summer patriot, winter soldier

"old soldiers never die, they just fade away... ."

another old soldier is consigned to the dust bin of history, for the same reason most old soldiers are get there:  you'd think that they would know better.

but, for some reason people who are used to command forget an elemental fact about the chain of command, and that is there is only one person who occupies the top.   old what's-his-name mattis forgot that the job of a secretary of defense is to give advise to his commander, and not to issue edicts about policy and such.  an adviser does not make decisions, he does not issue edicts, and he does not publicly challenge his commander on his decisions.  his is to apply and implement the decision of the president of the united states to the best of his ability, and not to carp about it.  in short, the oath of his office does not say that it is his to piss and moan and carp about his lot in life, ... , but to do his damned job to the best of his ability.

this inability to remember basics i think is nurtured by washington d.c. cocktail parties, where an ego such as mattis's is bolstered by alcohol and large breasted compliant women.  no soldier should ever be allowed to attend such devil spawn occasions: it is where soldiers get too large for their issue breaches.  as dirty harry calahan remarked, "a man should know his limitations," and this applies to generals as much as anybody, perhaps even more appropriately.  it is where decent field commanders turn into pompous twits.

i can only imagine the ass reaming dwight eisenhower would have given mattis had he pulled this stunt under ike's presidency/command: eisenhower, despite his grandfatherly public demeanor, was renowned for his titanic temper, his ire delivered in private and not in public, in very clear terms, and at very close range.  and, his command vitriol was absorbed in private, and not cried over to the press. 

generals, and secretaries of this and that, were made of sterner stuff in the old days, and were not cry babies.   simple as that.

old what's-his-name forgot that his job is to implement policy once the commander issues it.  and, for that, his is the dust heap,  and, to cry over his own cups.   and, good riddance.

in the civil war abraham lincoln did not bask in the historical judgment that surrounds him these days, especially among those who were under his command: off the top of my head, i can remember that george mcclellan, john c. fremont and at least one other general whose name escapes me, ran for president against lincoln in the middle of the civil war. 

can we look forward to a mattis & pelosi ticket in 2020?

lord, god, please spare us.

snow flakes and cry baby generals would be just too much to bear.

john jay @ 12.26.2018

the house democrats and the millstone of impeachment ....

for two years now the democrats have been blathering about impeaching donald trump, chiefly in order to keep their "constitents" in a lather of revenge.   to the extent that has been the sole motive of the democrats it is something of a short term success, but at the expense of being a long term dud that bears no fruit, to mix a metaphor or two or three.

why do i say this?   and, why "two or three?"

well, in the first instance it is a promise that cannot be delivered upon.   even were the democrats to continue on this stupid path, and "impeach" trump in the house, they still have the fact of a very solid republican majority in the senate to contend with.   anybody recall how bill clinton's impeachment turned out?  hint:  bill returned in the house, and failed to carry the senate.   unless every senator on the republican side is searching for the quick road to political oblivion, extra quick route, this just isn't gonna happen.

and, something of sheer delight for those of us with a partisan stripe, the democrats cannot expose trump to impeachment on the "russian prong," because after two years of striving, special prosecutor what's-his-name hasn't shown any russian connection by which to impeach trump.  (maybe hilary clinton, given her association to the russian loving satanic worshiping washington d.c. lawyers who are cheek to jowl with the rooskies.  but, no luck with "the donald.")

in the last analysis, what's-his-name is stuck with alleging and proving that settling a civil lawsuit on the eve of election is an impeachable event.   and, if that is the case, then almost every sitting member of congress, democrat or republican, is staring right down the double barreled shotgun of impeachment.   do you remember the little slush fund that congress has set up for its members to pay off threatened litigation for sexual misconduct, and those members who have tapped into that fund to pay off the claims arising from their little peccadilloes?  (that doesn't by chance mean "little peckers," does it.  well, in this case, most probably.)

[here is the part that is delicious.--  under the law any person who does anything to aid or abet another in the commission of an offense, and in the federal law, this applies to any act before, during or after the commission of the illegality, is also guilty of the commission of that offense as an accessory.  that means, for a congressman, if the silly son of a bitch voted to establish the slush fund, and a fellow member pays off a claimant from that fund, and is guilty of an impeachable offense, that those who voted the fund into existence, and funded it, and approved disbursement from it, are equally guilty under the law.   and, if you think that is a fun little tidbit, then you should acquaint yourself with the reach of federal conspiracy law.   have at it, pocahontas.}

it is gonna take someone with a lot subtler mind than mine to explain how donald trump settling a civil claim to secure his political advantage is any different from a congressman doing the same thing....and, when is a congressman of any persuasion not running for office, or protecting his next run.

in the final analysis, it would appear to me that any congressman who has ever settled a civil claim arising out of sexual behavior is subject to impeachment.  or, an argument that he or she is.   in the end, it makes no difference what the law is, the exposure is the same.  "diselection," to coin a phrase, will become the currency of the realm.   anybody remember what bob packwood did to get his butt bounced from the boy's club.

in my humble opinion, though the threat to impeach trump is a good tub to thump for the democratic faithful, it is a political strategy fraught with peril for the unwary enthusiasts who mouth it, such as the idiot what's her name from california.  (make that "idiots" from california, there seems an almost endless supply of the twits.) has she, or they, ever have a male or female staffer paid off to keep his or her yap shut on the eve of (an ever-present) election?   if she hasn't, it is likely that either some golddigger will think something up, (perhaps blasey-ford)or that some justifiably entitled claimant will come forth (not blasey-ford.)

after all, what is good for the gander, is just as good & potent for the goose.  and, god knows, there are lots of democratic geese floating around washington d.c.

john jay 12.20.2018

p.s.   merry christmas, democrats.   one and all.   especially to the nut hatch california delegation.

just a reminder to the big swinging dicks out east that the peons out west are wise to your bullshit ....

in "range --  the cowboy spirit of america's outback," the fall 2018 issue, page 14, an article by dave skinner entitled "octopuses garden" detailing the money laundering efforts of one eric kessler on behalf of monied leftists who want to influence public policy governing the use of western lands.  just everywhere, where they are not wanted, nor needed.   and, who want to do so without being known, or having their true positions on public policy matters known.

(mos def, w/ regard to the "little people."  mos def.)

you want to prevent the great unwashed from hiking, hunting or ranching, just give kessler big piles of loot, and he will move it around various "trust funds,' get the money to lefties to spend, so as to obscure or hide its source.  you can play it any way you want.  and, finance it, any way you want.   all in "the public interest," you understand, so long as your public are radical leftist "rock lickers" and tree huggers.

his clients include bill gates and george soros.  (in the interests of "full disclosure," he hasn't got any from me.)   to do their handiwork he charges a mere 4 to 5% handling fee.   he runs 6 or 7 "independent entities" out of a couple offices, a couple phones, and a couple addresses ....  all owned and directed by him.  a couple lackies, some lickspittles, a couple computers, and a pocket full of keys, and he sicks his attack dogs on any one he wishes, and they don't know the source of the attack. 

so much for "transparency" and "full disclosure."  just the way it goes down in the shire, for the rich bastards who want to pull the strings on everything.  all in the name of democracy, so long as you are the democrat.

john jay  12.19.2018

beats the hell outta me ....

i don't write much, i am getting old and tired, disabused and don't care very much.   but, occasionally i get a little spike in my readership.  (i remain small potatoes.)   i have no idea where it comes from, or why.  and, it has to do w/ older posts, some i haven't thought of for years.   why? 

beats the hell outta me.

john jay @ 12.12.2018

"car and driver's" road test scoring ....

the evaluator's scoring, all learned at the brenda snipes school of counting.  just "harvest" the votes when you need 'em.

john jay @  12.03.2018

319 square miles that rule the united states .... (or would, were it not for the electoral college) ....

this from an email i received from a friend, the article without attribution or authorship.  (if any one can supply same, please do so.) nonetheless, the article is very timely, and conveys a truth that cannot be denied.   and that is, were it not for the electoral college new york city, san francisco and los angeles would control the politics of the united states, absolutely.

de facto, de jure, and with an absolute grip.   whoever controlled/controls the politics of these "nations" would run the united states with an iron fist, not just by the influence of persuasion and logic, but in absolute fact.

follows the article.--

 

"subject:  319 square miles.

.....

in their infinite wisdom, the united states founders created the electoral college to ensure the states were fairly represented.  why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

the following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the internet.  it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the electoral college makes sense.

but share this.  it needs to be widely known and understood.

'there are 3,141 counties in the united states.

trump won 3,084 of them.

clinton won 57.  there are 62 counties in new york state.  

trump won 46 of them.

clinton won 16.

clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

in the 5 counties that encompass nyc [new york city] (bronx, brooklyn, manhattan, richmond & queens) clinton received well over 2 million more votes that trump.  (cliinton only won 4 of these counties: trump won richmond.)

therefore, these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for clinton winning the popular votes of the entire country.***  [read "new york city" for "these counties alone.".]

these counties comprise 319 square miles.

when you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

large, densely populated democrat cities (nyc, chicago, la, etc.) do not and should not speak for the rest of our country.  [to the exclusion of our voices!!]

and ...  it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.  [chicago has strict gun control, yet suffers enormous gun deaths among young blacks.... do you want chicago's gun policies to run the country?]

well worth the 39 seconds to read?  now, please pass it on.'"

 

the above article raises sobering concerns.  and, i have raised like concerns in previous articles relating to the disproportionate power held by the states of new york , pennsylvania and virginnia along the northeastern seaboard, accompanied & enhanced & multiplied by the piss-ant states of rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut, new jersey, vermont and new hampshire in new england, .... , along with maryland, delaware along the chesapeake bay,  their numbers in office constituting nearly one third of the house and senate in the united states congress.

there is no political excuse for the power wielded in the senate & house by the "piss-ant states," except for the accident of our political history.  as a practical and practicable matter, there is no excuse for these small entities to even exist as separate states, as they are little more than extensions of new york and pennsylvania (and of virginia, to a lesser degree.)  they have little productive power, their domestic law being hostile to economic production, yet they would tell the rest of us how to manage such matters:  the only thing they produce is political arrogance.  (understand who & what bernie sanders is  ...  he wants everything, he wants it produced where you live, and he wants you to clean up the slag piles in your backyard, as he basks in the product of your labor.  simple as that.)

yet, as the above article suggests, these circumstances and the "political numbers" generated thereby,  confers enormous influence upon & to new york and pennsylvania (and their vassal states) in the political affairs of the country.

truly, the only thing that stands between we citizens and a tyranny of these populous states on the northeastern seaboard in the electoral college.

it is the only thing.   

it is certainly not the democratic party and its lust for absolute power over the affairs of the nation.  their lust for power confers no restraint in their dealings with us.

think about it.  chuck shumer and nancy pelosi, the guardians of your liberty.  think about it.   

john jay @ 12.03.2018

p.s.  as john adams said, "may the chains sit lightly upon your shoulders."