate no theocracy. For you to say otherwise is a lie. I thought you christians had a rule against that.

  21. Kevin Scheunemann


    There you go again, making judgements about my opinions.

    Are you supposed to make that kind of discernment about my opinion?

    I find it interesting that you will dissect and discern my opinion, quickly and distinctly, (which is perfectly fine) but when it comes to radical Islam, there isn’t even 1percent of the passion to make any good vs. evil discernment.

    Very Interesting as a discerning observer.

  22. old baldy


    Once again, when caught in a lie, you try to deflect to another subject.

    I’ll make this a statement of opinion, “my golden retriever is a more discerning observer than you”.

  23. Kevin Scheunemann


    Thanks for the chuckle. That must be one smart dog.

    Refresh me on what the “lie” was again?

    (Vs. being a common sense opinion)

    Thanks in advance.

  24. old baldy


    How about these two:

    Doyles DNR forced an unneeded $8million upgrade to Kewaskum treatment plant;

    DNR set high sewer/water rates.

    Still haven’t seen any proof of those two whoppers…

    Just calling a spade a spade….

  25. Kevin Scheunemann

    First one is self evident.

    Never said second one, but did say mandates forced us to raise rates. How do you pay for an $8mil DNR UNFUNDED mandate otherwise?

    The DNR mandate forces the rates!

    Try again. It’s amazing you can’t find a lie despite throwing the term around all the time.

  26. old baldy


    Your claims(lies) in order:

    #1. No it isn’t. You have never provided any proof or even the slightest of details regarding the project or its purpose. Those things are easy to supply, yet you have continued to provide a single fact to prove your point.

    #2. Yes you did say it, and I called you on that as well. And give you a hint as to who really sets the rates. Again you failed to provide any proof otherwise.

    #3. Unless you can prove # 1 and 2 above, 3 is meaningless.

    Well, I’ll call a spade a spade. You are making this stuff up to promote your own agenda. I call that lying. And you christians have rules against that. So that makes you an unrepentant sinner as well.

  27. old baldy

    Sorry, that should be “Those things are easy to supply, yet you have FAILED to provide a single fact to prove your point”.

  28. Kevin scheunemann

    1.). You can make an open record request.

    2.). Bonding for DNR mandated has to be paid for. If DNR does not force the irresponsible project on municipality no bonding or rate increase is required.

    You will find I voted no on all of it despite DNR threats and intimidation other board members felt by holding out permit hostage if we didn’t do it.

    Not a big deal if you believe me, it’s my constituents who know who did it when they complain about unaffordable water we clean to impossible standards while you let MMSD dirty it back up because liberals can pollute in Milwaukee and get away with it.

    At same time conservatives don’t pollute in burbs but DNR still requires mandates that makes water unaffordable for poor people.

Pin It on Pinterest