Posts by nathanbedford

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • US will need India to counter China: US think tank

    06/24/2017 8:16:28 AM PDT · 11 of 11
    nathanbedford to Jyotishi
    We should stop thinking like Americans and begin to view the world as Bismarck would.

    Yes, we need a growing economic and military power which is destined to become a superpower as a counterpoint to China. What we do not need is to outsource our foreign policy to India on the same scale that we are presently outsourcing our IT work to India. We do not need to permit India to alienate us from Pakistan or to commit us to war against Pakistan because India finds itself fighting a crazed but nuclear equipped Pakistan. The power to declare war should remain exclusively in the hands of the American Congress and should not be sold off by treaty or executive agreement to any other nation.

    We should be shutting down the torrent of IT work that is being sent out along the Internet as if it were a firehose to India. I believe the average American has no idea how extensive this outsourcing is. Do you know how many tens of thousands of pairs of Indian eyes are at this moment piering at computer screens to do back office work subcontracted to IBM by American corporations? It is not just a question of importing bright Indians who are quite willing to work cheap here under a H1B visa until they bring over the wife and proceed to have anchor babies, it amounts to billions in contracts outsourcing work that Americans want to do and can do.

    Why are we paying $7.9 billion to India or whomever (the article does not seem to be clear)? It seems to me the threat to India from both Pakistan and China is so existential that it is the Indians who should come hat in hand to the United States for protection rather than using Uncle Sam for an ATM machine.

    What do we get out of all this? Yes, we want what probably will be the world's most populous country as an ally. We need them as a counterpoint to China, without question. Let them buy our protection rather than trying to buy their cooperation.

    Bismarck or Britain over the centuries played a power balancing game with a view toward creating deterrence or effective alliances in case of actual war against an ambitious potential threat. That is exactly what we should be doing.

  • NY Times: Trump, Shouting 'Death Spiral,' Has Nudged Affordable Care Act Downward

    06/24/2017 2:46:18 AM PDT · 34 of 34
    nathanbedford to LS

    There is nothing in the political environment in the Senate which would lead a reasonable observer to believe that the bill will be “improved.” Except that the ever increasing costs will be freighted from the premium payer to the taxpayer-or more likely to the federal treasury as debt.

    #22

  • Supreme Court rules trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional

    06/19/2017 8:26:38 AM PDT · 20 of 32
    nathanbedford to Lurkinanloomin
    there is no right to not be offended in the Constitution.

    I quite agree. It is the subjective umbrage assumed by the alleged victims of free speech which is the driving force shutting down the First Amendment on our college campuses.

    Justice Alito's remark in which he allegedly cautioned in his opinion that the government still “has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend.” strikes me as being very bad constitutional law.

    I rather suspect that there is more to the context surrounding Alito's observation than was reported in this article.

    The holding is this case is something that we ought to take seriously in our own discourse.

  • “Someone's Going To Jail” Gingrich Warns Mueller's Russia 'Witch Hunt' Too Big To Fail Now

    06/18/2017 7:28:10 AM PDT · 112 of 129
    nathanbedford to blam
    The genius of the framers proceeds from the core understanding of the venality of human nature hence the guiding principle in establishing the American constitutional government was accountability.

    The problem with the special counsel is that it is accountable only in theory but not in practice. If Donald Trump, the chief executive of the country to whom the special counsel is theoretically accountable, attempts to direct the special counsels investigation he can be rebuffed and if he attempts to remove the special counsel he must risk impeachment.

    Thus we have seen the creation in practice of an autocratic fiefdom which is thoroughly antithetical to the American experiment.

    The way to attack this is to proceed on two levels, the pop-culture level with soundbites etc. demonstrating a runaway investigation in search of a crime complemented on another level by a series of serious intellectually rigorous presentations at serious forums such as the National Press Club where the legal and historical arguments against this anti-democratic phenomenon is advanced.

    For example, attacks against Mueller must be made not because he has demonstrated bias in this case but because if he is biased he will proceed uncurbed and do damage in criminal-legal terms as well as in political terms which could ravage the Trump administration. We have already seen the derailing of the administration's legislative agenda in its efforts to drain the swamp. So Mueller must be discredited just as Ken Starr was marginalized. He must be attacked at the pop-culture level and he must be attacked at the intellectual, theoretical level.

    Mueller is in position if he so chooses to do mischief in secret while opportunistically leaking poisonous insinuations as he pleases. Perhaps Mueller is a good man but the temptation presented to a man who has so much power, who can operate in secret, who is practically unaccountable, is too great a temptation for mere mortals to be trusted with-all as understood by the framers who framed a government with accountability in an arrangement of separated powers. All of that is set to naught by a special counsel and poses a real risk to liberty.

  • The real answer to the democracy-killing ‘administrative state’

    06/18/2017 7:28:09 AM PDT · 16 of 16
    nathanbedford to MtnClimber
    The administrative deep state is so massive, moving with such relentless momentum and is far removed from accountability to the constitutionally established branches of government and from the people's representatives that there is simply no realistic hope of restoring constitutional government without resort to Article V.

  • Federal judge rejects Dakota Access Pipeline permits, calls for do-over

    06/15/2017 7:46:17 AM PDT · 38 of 52
    nathanbedford to Cboldt
    If we win an election and install a conservative president, we nevertheless find the deep administrative branch continues unchecked. If we somehow check the bureaucrats, we find that we have lost the battle in Congress, even though we have elected a Republican House and Republican Senate. If we win the White House, the Congress, and even manage to rein in deep state bureaucrats, we lose the battle in the courts.

    There is one venue we have not yet tried, one in which none of these players have influence:

    Article V.

  • Can a Divided America Survive?

    06/15/2017 7:46:16 AM PDT · 105 of 130
    nathanbedford to Electric Graffiti
    Some NeverTrump critics would prefer a Trump electoral disaster that still could redeem their warnings that he would destroy the Republican party; barring that, increasingly many would at least settle to be disliked, but controversial, spoilers in a 1–2 percent loss to Hillary rather than irrelevant in a Trump win. To be fair, NeverTrump’s logic is that Trump’s past indiscretions and lack of ethics, his present opportunistic populist rather than conservative message, and the Sarah Palin nature of some of his supporters (whom I think Hillary clumsily referenced as the “deplorables” and whom Colin Powell huffed off as “poor white folks”) make him either too reckless to be commander-in-chief or too liberal to be endorsed by conservatives — or too gauche to admit supporting in reasoned circles. Perhaps. But the proper question is a reductionist “compared to what?” NeverTrumpers assume that the latest insincerely packaged Trump is less conservative than the latest incarnation of an insincere Clinton on matters of border enforcement, military spending, tax and regulation reform, abortion, school choice, and cabinet and Supreme Court appointments. That is simply not a sustainable proposition.

    It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now becoming suicidal not to.

    Victor David Hanson September 20, 2016

    Note the date.

    Like most contributors to this forum who throw around the lie "never Trumper" to whomever they wish to liable as they drive by, you obviously do not know much about Victor David Hanson. As one who has been so often slandered and unfairly zotted on this forum for this alleged apostasy because those with the censors' zot gun confuse principled conservative criticism of Donald Trump with opposition to his election, I think we ought to come to a clear understanding of what the rules here should be.

    The alternative is to throw Victor David Hanson under the bus with all the other principled conservatives who have been run over by misguided conservatives who patriotically and very understandably fear for the future of the Republic.They ought to understand that no national commentator has more clearly diagnosed or better articulated the condition of the country than has Victor David Hanson. They ought to know that he has consistently and effectively defended Trump against the cascade of slanders and the scurrilous attempt to destroy his presidency.

    Read the ARTICLE quoted above.

  • Jim DeMint Joins Convention of States Movement to Rein in Federal Government

    06/13/2017 6:47:26 AM PDT · 32 of 40
    nathanbedford to ntnychik
    No Convention of States until we can out-organize the likes of Schumer and Pelosi, and outstrategize Barky and lizard-woman.

    That is precisely why we need a convention of the states, because history is proving that we cannot out-organize the likes of Schumer and Pelosi. The idea of the convention is to involve people other than the likes of Schumer and Pelosi to conduct a convention where Schumer and Pelosi have no legal, constitutional or direct involvement. To kick over the game board and introduce a whole new game with new players, a new game in which we at least have a chance.

  • Defense Secretary Mattis "shocked" by poor state of U.S. combat readiness

    06/13/2017 6:47:26 AM PDT · 43 of 53
    nathanbedford to DoughtyOne
    Close those bases we do not need, they are but cesspools of pork. Throwing money at the Pentagon is perhaps marginally more effective than throwing money at the Department of Education.

    The trick is to make the hard decisions the right way, avoid pork, subsidize merit, and, above all, prepare for the next, not the last, war. Spend what it takes but understand that spending alone is not what it takes. What it takes is the most expensive commodity of all because it is so rare, foresight, judgment and knowledge tempered by experience.

    It is vital to understand the dimensions of asymmetrical warfare but equally to understand that the greatest threat to America is our misplaced priorities. We are hurtling toward a fiscal reckoning that will render all hopes of upgrading the military impossible. We are accelerating that rush toward the fiscal cliff with military bases at home and abroad which sap our strength as they drain our treasury and entangle us in peripheral wars which ultimately threatened to hogtie us like Gulliver.

    On the one hand we face asymmetrical challenges from aggressive and militant Islam and on the other hand we face within a generation a Star Wars challenge from China. We must make our choices very wisely or we will find ourselves overmatched abroad and disintegrating at home. Those hard choices begin with closing useless and expensive bases.

  • Artillery: Small But Versatile

    06/12/2017 7:58:24 AM PDT · 15 of 20
    nathanbedford to Robert A. Cook, PE
    I can think of no rebuttal to your complaint in a situation in which the quantity of drones required is really not that great and therefore not that expensive to offer real advantage to our limited number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with cheap but effective weapons.

    Yet, we are faced with the eternal debate about quantity vs. quality. One thinks of the Soviet T 34 tank and the Kalashnikov rifle which are among the finest weapons of their type if only because of their ubiquity. On the other hand, the British spent of their national treasure to launch HMS Victory about the equivalent of what it costs us to build a super carrier. I believe the age of the super carrier is drawing to a close, that is, in about 30 or 40 years from now they will be too vulnerable and too expensive. But that quality in class enjoyed by the British fleet was vital to winning the battle of Trafalgar and ultimately to the defeat of Napoleon. If they had done otherwise Napoleon might well have forded the channel. It was not just one identifiable advantage which favored victory, such as the British fleet's ability to site guns in a rolling sea, it was everything not excluding training, morale, seamanship and leadership. So Britain committed its treasure to build warships but it did not create a land army to match the great continental powers. History has shown that Britain won its bet in staking all on its Navy.

    The difficulty, even when one decides whether to go for quality or quantity, is to predict 20 years from now which one of the elements of quality will prove decisive at the next battle of Trafalgar. The Brits found themselves on the wrong end of the equation in the battle of Jutland when their battle cruisers were inadequately armored and simply blow up, as did HMS Hood in the next war in the Denmark Straits. They bet they could trade armor for speed but they bet wrong.

    I take your point, however, when it comes to a proven weapon that the troops are clamoring for which can be provided them for minimal cost. That can and should be done today, robot wars are not quite upon as yet and we have time to get it right or satisfy our craving for pork which seems to be our preference lately.

  • Artillery: Small But Versatile

    06/12/2017 1:14:51 AM PDT · 5 of 20
    nathanbedford to Noumenon
    It appears that military doctrine is on the verge of another paradigm shift.

    It is a commonplace to dismiss the generals of World War I as mindless butchers who assaulted machine guns with their soldiers breasts but the reality was not quite so simple. The lessons of the Franco-Prussian war had not been entirely dismissed by the general staffs of the future belligerents of 1914. For example, they were aware of the power of the railroads to deliver troops to the critical point of contact before the enemy could do likewise. Hence, once mobilization of one of the great powers (Russia) commenced, this doctrine required Germany to do likewise. The imperative to mobilize and get the troops onto trains according to a split second timetable was in keeping with the maximum Nathan Bedford Forrest, to get there first with the most. Once one country began the process the generals warned that there own armies follow suit or lose the war.

    Likewise, the general staffs were not ignorant of the power of artillery, they had seen the great advantage gained by the Prussians around Paris 45 years earlier with their superior rapidfire artillery and superior ranging capabilities. The solution to virtually every military thinker at the time was to simply overwhelm the adversary immediately with a mass of troops and matériel. Hence, the massive mobilization and the tyranny of the railway timetable.

    In 1914 a war of maneuver settled into a war between troglodytes, masses of troops forced into trenches by barbwire and machine guns but mostly by artillery. Indeed, it was artillery it would cause the majority of the casualties in that war.

    The stalemate on the Western front caused by these new technologies endured for nearly the remaining four years of the war until a war of maneuver was restored by the Germans in the spring of 1918. Ironically, the breakthroughs achieved by the Germans was built upon a new doctrine of penetration by highly trained infantry engaging under concentrated and closely coordinated artillery barrages delivered by guns which had been registered without alerting the enemy. This new science of artillery had been perfected by the Germans on the Russian front.

    One can see in these new tactics the beginning elements of the so-called "blitzkrieg" which were implemented so effectively in 1939/1940/1941 when the Germans coordinated armor and air and restored the art of war to a contest of maneuver. Interestingly, the Germans had virtually no tanks in World War I and fewer and inferior tanks in 1940 as compared to the French yet they revolutionized warfare, enabled the soldiers to emerge from the trenches by their new doctrine of combining armor and air in support of infantry, or vice versa, and coupling that with the doctrine of penetration and bypass which they had employed in the spring of 1918. Eventually, the limits of the power of blitzkrieg to prevail on the battlefield were defined at el Alamein when the power of massed artillery reasserted itself.

    Now we see a new kind of artillery in these drones brought to us by the wonders of technology all grounded in the chip which combines air with artillery, focuses it is precisely and is obviously coordinated with the infantry because it is the infantry which is deploying this new technology. Will these drones drive soldiers back underground? Will it combine on a massive level with other elements and produce a new kind of blitzkrieg? Will it evolve into a kind of her war between drones in the air as we saw the years of World War I? In effect, will we have a war of robots?

    Since much of the technology currently being deployed is almost off the shelf, one can expect enemies to launch their own drones, indeed, we have seen at least one example of that already. The question is will we maintain a substantial technological lead and control the battle space or will we lapse into a kind of parity which produces a stalemate, a war of attrition which is a war which will not long be supported by the American people. As a people we have become allergic to casualties to a degree never before experienced and it has been the doctrine of our enemies since Korea and Vietnam to involve America in a war of attrition until it is lost at home.

    The upside? A war of robots, if confined to that technology, is a war of limited casualties to our own population but one which is potentially devastating to those who play host to terrorists. It is the kind of war we can wage by exchanging dollars for lives, the kind of war which is more reminiscent of the British at Rorke's Drift than our GI's struggle for Hamburger Hill, a kind of warfare in which technology so dominates a technologically inferior culture that it is hardly a contest.

  • New Poll Finds Bill Clinton’s Place In Presidential History Eroding

    05/27/2017 11:44:48 PM PDT · 33 of 68
    nathanbedford to nathanbedford
    Oops, forgot JFK, revised list:

    1. Ronald Reagan

    2. Dwight Eisenhower

    3. George HW Bush

    4. Gerald Ford

    5. George W Bush

    6. John F. Kennedy

    7. Richard M Nixon

    8. Harry Truman

    9. Bill Clinton

    10. Jimmy Carter

    11. Lyndon Baines Johnson

    12. Barack Obama

    *Donald Trump-too early to evaluate.

  • New Poll Finds Bill Clinton’s Place In Presidential History Eroding

    05/27/2017 11:38:13 PM PDT · 32 of 68
    nathanbedford to ForYourChildren
    1. Ronald Reagan

    2. Dwight Eisenhower

    3. George HW Bush

    4. Gerald Ford

    5. George W Bush

    6. Richard M Nixon

    7. Harry Truman

    8. Bill Clinton

    9. Jimmy Carter

    10. Lyndon Baines Johnson

    11. Barack Obama

    *Donald Trump-too early to evaluate.

  • Trump will be 'IMPEACHED': Hillary Clinton All-Out Attack On The President

    05/27/2017 9:52:47 AM PDT · 39 of 95
    nathanbedford to Enlightened1; Fishtalk

    how about VETTED tweets?

  • Trump will be 'IMPEACHED': Hillary Clinton All-Out Attack On The President

    05/27/2017 9:52:44 AM PDT · 38 of 95
    nathanbedford to Enlightened1; Fishtalk

    how about VETTED tweets?

  • Trump will be 'IMPEACHED': Hillary Clinton All-Out Attack On The President

    05/27/2017 9:26:40 AM PDT · 10 of 95
    nathanbedford to Enlightened1
    I have advised for some time to move the indictment of Hillary Clinton. I believe the president can do that without violating any law.

    He must do that now to go on offense.

    He should also name a special prosecutor to pursue the Clinton foundation.

    He should also name a special prosecutor to pursue illegal violations of the securities act and the privacy provisions under federal surveillance.

    He must go on offense, he must stop tweeting, he must go to the people with serious scripted speeches presenting real reforms to Obamacare and with real tax reforms. He must not abdicate to the House Republicans or he will have crippled his administration and we will be lucky to see survival in the House of Representatives in 2018.

  • Russian Intelligence Prompted James Comey's Blistering Presser On Clinton Emails,

    05/27/2017 9:18:53 AM PDT · 28 of 59
    nathanbedford to lewislynn
    As any right thinking person can see, this entire article is fake news...You fell for it hook line and sinker because you suffer from TDS.

    1. I criticized the article as "indecipherable," perhaps you will tell me how that equates with "you fell for it hook line and sinker?"

    2. Evidently I am not a right-thinking person because you have me suffering from a malady which I am unaware of and also, according to you, because I do not see the article as fake news. Yet you fail to tell me how Comey was motivated to do anything.

    Since I am not a right-thinking person perhaps you could offer your thinking, apart from generalized disparagements of his character, about what motivated FBI director Comey to do what he did.

    Exactly what is a "right-thinking person" by your definition?

  • The Real Betsy DeVos

    05/27/2017 9:11:02 AM PDT · 4 of 12
    nathanbedford to Kaslin
    The anti-free speech movement on college campuses is not happening by accident. It is the culmination of years of indoctrination of generations of American students, not just in the universities but in secondary and primary education. The consequence of the distortions which occur up-and-down our educational establishment are actually potentially existential.

    We are producing millions of graduates at all levels who simply cannot perform up to standard which means that our economy will suffer this global world from which America cannot hope to protect itself over time. One need only consider the quality and number of scientists and engineers being produced every year in China and compare that number with our dropouts and one does not need to be farsighted to envision the time when the lines cross. So, our destructive educational establishment threatens our economy.

    That means that it also threatens our security, as we enter the robot age when wars will be fought with keyboards, lasers, missiles, satellites and, yes, robots America ultimately will not be able to compete.

    That means that a huge percentage of millennials now and in the future will live poorer lives than otherwise. About four in 10 youngsters are now living in mama's basement.

    But for the Democrat establishment which has used education as they have used immigration, journalism and Hollywood to advance their tentacles into the American culture, wasted lives, endangered national security, and creeping poverty are as nothing against the virtue of getting leftists political power. Unless the death grip on education is broken, we will not break the hold on journalism, on Hollywood, on eleemosynary institutions, on churches, all of which have been co-opted by Democrats.

    The craziness on American campuses of higher education are but a foretaste and we will soon see not just those campuses but the entire culture burst out as it did in Ferguson and Baltimore. Indeed, our campuses are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from Ferguson and Baltimore and our students increasingly difficult to distinguish between academics and Black Lives Matter rioters.

  • Merkel Mad: Donald Trump Declines to Endorse Paris Climate Agreement

    05/27/2017 8:53:15 AM PDT · 25 of 115
    nathanbedford to Cheerio
    “'The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization,” Merkel said'".

    Climate change is not like any other unproven theory, it is a gun held to the head of capitalism.

  • The crime not being investigated

    05/27/2017 8:42:24 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    nathanbedford to Wolfie
    Gee, if only there was a guy in the White House who could tell his Attorney General to get on this.

    It appears, if this is true, that the Attorney General who is not pursuing Hillary is busy not pursuing this matter.