Outrageous! Mexican Military Helicopter Fires on U.S. Border Patrol Agents in Arizona

At Gateway Pundit, "Mexican Military Choppers Cross Over Into US – FIRE ON BORDER AGENTS!", and Memeorandum.

More from Katie Pavlich, "Border Patrol Agents: Cartels May Have "Rented" Cover From Mexican Military Helicopter in Shooting Incident":

Thanks for the apology about shooting at our Border Agents, Mexico. Now give us back our Marine #MarineHeldInMexico
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) June 27, 2014

On Thursday morning between midnight and 6 a.m. at least one Mexican military helicopter crossed eight miles into the United States and shot at Border Patrol agents with lethal force before returning to Mexican territory. The incident occurred in an area notorious for violent drug cartel activity just west of the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation during a Border Patrol drug interdiction operation. The timing and location of the incident has prompted agents to believe the use of the helicopter by the Mexican military may have been on behalf of drug cartels operating in the area.

"Mexican military are oftentimes working hand in glove with the cartels. The Mexican military has routinely crossed the border in areas that Border Patrol agents are actively tracking or seizing drug loads. Inevitably the Mexican military claim they got lost, that the border was not clearly marked, or in extreme cases fire on agents to cover their retreat," National Border Patrol Council Spokesman Shawn Moran exclusively tells Townhall. "Ajo, AZ Border Patrol agents have had several incidents like this over the years where they have taken shots from the Mexican military. The cartels' resources are nearly limitless and it would not surprise me if they "rented" the cover by the Mexican military helicopter in this incident."

A Border Patrol agent stationed in Arizona, who asked to remain anonymous, backed up Moran's statements saying the Mexican military regularly works with cartels on the border and has been doing so for years.

The Mexican government has apologized for the shooting, but has not explained why the helicopter was in the area.

Obama's Libya Intervention Created North Africa's Worst Terror State, Drug Trafficker, and Arms Exporter

The Obama administration's cluster of "kinetic military action."

At the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale":

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group "just to touch us and thank us," recalled Susan Rice, President Obama's national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi's foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a "model intervention."

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

"If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result," said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. "The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs."

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn't want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa's most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya "is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents," an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya's porous borders, sharpening the continent's immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes...

Also at the far-left Jacobin, "Libya and Its Contexts: The Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations, but it may usher in decades of more war."

Global #Jihad Spreading Chaos and Fear — And 'This Has Nothing to Do With Islam'!

London's Daily Mail had a great piece Wednesday tying all the various jihadist attacks together into a logical program of worldwide terror, "From Syria to Iraq, Kenya to Malaysia: How new era of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading fear and chaos around the world."

But the newspaper ruined the piece by citing some bozo "Middle East security analyst," Andreas Krieg, who inexplicably argued that:

'All the empirical evidence shows that it is on the rise. You're seeing it in all the headlines, then you're looking at Iraq, you're looking at Syria, you're looking at Nigeria.

'But in all three cases this has nothing to do with Islam. I think people in the West may think it is because they feel alienated by Islam. There is alot of Islamaphobia.'

I promptly blew off this otherwise interesting piece as unworthy, and would have forgotten about it, but Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch was flabbergasted that this Krieg idiot's comments passed for "expert" analysis at Daily Mail. See, "“Middle East security analyst”: rise of global jihad “has nothing to do with Islam”":

How could a “radical interpretation of Islam” have “nothing to do with the religion”? How is it that these groups that uniformly explain and justify their actions on the basis of Islam have nothing to do with Islam? How is it that a group that calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and another that calls itself the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad have nothing to do with Islam? Why is it that study after study has shown that jihadis are actually generally wealthier than their peers, and yet Krieg asserts that the jihadis are “disillusioned by austerity” and thus turn to Islam? Why is it that this palpable nonsense gets printed in the mainstream media without a murmur of dissent?

Why is only Krieg quoted and no one who looks at the available evidence and says that the rise of the global jihad has everything to do with Islam? Why does the ever-witless Daily Mail not ask Krieg to give anything more than the barest explanation for his counterfactual claims? Why does the mainstream media always rush to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for the ever-mounting number of atrocities done in its name and inspired by its texts and teachings, instead of confronting the ideology that jihadis say motivates and inspires them and formulating positive and effective ways to limit its power to incite to violence?

I’d love to debate Andreas Krieg about this question. But I am sure that he would refuse to do so.

U.S. Air Power Won't Save #Iraq

From Erica Borghard and Costantino Pischedda, at the National Interest, "Why American Air Power Won't Save Iraq from ISIS":

President Obama’s [last] Thursday speech outlining America’s response to the situation in Iraq alluded to the possibility of an expanded U.S. role there, which could involve some form of aerial support to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) fighting on the ground against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Sunni Arab insurgents. The coordination of air power and Iraqi allies on the ground (perhaps with a limited presence of American Special Operations Forces) would mirror U.S. interventions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011. The principal objective of a limited aerial intervention in Iraq would be to provide battlefield support to ISF to change the dynamics on the ground, decisively halting ISIS’s offensive and reversing its recent territorial gains. While this approach was tactically and operationally successful in Afghanistan and Libya, its long-term strategic benefits in those cases are more uncertain. There is no reason to expect that a similar intervention in the unfolding crisis in Iraq will further long-term American strategic interests—even if it achieves limited tactical successes.

At first glance, Iraq would seem to be an ideal setting for reenacting the Afghan/Libyan model. As it did in Afghanistan and Libya, airpower could have a decisive impact on the outcome of what are essentially conventional battles between Sunni insurgents and ISF. However, a closer look at those cases does not provide much ground for optimism. First, the antigovernment forces would adapt their tactics in response to American airpower and thus make it less effective. Similar to the response of Qaddafi’s forces to NATO bombing, ISIS and its allies would eschew massing their forces in the open in conventional formations (thus posing as targets for American precision bombs); their forces would instead disperse, take cover and conceal, which would significantly reduce their vulnerability from airpower, without necessarily ending their offensive. This tactical adjustment would not necessarily allow the insurgents to hold on to their newly conquered territory indefinitely. As the Libya case clearly shows, a prolonged intervention with precision airpower in conjunction with local ground forces can weaken and help overcome local opponents through attrition. With sufficient time, airstrikes would enable ISF to defend the territory it currently holds and even reclaim territory lost to ISIS forces.

A key point, though, is that U.S. intervention from the air will not bring about these results quickly. Indeed, the NATO operation in Libya took far longer and involved significantly more firepower than the allies initially anticipated. A few pinprick attacks are unlikely to alter the trajectory on the ground; and a more sustained military campaign would require firm American political will—something that may not be in the cards.

Second (and more crucial), in response to a successful counteroffensive on the part of the Iraqi government, supported by U.S. airpower, ISIS would certainly switch to the kind of guerrilla tactics in which it proved so proficient in the past (just as the Taliban did after its early defeat in 2001). In this scenario, ISIS and other insurgent groups, benefiting from the support of significant segments of Iraq’s Sunni population, could sustain a high-intensity guerrilla campaign against the Iraqi government for a long period of time. This reinvigorated insurgency may make the year preceding the insurgent “surge” (with hundreds of terrorist and hit-and-run attacks and over 1,000 deaths a month) look like a period of relative stability. Thus, an aerial intervention would not provide a lasting solution; at best, it would merely push ISIS and the broader Sunni resistance back to the position they were in just some months ago.

At its heart, the crisis in Iraq stems from an underlying political problem that military means alone cannot address. Namely, Maliki’s ethnosectarian policies—in particular, the systematic marginalization and humiliation of the Sunni minority—have provided fertile ground for the growth of several insurgent organizations (some Baathist, some Jihadist) claiming the mantle of defenders of Iraq’s beleaguered Sunnis. An American intervention would reduce Maliki’s incentive to institute the much-needed political reforms that would give the country’s Sunni community a stake in the future of the country. Put simply, this is an ethnosectarian war (with an important transnational Islamist component) whose long-term solution won’t be brought about from 15,000 feet in the air.

One might object to this noninterventionist approach, pointing to a series of negative consequences that may result. These concerns are not baseless, but either rest on implausible worst-case-scenario assumptions, or identify risks and costs that could only be avoided by taking even riskier and costlier courses of action...

More.

An interesting analysis.

But it ignores a key point that Ralph Peters made the other day: A political solution won't be enough. The way to stop the ISIS onslaught is to kill the jihadists. See, "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'Air Power Alone' Won't Stop #ISIS."

More Than Half of British Households Take More in Government Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes

It's unsustainable.

At Telegraph UK, "More than half of homes take more than they contribute: Official figures reveal record numbers of people who receive more in benefits and public services than they pay in tax":

In March the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the tax bill is putting the long term finances at risk.

“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable strategy because the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more could eventually run out, the IFS suggested.

Just 300,000 high earners now pay 30 per cent of all income tax and 7.5 per cent of all tax, official figures show. Households with an average income of £104,000 paid £30,000 more in tax than they received from the state last year, ONS figures show.

The top ten per cent of earners contributed £26,984 in income and council tax, plus £10,303 in indirect taxes such as alcohol duty and VAT – a contribution to the public purse of £37,287. They received £2,284 in state cash benefits, which include child benefit, maternity pay and pensions.

The cost of educating their children came to £1,274, while they used NHS treatment worth £3,410 – meaning their total cost to the Exchequer was £7,264.

By contrast, a family with the national median income of £23,069 received £3,798 more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes last year.

They paid £4,620 in direct tax and £5,029 in indirect taxes, but received £6622 in cash benefits. They received schooling worth £2623 and NHS services worth £4,202. In total, they paid in £9,649 and received £13,477. It means for every £1 they paid in, they got £1.40 back.

The poorest ten per cent of families, with wages of £3,875 a year, paid £4,611 in direct and indirect taxes and received £13,559 in cash benefits and services. It means they received £2.94 in state support for every £1 they paid in tax.

The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.

Also at the Daily Express UK, "Most households in Britain get more in benefits than they pay out in tax, new figures show," and London's Daily Mail, "Half of families receive more from the state than they pay in taxes but income equality widens as rich get richer."

Wolf Blitzer to #IRS Hack John Koskinen: Why Shouldn’t Taxpayers Use 'Crashed Hard Drive' Excuse?

This hack is quite the number, and Wolf Blitzer does an excellent job grilling him, especially on his political partisanship.

Absolutely corrupt.

Supreme Court Limits Presidential Power in Recess Appointments

A big decision getting a lot of attention among conservatives, at LAT, "Supreme Court rules against Obama on recess appointments":

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Obama exceeded his power under the Constitution by filling three federal positions when the Senate was on a brief break, but justices upheld the right of the president to make recess appointments during longer breaks.

While the president is authorized to fill vacancies while the Senate is on recess, the justices decided in a 9-0 ruling that the Senate was not on a true recess in January 2012 when Obama filled three seats on the National Labor Relations Board.

The decision is a rebuke to the president, but its short-term impact on Obama could be muted because last year the Democratic-controlled Senate scrapped a long-standing filibuster rule that had allowed the current Republican minority to block a vote on many of his nominees.

Before that change was made, Republicans effectively blocked many of Obama appointments, prompting the president to turn to recess appointments as a way to fill vacant posts.

The limited scope of the court’s ruling was criticized by Justice Antonin Scalia, who agreed with the majority but said the court should have gone much further.

Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court’s most liberal members also signed onto the opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

“A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess appointment power,” Breyer wrote.

But the court was split 5-4 on the broader question of whether the modern presidency should retain the right to make recess appointments...

More.

Also, from John Fund, at National Review, "Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012."

Why the New World Order Won't Be Orderly

From Randall Schweller, at Foreign Affairs, "The Age of Entropy":

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, foreign policy experts have been predicting that the United States' days as global hegemon are coming to a close. But rather than asking themselves which country is most likely to replace the United States, they ought to be asking themselves whether the concept of global hegemony still applies in our era.

It increasingly seems that the world will no longer have a single superpower, or group of superpowers, that brings order to international politics. Instead, it will have a variety of powers -- including nations, multinational corporations, ideological movements, global crime and terror groups, and human rights organizations -- jockeying with each other, mostly unsuccessfully, to achieve their goals. International politics is transforming from a system anchored in predictable, and relatively constant, principles to a system that is, if not inherently unknowable, far more erratic, unsettled, and devoid of behavioral regularities. In terms of geopolitics, we have moved from an age of order to an age of entropy.

Entropy is a scientific concept that measures disorder: the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder. And disorder is precisely what will characterize the future of international politics. In this leaderless world, threats are much more likely to be cold than hot; danger will come less frequently in the form of shooting wars among great powers than diffuse disagreements over geopolitical, monetary, trade, and environmental issues. Problems and crises will arise more frequently and, when they do, will be resolved less cooperatively...

I don't know. I remember similar arguments like this in the early 1990s, with the end of the Cold War. Joseph Nye published a classic response to futuristic arguments in 1992, "What New World Order?"

Emily Ratajkowski for GQ Magazine

At US Weekly, "Emily Ratajkowski Poses Topless for Sexy GQ Magazine July Cover: Gone Girl Star Pictures."

And at London's Daily Mail, "'There is a lack of men who know how to hit on women': Emily Ratajkowski opens up about her dating troubles as she poses for the cover of GQ."

Check out more photos and the @GQMagazine cover story here: http://t.co/DVetxHZiHw pic.twitter.com/yIO6Gg42Ql

— Emily Ratajkowski (@emrata) June 24, 2014

#ISIS Jihadists Carrying RPK-74Ms

They're Kalashnikov light machine guns, via Ruptly:

GRAPHIC: Al-Nusra Front, #ISIS Ally, Amputates Hands of Accused Thieves in Al-Bukamal Countryside, Syria

Seeing the writing on the wall --- and no doubt hoping to avoid annihilation (beheadings, crucifixions) at the hands of ISIS --- Syria's al-Nusra Front formed an alliance with al-Qaeda's rampaging jihadist army in Iraq. See Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine, "Al Qaeda in Syria/Iraq Doubles in Size as ISIS and Al Nusra Kiss and Make Up."

Previously, al-Nusra had rejected ISIS and swore fealty to Ayman al-Zawahiri. But as I noted previously, it's not so much doctrinal differences but leadership splinters that separate these groups. And you'd be hard pressed to find more extreme brutality anywhere in the new caliphate emerging across Eastern Syria and Western Iraq.

At Blazing Cat Fur (warning graphic), "Devout Muslims Cut Off Hands of Two Accused Thieves in Syria."

'We Should Have Had Air Cover': Nouri al-Maliki Blames Obama for Blitzkrieg #ISIS Advance — #IRAQ

Well, that U.S.-Iraq security cooperation is working out just swell.

"We should have had air cover."

At the Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki faults U.S. in crisis":

Iraq’s parliament will meet next week to begin the process of forming a new government, officials said Thursday, as Prime Minister Nouri Maliki blamed the United States for his army’s inability to stop Sunni Muslim insurgents who are threatening his grip on the country.

In an interview with the BBC’s Arabic-language service, Maliki said that the Iraqi army would have been able to block the insurgents’ advance into northern and western Iraq if the U.S. had moved more quickly to deliver fighter planes that Baghdad had purchased.

Apparently referring to F-16 jets that U.S. officials have said would arrive no earlier than September, Maliki said Iraqi officials had bought 36 of the planes and thought they would have received them by now.

“I’ll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract,” Maliki told the British broadcaster in his first interview with an international news organization since the insurgents seized Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, earlier this month.

“We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian, to secure the air cover for our forces,” he said. “If we had air cover, we would have averted what had happened.”

More.

And at BBC News, "Iraqi PM welcomes Syria air strike on border crossing."

Poll: Conservatives More Likely to Say They Are 'Proud to Be American...'

And they needed a poll to figure this out?

At WaPo, "Proud to be an American? You’re probably not a true liberal."

I'm reminded of "The Hate America Left." The "liberal" left's platform would not exist without America-hatred. I mean just look below at the number for "solid liberals" (leftists) on "honor and duty are my core values." This is all pretty much common knowledge if you're up on contemporary politics.

Here's the Pew study to which WaPo links, "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology."

And by the way, if you have yet, pick up a copy of Barry Rubin's new (posthumous) book, Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance. You won't find a better study that explains the origins and current cultural hegemony of these depraved hate-America "solid liberals."

Coincidence or Crime? Anti-McDaniel Race-Bait Flyers Look Like Work of Haley Barbour Super-PAC

From Charles C. Johnson, at Patterico's, "Anti-McDaniel Race-Based Flyer Sure Looks Similar to the Work of Barbour’s Super-PAC."



And follow Charles C. Johnson on Twitter.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Obama's a 'Coward' Who 'Won't Make Tough Decisions to Defend America...'

Once again, the irrepressible Ralph Peters, on the Kelly File last night:

VIDEO: #ISIS Child Fighters Armed with Automatic Weapons as Jihadists Parade Through Mosul

At Telegraph UK, "Children armed with rifles parade in Isis convoy."

San Diego Gangbanger David Riley at Center of Supreme Court's Smartphone Privacy Ruling — #4a

Look, even the bad mofos have rights, although the decision's not likely to help this f-ker Riley.

At the Los Angeles Times, "San Diego gang member's case focus of Supreme Court privacy ruling":

When David Riley, a 19-year-old member of San Diego's Lincoln Park gang, was arrested in August 2009 on suspicion of shooting at a rival gang member, it received little or no public notice.

The same was true when Riley's first trial ended in a hung jury, and when he was convicted at a second trial of attempted murder and other charges, and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

But now Riley's name has assumed national legal prominence as one of two cases that led to Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended privacy rights to cellphones, a sweeping ruling for the digital age when information about a person's entire life can be stored in a mobile device.

"We got everything we wanted," said Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, who was part of the team that argued the case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court ruled 9 to 0 that police acted improperly when they seized Riley's smartphone without a warrant and discovered evidence used at his trial linking him to the gang and the shooting.

The decision does not free Riley from prison, but it could allow his attorneys to seek a new trial on grounds that the original trial was "tainted" because of the phone information, Fisher said.

In upholding Riley's conviction in 2013, a California appeals court said that cellular phone information was akin to things pulled out of a defendant's pocket during a post-arrest search and thus did not merit special protection.

Legal analysts said Wednesday's ruling would clearly apply to defendants whose cases are still pending in the courts, but may not help those, like Riley, whose convictions are already final.

"There probably will be a good deal of litigation over whether this decision can be applied retroactively," said Dennis Riordan, an appellate criminal defense lawyer based in San Francisco.

Charles M. Sevilla, a San Diego appellate criminal defense lawyer, said those defendants whose convictions are final will face "an uphill battle" in trying to persuade courts to reexamine their cases.

But the complications are unlikely to stop lawyers from trying...

PREVIOUSLY: "Supreme Court Rejects Warrantless Cellphone Searches — #4a."

State Sen. Chris McDaniel Keeps Legal Challenge Open — #MSSen

At the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, "McDaniel still pondering challenge: Spokesman Noel Fritsch hangs up when reached by phone about McDaniel's next move:

The day after incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran won the GOP primary runoff, challenger Chris McDaniel had not conceded and said his team would be looking at voting irregularities “in coming days” to determine whether to challenge the results.

McDaniel’s campaign spokesman Noel Fritsch, reached by phone late Wednesday morning, promptly hung up without answering questions about McDaniel’s next move but later issued a written statement from McDaniel. McDaniel also appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show.

Cochran, in unofficial results, defeated McDaniel with 190,633 votes to 184,260, or 51 percent to 49 percent on Tuesday.  Cochran spokesman Jordan Russell said: “We are moving forward. The election is over, and now it’s time to get ready for November. Chris McDaniel, his campaign and his supporters ran a great race. They have a lot to be proud of.”

McDaniel says Cochran’s campaign brought in Democrats to steal the GOP primary. He told Hannity he might launch a court challenge on “a civil conspiracy to violate state law.” In his written statement he said, “After we have examined the data we will make a decision about whether and how to proceed.”

Asked by Hannity whether he could support Cochran if he remains the nominee or mend fences with the state Republican establishment, McDaniel said he has been praying about it.

“It’s too early right now to get those raw emotions out of the way,” McDaniel told Hannity. “... They used everything from the race card to food stamps to saying I would shut down public education. ... I’ve fought for this (Republican Party) all my life, but they abandoned us, made fun of us and ridiculed us and brought in 35,000 Democrats to beat us.”

More.

And listen to the interview at the Right Scoop, "Chris McDaniel: “We’re not going to concede right now, we’re going to investigate”."

Milly Dowler Sister's Message for Prime Minister David Cameron

It's Gemma Dowler, older sister of Milly, in a video message for the prime minister:



Background here, "Britain's News of the World Scandal."

And at the New York Times, "Ex-Tabloid Executive Acquitted in British Phone Hacking Case."

German National Football Team Ready to Break U.S. Hearts

After that last game against Portugal I confess I'm interested in tomorrow's game. Unfortunately for the U.S., it's gonna be brutal.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Deep Germany Ready to Break U.S. Hearts: U.S. Manager Klinsmann, Players Prepared For Clash":

Gleeful members of the U.S. soccer bandwagon: Brace yourselves for a bucket of cold water called Germany.

Those ever-disciplined lads in white and black have a way of crushing supposedly ascendant soccer nations. They care little about whether their opponent is a host nation, a higher-ranked favorite or a big lovable puppy enjoying its first love affair with the game.

Germany breaks hearts.

"The expectations are simple: They've always got to win it," U.S. head coach and former German superstar Jurgen Klinsmann said Tuesday before training. "They live with that; they get along with that, so they can embrace those expectations within the inner circle as well. And that's how they prepare and start the tournament, and go from game to game. (See a profile of the German team.)

"So their consistency is really something that they're really known for. Obviously their spirit is always going into the last second of the game, to turn things around, fighting until the last moment."

There is consistency in sports and then there is Die Mannschaft, as the team is known...

Keep reading.