Thomas Sowell has written a column and made an argument for electing a Congress that will impeach the next POTUS and a POTUS who is impeachable. Read the article. My opinion (in yellow) follows. Feel free to comment as you like. Thomas Sowell had a column on 10/27/16 stating that we have two dangerous candidates running for President. One will be elected. Either will likely over-reach authority and violate the law as has Obama. He argued that we should elect a Congress that can keep either of these dangerous people from doing permanent damage to this country and to this generation future generations--and future generations yet unborn. Moreover, he said that we should elect a President who is "impeachable" such as Donald Trump and not Hillary Clinton who, like Obama, is not impeachable due to breaking through perceived color barriers and glass ceilings.Has this election come down to electing the "most impeachable" POTUS because Congress will not do its duty? To elect a candidate to Congress who will do his duty is not an easy task for the voter. First, it is not so easy to determine who will be such a Congressman. Second, it is not so easy to hold his or her feet over the fire to make certain they don’t put Party over the good of the country. As we have seen in the Podesta emails, there is a concerted effort to keep citizens "uninformed and compliant." The echo chamber of the "bought" main stream media does its part to keep citizens uninformed and compliant with its endless propaganda.
So, what are the answers to these questions? Perhaps, we should follow the British system with their votes of "no-confidence." Perhaps, we should continue pursuing "Banana Republic" policies such as unilateral POTUS treaties such as Obama brought about with the Iran nuclear agreement. Eventually, the people will revolt and turn out dictators or worse (or better depending upon your perspective). The people come out with pitchforks and the equivalent of a lynching occurs. Something like an Arab Spring occurs at a great cost. So, is that the kind of government we want? Or maybe we want a military junta every now and then to flush out the corruption. Do we want an oligarchy such as appears to be going on now whereas a small group of elite, often globalists, moneyed people run things in a kind of "shadow government" like a George Soros and as well as others, manipulating things in the background clandestinely--avoiding transparency and openness. When this occurs, our representative form of government, our Republic gets subverted and weakened. When corruption occurs, it is like a cancer, it spreads and destroys our institutions. Is that what we want?
At one time, I thought Snowden and Assange were breaking the law and undermining governments. Now, after witnessing eight years of corruption and efforts to undermine the will of the people and our government by the current Executive Branch and facing the prospect of more corruption with another Clinton administration, I believe Snowden and Assange have done us a great favor by shining the light on something very sinister and evil.
Perhaps, Thomas Sowell is correct and that we should vote for the lesser of two evils? Or was it the evil of two lesser? Congress, as it stands today, would have no trouble impeaching a Republican whereas impeaching a Democrat seems to be far more difficult. And who knows? We may even end up with a POTUS who has actually built something that is under cost, on schedule and within the law?
#2
This battle was fought during the primaries. Now you could vote for a 100% Republican Congress, and you'll get no change whatsoever from the previous Congress because you voted for the wrong Republicans.
#3
The voters almost need to stay with the Pubs who are and will be in Congress in the near term. Later, things can be sorted out in the next election cycle(s).
#4
This is at best an insurance policy, albeit one with a piss poor company with a bad history - but is it better than no insurance at all?
Whether you believe they have the backbone or not is the secondary question. But if you believe you have to vote for Trump to avoid Hillary, then by that same logic you MUST vote GOP to either enable The Donald, or cripple The Beeste.
So Trump supporters, which one is it? You and your candidate spend time and effort trashing GOP congressional and senatorial candidates... Makes me wonder if you are actually on the other side.
That said, Now is the time to start setting up for Primaries next cycle. Seek out, find and vet the conservatives to do to these people what was done to Cantor in safe GOP seats.
#6
Rumors abound that elements (the Trumps for one, a combination involving talk radio leaders and plutocrats) smell blood in the water, and that Fox can be had by a new truly conservative TV venue. At play is Judge Jenine, who the rebels would like to entice from Fox but who the Murdochs see as a viable candidate to replace Kelly.
#7
...had a heated exchange over accusations Trump was a "sexual predator."
I must admit, on a couple of levels, I feel a bit queasy sticking up for a news bimbo. But contrary to Breitbart's (or Gingrich) assertion Kelly didn't accuse Trump of anything. She asked a question by beginning "If Trump...". First, regardless of the merit of the allegations, it is a legitimate line of questioning. Second, if, big if, said allegations proved true the label of "predator" would be legally accurate. Finally , I congratulate Mark Lavine on his continued career as an obnoxious gadfly.
#8
Used to watch her, but she's become all about Megyn, or as Ace at AOSHQ calls her Me-Again
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/28/2016 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
At least we still have Maria Bartiromo.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/28/2016 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yes, maria!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/28/2016 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Levin gets all indignant about this as well he should. He gets angry as he always does. I take issue with only one of his conclusions and that is when he says we learn nothing from the interview with Gingrich. I think we learn quite a lot about Megyn Kelly and that is exactly as Levin himself says: She is not a journalist.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/28/2016 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Depot Guy - must disagree. She pulled the old "So, when did you stop beating your wife ploy". Old and tired. Gingrich was right to push back as hard as he did. She's a hack.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/28/2016 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#15
She pulled the old "So, when did you stop beating your wife ploy."
Mmmm...not exactly. Her question was more of the rhetorical type. In the context of whether her reporting was newsworthy, she asked "If Trump was..." and then answered "it would be a big story."
I've never watched her enough to say whether she's a "hack" or not. But outfits, such as Breitbart, that deceptively portray her comment as an "accusation " are certainly worthy of that moniker. And that apparently now includes Lavine.
#17
I thought this was funny.
https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14732260_885014418266132_9219399784164389480_n.jpg?oh=fdd6c101c08f4f5dd1b6e4d98c8212b9&oe=5898791E
These are four military myths according to US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley:
Myth 1: Wars of the future will be short. Our founding fathers did not intend to fight a six-year war for independence, nor did President Lincoln envision the length and cost of the American Civil War. World War I was supposed to last six weeks. In our contemporary setting, our national leaders never envisioned a war in Iraq or Afghanistan that spanned more than 15 years. Although there have been some short wars in history, most have taken much longer than originally thought. We cannot assume wars of the future will be short.
Myth 2: Wars can be won from a great distance using advanced technology. It is seductive to think that our precision stand-off munitions can alone win a war. Wars are a function of politics, politics is about people and people live on the ground. To impose political will by war, ultimately, it must be done on the ground. [Which calls to mind what military historian T. R. Fehrenbach wrote in This Kind of War, that, "you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life--but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud."]
Myth 3: Special operations forces can do it all. Our special forces are the best in the world, but their mission is narrow and they are not designed, trained, manned, nor equipped to win wars between nation states. No one service or group can. Nations win wars and it takes the full joint force to do so.
Myth 4: Armies are easy to regenerate. Enlist a few Soldiers, train a few leaders and you have a unit ready to fight so the myth narrative goes. Leaders take years to develop the competencies and skills our Army needs in combat. A platoon sergeant requires 15 years of training and experience to be effective. A battalion commander may take 17 years. As a unit, they must also execute tasks across a range of missions, and train on those tasks with great repetition to build the synergy and cohesion needed to be the best Army in the world. Competent armies are not at all easy to generate; it takes considerable time.
Worth pondering. I think these numbers are, just a bit, exaggerated
#1
Myth #1 https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars Look at the Post Cold War era, some are short and some are long.
Myth #2, I tend to agree
Myth #3, whether the US special forces is the best can be debated but there are not enough for most conflicts. Actually an interesting point here is that in Yom Kippur War, Israel government refused to use its special forces in battle because they were considered to be to valuable. Later they relented when the special forces demanded they be given a part.
Myth #4, no way a platoon sergeant total service is generally 7 to 15 years.
#2
Myth #3: The classic SF mission is one of 'force multiplier,' a highly skilled element which could train and equipment indigenous infantry forces to accomplish the mission. Their current employment in Mosul, Iraq could be said to be a good example (Foreign Internal Defense).
Do it all? No, but that has not stopped the current administration from subverting former SF missions and dedicating SF to the (pre-Mosel) Klingon drone war against ISIS leaders.
The fight currently ongoing near Mosel proves that winning involves the employment of large numbers of infantry to seize and hold key terrain. Simply taking out key leaders will not get the job done.
Special forces of various sorts are what the mathematicians call necessary but not sufficient. There is no doubt of the force multiplication power of excellent snipers or a Navy SEAL team. Ground attack aircraft like the A-10 make the infantry more capable of doing their job. But you can't win a war with only those elite forces.
This is really about career politicians and bureaucrats trying to find some way to use money that should be spent on defense on other things. The left does not want to have the proper kind of military because that takes resources away from their "bribe people with welfare and easy, stress-free, do nothing jobs in exchange for votes" program.
In the Cold War period, the left in Euroland was content to let the American taxpayer pay the real cost of defending their countries, thereby diverting tax revenues to "free" transportation, education, and health care programs. Worked for the politicians, worked for the people who got a standard of living well beyond what they would have had if they were honest about the true cost of fighting off the Soviet empire. Without the U.S. as their sugar daddy, no socialized healthcare, no universal college education, no cheap Eurail, etc.
The problem now is that the American left is trying to do the same thing, but there isn't any sugar daddy to fund it all and fight some sort of battle against radical Islam. This results in the huge actual government debt and the unfundable public retirement liabilities. While the Gulf War costs are a part of both of those, they are way less than half, despite DNC talking points.
Unless and until we can shrink the size of the nonmilitary public employee juggernaut to pre-Great Society levels, our debt will increase, our private sector economy will continue to decline, and we will not be able to mount an authentic defense against external threats. Unfortunately, much our population has become a bunch of postmodern, pathologically risk-averse, comfort seeking lotus eaters who value their magic government income stream more than the businesses, liberties, and lives of their private sector neighbors. It might be possible to tamp them and their hired mercenaries in the Democratic party down at some point, but right now it isn't looking too good. I think a lesson already learned by other nations the hard way is going to be learned the hard way once more, within a generation or two.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/28/2016 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A platoon sergeant requires 15 years of training and experience to be effective. A battalion commander may take 17 years.
Sort of missed out on WWII, didn't he. A lot of those were made in less than 4 years. It's called 'adapt or perish'. Very bloody, very high body count. Not the most optimal method if you're concern about your own body count, but none the less demonstratively valid.
#5
How many of the Youth in the US are "snowflakes" being prepared for life in the Univ. 'Safe zones"?
How many have purple hair and an earring or two and are into body piercing ? How many families produce babies and raise actual families among the young people? How many live in their parent's basements and are Obese and entitled?
How many can pass the O Course or do a 15 mile hike in full gear? And if you do find a few men who will take it upon themselves to defend the rest will they be abandoned by the Secretary of State and left to die by civilians with an Agenda?
And what dos it matter anyway? Butt boys and Democrats, and free stuff..
#6
I think Myth 1 is true. Wars will tend to be short (at least if politicians have any brains) because the country does not have the temperament for a long conflict, even a vital one, and the media will turn that temperament against the war as soon as a Republican is in power.
#7
Myth 1 - A couple of rough comments: 1) I disagree that our military leaders did not envision Afghanistan lasting longer than 15 years - they were talking 20 years plus in 2002. Our political leaders were/remain clueless and don't even talk Afghanistan any longer because their communities have little skin in the game. 2) Thus, wars would be shorter if the draft was in effect. Myth 3 - While fighting the insurgencies in AF and IQ, SOF became the offensive arm of our military - kill/capture missions by the dozen every night - target generation - back out again. The BCTs drew mostly defensive mission sets and their offensive mindset atrophied - and our "manning, training, and equipping" focused on fighting a defensive FOB based war. Defensive systems (MRAPs) by the thousands, sucked up the money for replacing the M1s and Bradleys with whatever the Future Combat Systems should look like - something that win a war rather than just survive. Myth 4 - 15-17 years is ridiculous. Seven years is the conventional wisdom in the line units to produce an effective leader and this time can be reduced if you recruit a more mature soldier (one with life experience - mid 20s). 18 year olds, unless they played a lot of high school ball and learned those disciplines, are hard to craft into leaders quickly, well, because they are 18 and do what 18 year olds do.
#8
P2K, a lot of those were made because of the ones who survived WWI. The experience from the Spanish-American war. The experience from the Civil War. The experience from the Mexican War. The experience from, hell, it is a built culture.
Crap, anyone who played Total War or Wargame knows this. But I guess everything old is new again.
#9
Tennessee, Bush tried to prepare people for the long war, he just assumed he's have the cooperation of the Democrats throughout. Unfortunately cooperation turned to bloody knives rather quickly.
#10
There is "war fighting" and there is "nation building" - and we tend to try to use the same people for both tasks, and that approach is nuts..
If you've not seen Thomas Burnett's take on the issue, here it is - 23 minutes well-spent: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace#t-1405062
#1
...I still think (and some close friends with connections to the PI feel the same way) that the Philippine military may step in to get Duterte's attention before long.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/28/2016 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is looking more and more as if Duterte simply cut a deal with China. Probably gave up all claim to the Sprately Islands in exchange for a large check.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Stars & Stripes]
