"Delay Inauguration? No need and no thank you."

 I am using my kinda smart phone to post this.

I shamelessly snagged it from "Front Page

 Mag"   I am away from home but will return shortly.

I agree with the author, I flat out don't trust the government to pull some shady crap to delay the inauguration of the 47th President of the United States. 

From where have the drones come? What is their purpose? Is it possible the U.S. Government would lie to the American people? The answer to the first two questions is that we in the public cannot be sure, nor can Congress. The answer to the third is an unqualified “Yes!”

Whether they come from another country like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea or somewhere else is a possibility. Much more likely, though, they are U.S. government drones searching desperately for something. There has been vast speculation on what that might be. We are told that there is radioactive material missing but the Biden administration does not indicate that the two occurrences are linked.

Now citizens are asking whether the Biden administration would be willing to use a national emergency, whether contrived or authentic, arising out of these or other circumstances, to declare martial law and refuse to swear in the new President on January 20 as constitutionally required.

We have seen during the last sixteen years that Democrat leaders have quite often accused Republicans of engaging in exactly the sort of questionable or illegal conduct that the Democrats were in fact guilty of themselves. The whole Trump-Russia hoax, we eventually learned, was fabricated by a British former spy in collusion with, among others, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ultimately, Christopher Steele admitted that the people who provided the fabricated story for the dossier may well have been working for Putin.

President Trump was even charged by the Democrats through impeachment with using his official position to demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine. As it turns out, President Trump did not commit this offense, but Vice President Biden is on video bragging about his doing that very thing.

True to form, Democrats are now accusing President-elect Trump of intending to weaponize the federal government because that is what they did. They have accused him of intending to weaponize the IRS and our Intelligence agencies because they have already misused federal resources in this way. The psychological term is “projecting.”

In 2020, Democrats accused President Trump of intending to declare martial law in an attempt to keep himself in office beyond January 20. He did not so intend. He wanted to have a fair counting of the votes and electors. Yet, he was charged with felonies for wanting to obtain a fair and open counting. President Trump’s supporters followed the process that Senator John F. Kennedy did in 1960 in pursuing an alternate set of electors from Hawaii who would vote for him. However, in that case, Nixon conceded and it was not necessary to fight over the Hawaiian electors.

In 2000, Senator Al Gore was in the process of pursuing an alternative set of electors when the Supreme Court decision came down and it became a moot point. In neither 1960 nor 2000, did Republicans dream of charging Senator Kennedy or Senator Gore with any type of felony. But Democrats certainly did when it came to President Trump in 2021.

Since it is quite clear that some Democrat officeholders are willing to do exactly what they falsely claim Republicans have done or do, we need to take seriously their prior allegations of Republicans’ willingness to delay inaugurating a newly-elected President. If these accusations turn out to be another instance of Democrats projecting their own malicious intentions, we must nip it in the bud before it happens.

Here is yet another instance in which history may be instructive.

On December 6, 1876, electors cast their ballots, but neither Presidential candidate received the required number to win. “Conflicting sets of electoral votes were returned from Florida, Louisiana, Oregon and South Carolina…[On 01/29/1877] An Act, signed by President Grant, creates a Commission to resolve the contested electoral votes. The commission consists of five members from each house plus five Supreme Court justices. The commission would decide contested electoral votes by a majority vote of the Commission. [On 03/02/1877] Congressional Commission awards disputed electoral votes to Hayes…”[1]

The result was that Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President. There were significant concerns that there might be riots or threats that would prevent Hayes from being inaugurated. The appointed day for the inauguration was to be on Monday, March 5, 1877, but to be certain that the newly elected President would take office timely in case violence prevented the public inauguration, President Hayes was secretly sworn in on Saturday, March 3rd, in the White House, by the Supreme Court Chief Justice. It turned out that the fears were unfounded and the public Inauguration went as planned.

Even though the dates have been changed by the 20th Amendment to the Constitution in 1933 and the outgoing President’s term expires at noon on January 20, there is absolutely nothing that prevents the newly elected President from being sworn in privately by the Supreme Court Chief Justice. As President John Adams established in 1801 when he left town before Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, the outgoing President need not even be present for the transition of power. President Trump knew that when he left before Biden’s inauguration in 2021.

As President Biden established when he finished taking the oath of office at 11:48am on January 20th, 2021, subsequent to the 20th Amendment, it is still permissible to be sworn in earlier than noon on January 20th. If that is done, the new President simply takes over officially at noon.

Most Americans are well aware that the world has become a powder keg, and the United States is much worse off than it was four years ago. The last thing we need is for the Biden administration to hang around beyond noon on January 20th. Even if the D.C. leadership and the Biden administration have provoked the city and nation into turmoil, all we need is for President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance to quietly meet the Chief Justice in an undisclosed location and be sworn in. President Trump will then have full authority to do what is necessary to bring about law, order, and a little peace beginning at noon on January 20th

Flight Humor on an Incident Report.

 

I get reports from aviation incidents in in the commercial world and this one crossed my email and I got a chuckle out of it so I shamelessly "ripped it off".

Incident Facts

Date of incident
Dec 13, 2024

Classification
Incident

Airline
KLM

Flight number
KL-685

Departure
Amsterdam, Netherlands

Destination
Mexico City, Mexico

Aircraft Registration
PH-BHA

Aircraft Type
Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner

ICAO Type Designator
B789

A KLM Boeing 787-9, registration PH-BHA performing flight KL-685 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Mexico City (Mexico) with 259 people and about 100 pigs in the cargo hold, was enroute at FL350 over the Atlantic Ocean about 70nm north of Bermuda (Bermuda) when the crew decided to divert to Bermuda reporting "obnoxious smell from cargo coming from pigs probably, which may have something to do with the oxygen environment in the cockpit" which was why they were diverting, it was not a Mayday, not even a PAN and no emergency services were needed on landing. However, the pigs most likely needed to be unloaded. The aircraft landed safely on Bermuda's runway 12 about 45 minutes later.

The aircraft remained on the ground in Bermuda for about 30.5 hours before continuing the flight to Mexico City.

Bermuda's government stated that they are committed to care for all visitors, whether they walk on two legs or trot on four. While the passengers and crew were taken to hotels, the pigs were taken to a secure location at the island during their impromptu holiday stayover.

"The Guns of the TET Offensive"

 The "TET" offensive was a truce agreed to by all sides and the communist broke the truce and attacked all the cities in the south of Vietnam hoping to cripple or better off knock the South Vietnamese out of the War, they failed and virtually wiped the "Viet Cong" out as a fighting force and the North Vietnamese took over all the fighting in the south, I think this was the intent all along.

This is my first post in a while, I have been super busy with "Meatspace", I will try to 'splain in a day or three, lol.  

   I shamelessly clipped this from "American Riflemen".

Images courtesy of author.

On Jan. 30, 1968, forces of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese People’s Army launched a series of attacks throughout South Vietnam. The well-coordinated offensive coincided with the Tết holiday, the Vietnamese celebration of the New Year. [W]e remember the Vietnam battles of early 1968 as the “Tet Offensive,” an event that many have described as a turning point in America’s involvement in Vietnam.  


Sniper team of the 5^th Marine Regiment at work during January 1968. The Winchester Model 70 rifle proved highly effective in the hands of USMC marksmen.


The 1^st Marine Division set up this identification photo of a typical Viet Cong guerilla armed with a Chinese Type 56 rifle (copy of the Soviet AK-47). Simple and reliable, the AK-47 and its many variants have proven to be a perfect weapon for insurgents.

During the offensive, a force of more than 80,000 Viet Cong guerillas and NVA regulars attacked more than a hundred communities throughout South Vietnam, including 36 of the 44 provincial capitals. Saigon, the southern capital, was heavily hit.   


The Berretta M12 9 mm SMG fired its first shots in anger during the defense of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the opening stages of the Tet offensive. This photo shows men of the U.S. ambassador’s security detail, in the days following the initial VC attacks. M16 rifles and an M1 Carbine can be seen in the background.


A Marine cuts loose with the 23-lb. M60 machine gun while his assistant keeps the disintegrating link ammo belt loading smoothly.

The initial attacks included an assault on the U.S. Embassy in Saigon by 20 Viet Cong sappers, which killed five American troops and prompted significant coverage by American news reporters—far out of proportion with the actual importance of the embassy battle. The entire VC assault force was annihilated on the embassy grounds within a few hours. Many news reports remained focused on the attack on the building symbolizing America’s presence in South Vietnam.


The M16 was still relatively new to the Marine Corps at the beginning of 1968. This Leatherneck uses his with a bipod during the battle for Hue in February 1968.


Brothers in Arms: Marines equipped with M14 and M16 rifles engage Viet Cong snipers during the battle for Hue, Feb. 1968.


The M79 40 mm Grenade launcher, sometimes called “Thumper” by U.S. troops. Seen here as used by a grenadier of the 1^st Marine Division in the battle for Hue, March 1968.


A Marine M60 gunner during the house-to-house fighting in Hue City during February 1968.

Communist forces occupied much of the ancient city of Huế. Relatively close to the DMZ, Hue was strangely unprepared for the assault. Four U.S. Army battalions, three weakened USMC battalions, and eleven ARVN battalions fought hard for more than a month to drive the enemy out. In the end, Huế was almost completely destroyed, and thousands of its residents were massacred in brutal reprisals by the communists. The troops from the North showed their true selves at Huế.


A G.I. of the 12^th Aviation Battalion engages the enemy with his M14 rifle at Long Binh, Feb. 1, 1968. In early 1968, the M14 could be found in certain Army units and was still common in the Marine Corps.


A soldier of the Royal Australian Regiment, equipped with a semi-automatic L1A1 rifle (chambered in 7.62x51 mm NATO) at Bien Hoa during February 1968. The L1A1 “SLR” was standard equipment for the Australian infantryman in Vietnam, and well-liked for its reliability and stopping-power.

Throughout South Vietnam, the fighting was intense from January to June of 1968. At the U.S. combat base at Khe Sahn, in northwestern Quảng Trị Province, two regiments of Marines were surrounded and besieged by three divisions of the North Vietnamese Army. From Jan. 21 until April 6, the Marines held out against relentless NVA attacks. Continuous air strikes and more than 150,000 artillery rounds helped keep the attackers at bay, but ultimately it was the Leathernecks’ resolve that kept Khe Sahn in American hands.


Tet Phase II: A G.I. of the 9^th Infantry Division targets VC snipers in the outskirts of Saigon during the second round of attacks in May 1968. The rifleman carries extra ammo belts for his squad’s M60 machine gun.


Marines suppress VC positions during Operation Napoleon Saline during early March 1968.

Despite the initial surprise and limited gains, Tet proved to be a tactical disaster for communist forces, who suffered more than 100,000 casualties through all three phases of the offensive. The Viet Cong were essentially eliminated as a fighting force, and no popular uprising was generated in South Vietnam. The NVA suffered heavily and its aggressiveness was blunted as their leaders realized they lacked the resources to sustain such attacks in the face of American firepower.


A “tunnel rat” descends into a Viet Cong tunnel. Some tunnel experts considered the powerful .45-cal. M1911 to be “too much gun” in the tight confines in the battle below ground.

The Chinese Type 50, a copy of the Soviet PPSh-41 submachine gun, chambered in 7.62×25 mm Tokarev. Its cyclic rate is high, normally in excess of 1,000 rpm. The Type 50 only accepts 35-round box magazines. Bottom: K-50M, a North Vietnamese design that shortened and lightened the PPSh-41/Type 50 design, adding a pistol grip and a retractable wire stock. Some of these SMGs were still in service with the Viet Cong during the Tet offensive.  

Despite these battlefield setbacks, Tet became an important strategic victory for North Vietnam. At home, America’s commitment to Vietnam began to wane. Politicians waffled. Anti-war protests grew larger, and the news media regularly stoked the fires of discontent.   

 
Defensive fire: Air Force security troops manning a Browning .50 cal. M2 machine gun, set up for airbase defense.


A Marine adjusts his M60 “Pig” mounted on a M122 tripod inside a sandbag bunker.

On Feb. 27, 1968, CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite broadcasted the following in a special report on Vietnam: “To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.”


Uncle Ho: Viet Cong guerilla posing with an SKS carbine (or the Chinese Type 56 semi-automatic carbine copy). The SKS provided another excellent rifle for VC and NVA troops.


An ARVN trooper guards a typical VC weapons cache—featuring various AK-47s, M16 rifles, the venerable M1 Garand, and even an antique black-powder cannon.

After Tet, President Johnson watched his approval rating fall from 63 to 47 percent. Americans grew distrustful of the Pentagon’s Vietnam reports and criticism of U.S. military leaders created a much-discussed “credibility gap.”


A G.I. of the 9^th Infantry Division shows off captured VC weapons early in the Tet offensive at Long Binh. In his right hand is the AK-47, and in his left the RPD squad automatic with its distinctive “club foot” stock. The RPD was the standard light machine gun of most VC units. Chambered in 7.62x39 mm, it fires full-auto only (at about 750 rounds per minute) using a non-disintegrating 100-round belt in a drum container.


Captured VC support weapons: (left) the RPG-7, and (right) the RPD light machine gun. The RPG gave VC units an easily portable rocket launcher that provided potent anti-tank capability and also handy “artillery piece” for use against buildings and fortified positions.


Tet Phase II: G.I.s of the 9^th Infantry Division display a Viet Cong flag captured in the Saigon suburbs as Tet’s bloody second phase ends in late May 1968.

None of this did anything to help American troops in Vietnam who, regardless of inaccurate news reports and flinching politicians, never failed to overcome the enemy on, over and below his own turf. Advanced American firepower, coupled with traditional G.I. ingenuity and courage held the line during the Tet Offensive, and turned back the largest communist attack of that long and bitter war.

"Fear and Loathing in the Leviathan"

 

This ties in with my last post I did a week ago?  I wanted to get a post earlier, but "Meatspace" has been busy, between work, my son having  a medical condition that will require medical treatment over several months and with him being in his early 20's was a real shock.  I will 'splain in more detail when more time has passed so that has tied me up quite a bit.  I pulled this off "Bongino Reports"

     I totally agree with this panel, we have to clean out the rot or for first time we go against the Chinese, we will get our asses handed to us and with the speed of modern warfare, we don't have time to go through a spate of generals to find one that will fight and lead.

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Heh.

This tickles me to death.

I've written about Gen Mark Milley a million times. He is only the biggest, ugliest, most obvious public face of what's wrong with our military and its senior "leadership."

Former Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen David Berger, wrote a piece for Proceedings two years ago that identified his candidates as the main reasons in public perception why military recruiting was in the toilet and I included it in that post. 

It is still relevant today.

Gen Berger correctly believed that most of the blame could be laid at the feet of military officers, specifically senior leadership. 

Public Trust and Confidence
Of all the factors affecting young Americans’ propensity to serve, the most alarming is the steady decline of public trust and confidence in the military. According to Gallup’s most recent Honesty and Ethics Survey, Americans’ confidence in military officers has declined to its lowest level since the survey began in 2001. Further, in just the past five years, ten percent fewer Americans believe military officers possess “high ethics.”2Why? Based on my observations and interactions with a broad swath of citizens, I believe there are several reasons, including:

• The character of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

• A growing perception of the politicization of the military and senior military leaders

• Reports of widespread sexual harassment and assault in the ranks

• A series of preventable mishaps across all the services that suggest a measure of professional incompetence

• Scandals and examples of poor leadership across the joint force

• A perception that the skills developed through military service are less relevant to private sector success than in the past

Generals like Berger (author of the highly controversial Force Design 2030, essentially a redesign of the entire USMC mission) and the perniciously woke Milley are only two names in a general officer cast of hundreds who have systematically moved our once feared and lethal American military from a war-fighting posture to a corporate structure.

Our current commandant, Gen Smith, is as guilty of woke thinking as any Air Force officer. Not only is he holding fast to the reviled Force Design 2030 concept, but he is also adding little flourishes where none need to be.

Marines will no longer buckle down to learn the list of the service’s leadership traits, as an “E” for empathy was added at the end of the famous phrase used to commit them to memory.

The Marine Corps mnemonic JJ DID TIE BUCKLE signifying the 14 characteristics of an ideal leader is now JJ DID TIE BUCKLEE following the Corps’ decision to add a 15th trait.

Announced in mid-August, the change was published in two Marine Corps materials, Sustaining the Transformation and Leading Marines.

The addition of empathy as a leadership trait for the Corps was originally reported by Task & Purpose.

It joins justice, judgment, dependability, initiative, decisiveness, tact, integrity, enthusiasm, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty and endurance.

I won't play favorites when it comes to this.

The Navy, besides drag queens in their recruiting videos and having petty officers do official educational spots in order to help their fellow sailors remember proper pronoun usage for what whoever next to them identifies as (Lord, that was excruciating), is also worried about racial harmony. The Chief of Naval Operations - an admiral - made sure instructional material suitable for learning how to curb such behavior was added to his recommended reading list.

...The Biden administration’s Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, decided last year to add Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist—one of the leading sourcebooks on critical race theory—to his list of recommended readings. To give an idea of how radical Kendi’s book is, one of its famous (or infamous) arguments is that “Capitalism is essentially racist,” and that “to truly be antiracist, you also have to be truly anticapitalist.” 

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who has his own leadership issues and is himself a retired Army general officer (Hello), called military-wide stand-downs to search for bogeymen that did not exist.

...Last year, Secretary Austin alarmingly called for a one-day military-wide stand-down to address the so-called problem of “extremism” in the ranks, despite the fact that there has been no evidence presented—including in testimony by senior officials—that there is a problem of extremism in the military. Commanding officers were required to discuss the topic using a PowerPoint presentation that included Ted Talks asking the question, “What is up with us white people?”

The American public has had enough. The first clue came when the Secretary of the Army's reviled "warrior caste," which makes up the bulk of any recruiting class in most of the armed services, simply stopped showing up to raise their right hands to enlist.

Panic set in, but instead of pivoting to appreciating the tradition of service these families have going back generations - and yes, they are overwhelmingly middle-class whites - the administration doubled down on DEI approaches and woke ploys to attract the diverse troops they wanted (and whom they actually already had), but in the new and improved 72 gender categories that they could fly rainbow flags over.

Traditional patriotic Hispanic, white, black, and other families with a history of service were diverse, yes, but the cool factor was sadly lacking.

Needless to say, recruiting tanked.

The Marine Corps made their numbers this year by, like, 1.

What happened next was November 6th and a belief that President Trump and whoever his Defense Secretary turned out to be would go in with a firehose to wash the woke stench from the five-sided building and return it to its proper military bearing. This is going to happen and not a minute too soon.

They will be scrutinizing general officers for performance and booting those who do not meet the parameters.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Trump transition team is drafting an executive order to “create a board to purge general officers.” Such a board, the article’s subhead warned, “could upend military review process and raise concerns about politicization of military.”

 The Pentagon denizens are shaking in their boots and insisting it will be a catastrophe.

I think they protest too much.

While Pentagon officials are not willing to publicly weigh in on the emerging plans by President-elect Donald Trump to purge the military's ranks of many top officers, the Defense Department's spokeswoman says that removing a slew of admirals and generals would have serious impacts on missions and readiness.

"I'm not going to speak for the incoming administration or speak to any hypotheticals on what they will and won't do," Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters Thursday.

However, Singh did say that the idea of a sudden departure of multiple top leaders was something that the Pentagon already faced last year, when Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., held up hundreds of military promotions

It should work out great. It certainly did for Gen Marshall when he did the same thing - and do not let them try to tell you a review board is a Trumpian unprecedented step in history.

...Perhaps the most relevant example here is that of General George C. Marshall and his “plucking” committee. This was the informal name given to a panel, not dissimilar to the one described in today’s Wall Street Journal, that Marshall established in 1940 to reform and modernize the U.S. Army leadership in preparation for entry into World War II. The committee aimed to replace ineffective or outdated senior officers with younger, more dynamic leaders better suited to the quickly evolving demands of modern warfare.

The committee, established by Marshall, identified and “plucked” over 600 senior officers they deemed unfit or too old for command in wartime. Rather than basing their decisions on seniority, the committee focused on competence, leadership ability, and physical fitness. This process allowed Marshall to infuse the Army’s upper ranks with officers who could handle the pace and rigor of large-scale-maneuver warfare. While Marshall was blasted on the floor of Congress and in the press for allegedly gutting U.S. national security, the men who ascended key Army billets are now legend: Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, and Lightning Joe Collins, to name but a few. It was successful, but not permanent.

Sometimes, it's necessary.

Veterans Day 2024

  I will blog my opinions tomorrow about the elections....After Veterans Day.....Can't do that today on this day.....Wouldn't be right.

This day was created originally as "Armistice Day" after the "War to end All Wars" and people wanted to honor the veterans from that conflict.  The Day was set as 11/11/11/11th.  Or November which is the 11 month, the 11 day, the 11th hour and the 11th minute.  The day was called "Armistice Day" until after WWII, it then was called "Veterans Day."

There are 3 holidays that honor the United States Armed forces,
  We have Armed Forces Day that honors those that are serving
  We have Memorial Day that honors those that died in service or those of us that crossed over to Valhalla or Fiddlers Green.

 And Veterans Day to me traces its lineage to those of us that stood watch on the borders of our civilization since the days of the Romans standing watch on the Danube to guard the frontier so those of our people could sleep secure at night knowing that they were safe from the bad people.  Veterans like me and those like me presented a blank check to Uncle Sam to write in any amount including our lives if necessary.  We mustered out but we know many of us that didn't make it to this stage and that is where Memorial Day comes in and Veterans day honors those of us that did make it and this day honors us and those like us.  It is a unique category because the veterans in our society is a small segment like a warrior class and Veterans tend to come from family traditions, meaning that it is a father son, uncle cousins nieces, Aunts, moms kinda thing.  This Day humbles me to a great degree because of what it means and I will honor those of us that crossed beyond.  Our job as Veterans is to ensure that the traditions are not forgotten and passed on to the next generations.

"Wokeness is responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis"

 I have a lot of "drama" going on "Meatspace", I will explain later when I have time to 'splain.  Also I am very happy with the election and I will post in a day or two on that.

I saw this on "American Spectator", and I totally agree with it.  Until recently Military service was a family affair, but now a lot of veterans are telling their kids and others, "don't bother", for several reasons.  Back when I joined, we knew that we were giving uncle Sam a blank check that he can cash up to the full amount which is our life, and we trusted our leadership not to squander "us" in bullcrap.  I trusted my Presidents, Reagan and Bush to be judicious and they were, although I blame ""Foggy Bottom for "Beirut Bombing" and the restrictive rules of engagement, and that won't be the first time that happened, it happened again in Somalia in 93 and during Obungler's time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If our nation’s top military and civilian leaders want to understand why military recruiting in the all-volunteer force is at an all-time low, they need only look in the mirror. Few young people want to be like them. The sight of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley waddling out into the political arena this election season is unlikely to convince many teenagers to join up.

In an insightful piece in the Wall Street Journal, Owen West and Kevin Wallsten explain how incompetent top-level leadership and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts are chasing away potential recruits, as well as the military’s historically best recruiters — veterans who have encouraged their kids and grandkids to follow in their footsteps. The decline of this kind of encouragement from senior veterans almost exactly parallels the decline in recruitment rates. Historically, 80 percent of recruits had a relative who had served. Today, 80 percent of veterans say they would not recommend military service under the present circumstances. This is not a coincidence.

The Biden administration and its senior civilian and military leaders are in denial. They blame poor education, increasing juvenile drug abuse, and the sedentary lifestyle of the smartphone generation for reducing the pool of eligible recruits. The reality is that there are still plenty of high school athletes, young hunters, and farm kids out there who would otherwise join. Their parents and grandparents — I’m one of them — are either actively discouraging or just not encouraging them to enlist. Worse, the young people themselves see two decades of military failure culminating in the disgraceful rout in Kabul. They wonder if they want to be led by senior officers who spent 20 years fighting a war and not adapting their strategy to bring it to a successful conclusion. 

Joe Biden holds that diversity is essential to success on the battlefield. That is not supported by military history. The army of the Persian Empire under Darius and Xerxes was the most incredibly diverse in history, but was trounced on the battlefield by homogenous Greek armies in two decisive battles. The Persian army was made up of drafted contingents from every nation in the empire — many of whom hated each other more than they hated the Greeks. Over a century later, Alexander the Great conquered the empire with an equally homogenous professional army. Likewise, the very diverse Austro-Hungarian army was a drag on its allies throughout World War I.

In addition, DEI initiatives have made military promotions a joke. Who wants to join a military where you are likely to be passed over because a man wearing a dress, or someone less qualified but of a different ethnicity, will get promoted over you because they come from an underserved minority? In 2022, the Air Force mandated quotas based on race for officer promotions.

But the administration’s policies have also eroded military service culture. Even the Marine Corps, once considered one of the world’s elite assault forces, has adopted a passive defensive mentality that is technology dependent. The Marines are making their recruiting quotas, barely, because their recruitment goals have gotten a lot smaller under the leadership of the Biden administration and two incompetent commandants. Both have actively encouraged the downsizing. (READ MORE: The Marine Corps Has Gone Off the Rails)

The Biden administration has been laser focused on DEI at the expense of military readiness. If Kamala Harris becomes president, we can expect her administration to double down on DEI; she is, after all, the ultimate poster child for the movement. Unlike Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, she has never earned her national security chops. Potential recruits will likely not be unaware of the fact that the Biden administration has overseen an unbroken series of military and foreign policy disasters.

I desperately want to support the armed services, but I cannot, in good conscience, encourage any young man or woman to serve under the likes of Kamala Harris and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. 

Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who served as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and as a civilian advisor in Iran and Afghanistan

"What are the Potential Drawbacks of eliminating the Electoral College and implementing a direct democracy for presidential elections."

 I got this question and Answer of "Quora" and it was pretty good I thought.  

A guy named "Jerry Bennett" provided the answer, so he got the props.

Still very busy at work and other things going on, once I get some more information, I will put it on here.

As they say, a picture can be worth a thousand words.

The basic rationale behind the Constitution's requirement that states elect presidents rather than the popular vote was that the framers of the Constitution favored a federation of states rather than a national ‘kingdom’ style of government. State’s rights were a guiding principle. In addition, at the time the Constitution was ratified, holding a popular vote in a timely manner was problematic (think Pony Express). So states were given the choice of how to present ‘electors’ to the election assembly (called the Electoral College) that would, in turn, cast two votes, one each for President and Vice President (no, there is no constitutional requirement that the president and vice president come from the same political party).

In our first 80 years as a nation, most state legislators, governors, and state influencers chose who the electors would be and who they would cast votes for. The number of electoral votes allowed from each state was governed by the number of state representatives in Congress (two senators + House Representatives).

This persisted until the late 1800s by which time most states adopted a ‘popular vote’ system within the state to determine the candidate the state electors would present to the college.

Tallying the popular vote within the entire country has always been a false exercise. The popular vote is only relevant within the state in which it is cast. The news media (press) invented a national popular vote and national polls—neither of which are germane to the presidential election.

In recent times, the Electoral College has been seen as a hedge against big city control of national political will. As can be seen, by the map graphic above, large US cities (predominantly Democratic in the last century) would likely control the administrative office of the federal government (Presidency) if not held in check by the Electoral process.

To go from a Federation of States to a Popular Democracy would mean the elimination of state sovereignty to some extent and a constitutional amendment that no Republican state would ratify. No Democrat has ever won the Presidency without also winning the popular vote. In contrast, Republican presidents lost the popular vote in four separate elections where they won the Presidency.

"A Crisis of Competence"

 

This was supposed to post almost a week ago, I had it in draft form, but I had a lot of stuff going on in "meatspace" and I got squirreled.

   I still think that people should have been cashiered for for that debacle that is called the "Afghanistan Withdrawal".   Back in the old days, the senior generals of the American Military would have resigned, the long gray line would have demanded it, going back in time thundering "Duty Honor Country"   I saw this somewhere and forgot where I clipped it.

Last month we marked the third anniversary of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan—a poorly planned and executed retreat that capped a two decade-long policy that cost some two and a half thousand American lives, over twenty thousand American servicemen and women wounded, and an estimated $1 to $2 trillion—or between $150 million to $300 million a day for the duration of the conflict.[i]  Yet Afghanistan is but one example of the profligate expenditure of American blood and treasure post-Cold War—the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria all failed to achieve their stated strategic objectives and cost the nation dearly.  The total price tag for the Global War on Terror post 9/11 is estimated to stand at up to $8 trillion.[ii]  The accuracy of such estimates is subject to debate, but in hindsight none of the overall goals that had been originally declared to justify the effort were achieved, nor did much of the bespoke “nation-building” or “democracy-building” we were promised come to pass.   And so, during the current election season, when debates about different strategies going forward oscillate between the “China first” and “pivot to Asia” on the one hand, and business as usual of American primacy—AKA hegemony—compete for the public’s ear, it is time we took stock of what happened during those three decades, and ensure we chart a different course going forward, one that no longer allows for the unsustainable profligacy in expending American blood and treasure.The first step to recovery is to recognize that one has a problem, and in the case of the United States foreign policy elite we seem no longer able to craft a workable strategy, operationalize and execute it to reach the proclaimed objectives. We need to ask ourselves a simple question: Why has the United States been routinely unable to win wars over the past three decades (the Desert Storm battle to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait a notable exception)—not in the sense of breaking the adversary’s military and destroying its government, but when it comes to achieving the strategic objectives we set out to accomplish?  Is it that we no longer have the resources to implement what we set out to do? Or perhaps it is that what increasingly passes for strategy is more reminiscent of a policy conversation in a self-contained echo chamber, rather than being grounded in the realities of the Darwinian ecosystem we call international relations?

 I submit that it is the latter, and here is why.The three post-Cold War decades were defined by a fundamental misreading of what the implosion of the Soviet empire meant, what caused it, and how long this strategic pause would endure. The Washington consensus was wrong that there was anything final or decisive about the decomposition of the Warsaw Pact, that Russia would somehow recognize that its path to empire had run its course, and that it would “accept its seat at the table” that we generously – so we thought – offered.  In reality, the end of the Cold War was more an end in the battle fought for the domination of the Eurasian landmass after 1945, but it was no more a period of peace than the breather between the First and the Second World Wars was anything but an armistice. American foreign policy elites celebrated the win as an existential victory, imbued with ideological meaning and “end-of-history” triumphalism when they should have understood that if anything, geopolitics were to be brought front-and-center, and that Russia’s weakness was likely to beget revanchism of the sort that seized Germany during the Weimar Republic.  In contrast to the strategists of the “Greatest Generation” who understood that caesuras in history happen only with tectonic shifts engendered by total defeats and victories, the post-Cold War leaders seemed to believe that our former adversaries would want to be “like us,” paying little attention to the extent of humiliation and anomie that defeat always brings forth.  It was this lack of strategic foresight that imbued American post-Cold War triumphalism with the crippling certitude that we could shape the world to our liking. Future historians will marvel that the United States frittered away so much power in just one generation, pursuing the chimera of “primacy” and the “unipolar moment,” instead of husbanding and preserving for as long as possible the unique power position it found itself occupying in 1991.In fairness, dramatic events also shaped our elite perceptions. The terror attacks on 9/11 were a true game-changer, as they wrecked America’s sense that it was entitled to live in a secure homeland—separated from the world by two oceans and neighboring on Canada and Mexico, two friendly countries that pose no threat.  The trauma of 9/11, and especially the failure of the George W. Bush administration at that point of dread to ask something of the nation beyond money and security measures at our airports, laid the foundation for the most breathtaking hubris in American history:  the belief that properly crafted institutions would in short order remake non-Western cultures, and that we would not be safe until we had transformed entire regions of the globe in our image.

  This folly was not so much a quest for empire as its critics posited; it was a borderline elite fixation enabled by the nation’s trauma wrought by a group of criminals who on that fateful day murdered several thousand American citizens. And so instead of capturing or killing Bin Laden and his co-conspirators to show to all that Americans may be gullible and sloppy at times, but that if you try to hurt them you will die, Washington launched on a breathtaking “transformative project” that cost trillions, exhausted the nation’s will, and in strategic terms achieved precious little.   The Kantian dream of “democratic peace,” whereby if all nations were democracies, the problem of war would be eliminated, in Washington’s rendition – Democrat and Republican – became a self-induced defeat. We have yet to fully appreciate how much damage GWOT and the attendant theories have done to American credibility, its good name, and the erstwhile belief that this country was being led by competent people who understood the harsh realities of state power and its limits in global politics.
The United States needs to rebuild its reputation as competent great power and its national credibility in a way that demonstrates to the American citizenry and to the world that we are still capable of thinking in pragmatic terms, and that the ideological normative flourishes of the GWOT and globalization eras that sapped the nation’s strength are a thing of the past.  Today Washington urgently needs to revisit the fundamentals of what constitutes a viable national strategy, one that can clearly articulate the irreducible national interests and objectives to be achieved, identifies the requisite resources to achieve them, and most importantly provides a trajectory going forward that will ensure the sustained support of Congress and the American people.  Most of all, our foreign policy establishment must demonstrate that it still has the competence to implement such a strategy, including real expertise when it comes to understanding different theaters, cultures, and polities.

If it cannot, we need to bring fresh blood into the policymaking and implementation process to ensure we never again fall prey to our ideological wishful thinking about how the world should be.  We must face head-on the realities of power and economics as they have always been and will remain going forward: a strong industrial base as the foundation of our defense industry and our military, and an economic policy that preserves and expands the opportunity and prosperity of the American nation. Then can we speak about rebuilding American credibility worldwide, restoring deterrence, and ensuring that the United States is not pulled unprepared into a wider war against our determined adversaries. Effective deterrence rests on capabilities and, most of all, on the genuine competence and will to deploy those capabilities in a way that communicates unequivocally that the nation will not go looking for the proverbial monsters to slay, but that it nonetheless remains resilient and determined to defeat decisively anyone intent on threating its security.  The clock is ticking, and to get there we need to relearn the fundamentals of great power politics that we seem to have forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

Musings and rants(yep, here we go again...)

 Well the Elections will be coming up soon and the first thing I and many of my friends are doing is...

Yep, as they say in Minnesota "You betcha".    As the election is coming up, I recall a choice 4 years ago and 75 million of us choose Trump, but "somehow the donks "Pulled 81 million votes out of the hat for that dottering vegetable"  I had posted a meme for the 2020 election...

  Well everyone has seen the results of 4 years of the "Xiden Administration" and Kamala is running to basically become Obungler 4.0

    Now we have again upon the cusp of most likely the last free election in our lifetime the 2024 election.

    There will be hard choices to be made and I hope people choose wisely.  I have told the younger voters that "if y'all buy the snake oil that Kamala is peddling, y'all are gonna pay the freight for choosing poorly, I am toward the back 40 of my life, y;all have your lives ahead of you, so choose wisely."

     There is a huge belief that if Kamala gets in, that the way that the democrats are "Legalizing illegals at warp speed to get them citizenship to allow voting in 2026 and later"  This meme was from the Obungler years, but since I consider Kamala( Obungler 4.0), it has merit.  Remember for the past several months, they have had to revise job numbers downward because the labor dept got caught "fudging numbers" and most of the jobs that did get created, the illegals got.  There is a huge fear of the "great replacement" where we as native Americans are replaced by 3rd world outsiders because they are used to doing what they are told and will toe the party line which the donks and deep statist will love.  

   Meanwhile Former GOP VEEP from the 2nd Bush administration endorsed Kamala, and the donks fell all over themselves praising Cheney for "Being Brave".  The rest of Americans consider him "dishonorable " for endorsing her especially after the treatment he got from the democrats since 2004 because he was seen as "the Warmonger" "Darth Cheney", and so forth.  

    Meanwhile The President of the Ukraine, Zelensky flew into Pennsylvania in a U.S. Airforce plane and do some politicking for the democrats 2024 tickets in a battleground state and a lot of people are crying "Its a political stunt" and the House GOP wants to investigates because it broke several laws including campaign laws.

The Israeli scored a major coup and nailed the entire leadership and middle management of Hamas and Hezbollah when their pagers literally blew up...

   Meanwhile word on the street the main mullah from both Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are hiding in bunkers due to the success of the pager program.   and in that vein, word on the street is that the USSS you know these guys...

The guys that keep managing to bungle the protection around President Trump, word on the street is that there is a mole feeding intelligence to various kill teams and the 2nd attempt was an attempt to exploit a hole in the security net at Trumps Golf Course..A lot of people "Believe that there will be at least another assassination attempt" before November.  My honest concern is that 35% of Americans put their hopes and dreams of saving America into this man and what do you think their emotions will be if he gets capped and then the explosions of glee from the media and hollywood and the politicians and academia go "darn" and smirk and cheer and celebrate, what do you think their reaction will be?   It ain't gonna be pleasant.     And speaking of dodging..

While President Trump is dodging bullets, and assassination attempts, Kamala avoids the press unless she can find a very friendly venue that can "feed her campaign" the answers in advance so she can study up. so far it has been a mixed bag, and the pictures from the ABC debate shows what appears to be an earpiece in her ear.  Despite all that, she did *meh*, and now she is pushing for another debate on CNN again...and President Trump has already had 2 debates, and as far as he is concerned he is done, he has offered "Fox News" and it is more impartial and Kamala flat out refused because she won't get any "assistance" from that network

    Meanwhile I think the DOJ wants President Trump to Use a pager as part of his security net....you know the same DOJ that has been weaponized  to go after the "enemies of the State"

   You know...Veterans, Native Born Americans, and Legal Americans that don't like the agenda of the "elitist", whereas illegals, terrorist, and other neardowells get a pass...yeah...them. because the end state is to tear up the fabric of the country to such a state that the people will surrender their sovereignty to the state for the state to "save them" from the problems that were caused by the state to begin with.    Funny that...

   Meanwhile the Democrats are pushing the Project 2025 is President Trump's baby despite President Trump has no involvement in it, and has disavowed it, and has no interest in it.

   Funny That....

    

   And Hillary has crawled out of whatever sewer she has been residing in, I guess she is trying to make herself relevant after getting passed over on the VEEP nod from Kamala and she has been commenting about the extreme danger of President Trump being a "Danger and a Threat to Democracy" There has been talk about putting Trump supporters in camps before, especially during the covid crisis especially for the "Unvaxxed" 

     Meanwhile

All the drama has been stirred up by the DNCMedia and has scared the crap out of people, stirred up the fear and animosity of various groups of people because the donks thrive on chaos and pitting group against group.

      

       Remember the election is coming up soon, vote early in case something happens and you can't make election day voting, and stay away from large groups of people, that is where the stupidity will happen.