Let’s not repeat history, please – Amanda S. Green

Let’s not repeat history, please – Amanda S. Green

Back in January, I wrote a post asking “how far down the slippery slope are going to go?”. That phrase came back to me this morning as I was reading my way through the interwebs. Between the different posts speculating about yesterday’s primary in New Hampshire and what the results mean, the continued discussion of whether or not Cam Newton is a bad sport – He is and he admits it – there was a story about a 20-something leaving San Francisco for Austin and complaining about the capitalist culture there because “socialism is great”. Of course, he had come to Austin because he couldn’t find a job in San Francisco and it all brought me back to that post from January.

Let’s start with the facts. New Hampshire is just one primary. Yes, there have been times when the winner of the primary, on either side of the political spectrum won the presidency. However, let’s look at the numbers to see just how much of a predictor it really is.

Since 1952, there have been 17 primaries held in New Hampshire. On the Democratic side, only five times has the winner of the primary gone on to win the election. Those winners were Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama. On the Republican side, there were nine primary winners who went on to become president. Those winners were Eisenhower (twice), Nixon (twice), Ford, Regan (twice), George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. That means, if my limited early morning math skills are working, the Democratic winner from New Hampshire has won the presidency less than a third of the time since 1952 and the Republican winner a little more than half the time. So, the election is still a coin flip, no matter what the candidates or the media wants us to believe.

In the meantime, we need to be keeping our eye on what is happening in the nation’s capital. We have a lame duck president sitting there who has shown that he has no problem at all of using his power, real or imagined, to push his agenda through. Now, before his supporters start jumping all over me, I do know that other presidents have done so as well. But none, in my opinion, has done as much damage to this nation, except for FDR, as has Obama. Despite his proclamations that our health care system is so much better now, especially with his Affordable Care Act, than ever before, it’s not. More and more doctors are moving away from accepting traditional insurance and going to boutique practices where you buy memberships to belong. More insurance companies are withdrawing from the pool because they can’t afford it. Insurance premiums, instead of becoming more affordable for those with jobs, have gone up double and triple and more for many of them. Others are willing to take the tax penalty because that is less than the so-called affordable policies – and don’t get me started on how HCA is not a tax.

What concerns me the most regarding the long term effects this presidency will have on our country are some of the decisions that have been made regarding our military and the way we treat some of our allies in order to placate those who would happily destroy this country. With the military, we have not only Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter saying that all military jobs should be open to women – ignoring studies and historical precedents that show the problems with having women on the front line – but now we have the Pentagon ordering commanders to take climate change into account when they do things like training and battle planning. Yep, you read that right. When drawing up battle plans, our military commanders have to worry about climate change. Now, I don’t know about you, but the last thing I want our military worrying about when they are under enemy fire is if shooting off that cannon will impact the environment. Sorry all you politicians who have never had your boots on the ground in combat but the lives of our troops should not take a backseat in battle to a so-called scientific theory that is still in dispute. (and no, this is not an invitation to debate climate change.)

What worries me the most about the legacy the Obama Administration is leaving us is the way it has turned its back on some of our allies and Israel in particular. I might not always agree with what the Israelis do but they have been our allies for years. They have supported this country when we’ve needed it and, in a mere eight years, Israel has become almost persona non grata in Washington because the Administration has been bending over backwards to court the enemies of Israel, enemies that would happily see this nation in ruin.

And that brings me back around to the January post and the realization that we are repeating history with this administration and not in a good way.

As I noted in the article back in January, I spent several months behind the Iron Curtain when I was younger. Our first stop was in Prague. Before World War II, Prague had been a thriving city, known for art and fashion and much more. In many ways, it had challenged Paris as the place where the creative minds of the time went to, well, be creative. Then Hitler rose to power and his Nazi machine went rolling across Europe.

Here in the U. S. we are familiar with how western Europe felt the terror of the Nazis as Hitler pressed for domination. We aren’t as familiar with what he did in Eastern Europe. Oh, we know Hitler made the mistake of trying to fight a two front war and that mistake was compounded by trying to invade the then U.S.S.R. during winter. (Obviously, he hadn’t learned from Napoleon’s mistakes) But we aren’t taught in our schools the full impact of what happened to nations such as Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Romania. We aren’t told how people in those nations, and especially in Czechoslovakia, waited at the end of the war to see who would liberate their cities and towns. Worse, we don’t realize that some of those people could see from the second story windows of their homes and businesses the U. S. and British troops camped outside of town but not coming in because the Allies had agreed to let Stalin and his troops “liberate” those territories.

Oh, sure, there were political reasons for doing so at the time. There are always political reasons and, all too often, they come back and bite you in the butt. What Roosevelt and Churchill did was sentence those countries to decades under the Soviet hammer. The damage done by Hitler was compounded by that inflicted upon them by Stalin and some of his successors. Stalin’s purges made the pogroms under the Tsars look tame.

How did I find out about this? By going to those countries. By being out one night in a small group and stopping to ask directions. One of the men in my group was fluent in a number of different languages, including German and Russian. For whatever reason, that evening Charles decided to ask how to get to our destination in Russian. The up until then friendly Czechs turned decidedly hostile. Not that I could blame them. Between the actions taken immediately after the war when Stalin made sure no collaborators – at least none he couldn’t make use of – continued to live and then the 1968 invasion when the Czechs weren’t falling into line, there happened to be two to three generations of bad blood.

Charles quickly turned to German, which wasn’t much better. Finally, one of us and I don’t remember which one, said something in English. We eventually got our direction but only after we received a history lesson and a warning. We needed to look around and see what was there if you looked beneath the surface. A once proud country had been brought to its knees and our country was at least partially responsible for it.

It was a story we heard more than once. The Czechs are a proud people. They remembered, either personally or through the tales of older family and friends, what the country had been like before the war and they remembered how they were handed to Stalin on a silver platter. And they resented the hell out of it and I can’t blame them. How many of their people died, not only to repel Hitler but in the aftermath of living under the Soviet regime?

This is what I see happening with Israel and some of our other allies as well. The boots Obama promised would not be on the ground months ago, years ago, are still there. He continues to try to disarm our populace through ever increasing regulation on private ownership of firearms and yet he does all he can to avoid calling attacks on our citizens here and overseas as acts of terrorism when it is clear they are. He condemns Israel when it acts to protect itself and then welcomes our enemies with open arms.

I pray I’m wrong about what Obama’s legacy will be but I have visions of Czechoslovakia so long ago mixing with nightmares of what is happening in France and Germany and elsewhere in Europe because of an inability to reliably screen the “refugees” being allowed to seek asylum there. Obama has once again opened his arms to allow these refugees in here. I hope our screening process is better than we have seen elsewhere but I have no faith in it. How can I when reports are coming out now that our border agents are being told not to arrest those they find coming across the border illegally?

So here’s what I guess I’m saying. Don’t throw your hands up in the air and give up on your candidate just because of one primary election. Let those candidates you support know how you feel about the issues and demand an answer from them on where they stand. As I said in another post, stand up and be heard. If that means climbing onto a chair and raising your voice, do it. This is not the time to sit quietly as the nation crumbles around us.

Bernie Sanders said that this is the time for political revolution. That is one thing I agree with him on, even though I don’t agree with him on what type of political revolution. Now is the time to take the country back. To remember what it was that made it great and return to that time. We were a country of innovation and progress, of individuality and pride. We need to remember that and strive to attain those goals again.



205 thoughts on “Let’s not repeat history, please – Amanda S. Green

  1. Not everybody in the US is ignorant of what happened in Eastern Europe. Whatever his myriad other faults, when George W. Bush said “No more Munichs, no more Yaltas” I both knew what he was referring to and agreed completely, and so did many of my friends and family. Sadly, many more did not. Sadder still, I had an acquaintances who knew what he meant, and vigorously disagreed; said individual is presently employed by the United States Department of State.

    1. Sean, fortunately not everyone is but there is an entire generation that, for the most part, happens to be. It isn’t being taught in our schools because it doesn’t match the narrative.

  2. That was real? The photo I saw looked like such a perfect send-up of hipsters that I was certain it was satire, probably lifted from The Onion without acknowledgment.

  3. I suspect I do not call for revolution in the way Sanders does.

    I would like a change from the status quo.

    I do not want a civil war, and really do not want a bloody purge.

    The American Revolution was a conservative revolution, it put in place the means of government that was in place before.

    There are things I wanted and want changed from the status quo prior to the current regime.

    Some of the important things screwed up by the current regime won’t be fixed without several rounds of replacements playing by the rules. These are probably more important than the things I want changed from the prior situation.

    1. Yep, I am all for a revolution that strips power from the Federal government and returns it to states, municipalities and county seats, the further down the better.

      That also means breaking up and decentralizing such non-governmental institutions as public employee unions (no more allowing the national Teachers’ Union to send in professional contract negotiating crews to bargain with local school boards, for example.)

      1. Wouldn’t the way to do that be that unions are company specific?

        So no more “Fred Meyer makes Safeway workers go on strike,” no more “national teacher’s union negotiating with school who has 100% graduation because there’s 14 kids each year,” that sort of thing?

        1. Company specific unions would probably share techniques, consultants and such but yes. If it is collusion for the employers in an industry to act in concert, surely it is equally so for employees in an industry.

          Require annual (biennial, triennial, quadrennial but no more than that) re-certification, too. This “once and forever’ nonsense is bollocks and encourages unions unresponsiveness to current employees; just because a school faculty voted in a union thirty years ago is no cause for present employees to have to belong.

          1. Every four years would be good.

            During election years.

            (Why, yes, I do have a grudge against the way that the unions buy influence….)

      2. Bernie keeps saying he wants to get the big money (read: “the wrong money”) out of politics. I keep saying that, if you want to get money out of politics, you need to get the power out of Washington.

        1. This. Regulation breeds graft. Just basic human nature. Graft is easier to control locally. Of course the citizens of Bell CA didn’t notice theirs.

          1. If you get the power out of Washington how are you going to attract quality people to run this country, hey? You want a bunch of second-rate mediocrities to be passing laws and regulations? And you’re showing no sympathy for celebrity newspresenters, who would be reduced to covering local zoning commissions, planning boards and city hall meetings! Is that the kind of thinking that made America great?

        2. “When legislatures control what is bought and sold the first things bought and sold are legislators.”

    2. I don’t think that even several rounds of replacements playing by the rules will fix it. To bring back the checks and balances that Obama has destroyed I believe will take the impeachment and conviction of a president. Not necessarily Obama. I look at this as an analogy to the situation if the courts refused to try and convict murderers. It would not matter how many people did not do murder for how long. Until a murderer was convicted and punished the rule of law would no longer exist.

      1. I don’t know if impeachment will be necessary or sufficient. I do believe Obama’s greatest legacy is the diminution of trust in the POTUS, as a leader by pretty much everyone in the world, and that will take multiple good presidents’ terms of office to repair.
        Not sure about this, but I suspect every language has a saying similar to “once bitten, twice shy”.

        1. I believe that it will be necessary as the checks will not come back into play until it is seen that the precedent set by Congress for Obama is not being followed any more. It may not be sufficient.

          1. To the limited extent of restoring balance to the branches, impeachment might be effective. It won’t restore the filibuster to the Senate, or prevent greater erosion of that tool, and it likely wouldn’t restrain the permanent bureaucracy. Done for the right reasons — not for High Crimes but for abuse of office — it could work.

            Geeze, either Sanders or Trump would likely take actions to anable that. although the Dems would probably no more act against Sanders than they have against Obama.

            So, a reason to vote Trump, eh? Trump/Cruz, not Trump/Kasich.

          2. Embrace the healing power of ‘and’. There are multiple injuries, which require different methods of treatment.

            1. While I dislike establishing such a precedent, a post-presidential legal action might be of use. It would probably have to be a civil suit as it is unlikely politicians would bring action (as inimical to their own interests) and standing would be wretched to establish. But suing for abuse of office, malfeasance in office, corruption in office are possibilities; perhaps loss of income due to failure to follow Constitutional duty to execute laws established to control the border? It would have to occur after the president’s term, of course — which would also strip the president of the use of the tools of the executive office for defending against such a suit. Discovery would be … interesting.

              The precedent would surely be … encouraging to future presidents to be more punctilious in adhering to the duties of the office, and would have to be limited in its scope because you know the Lepht will attempt to prosecute all future Republican presidents for the crime of not being Progressive.

              1. I’m nervous about even civil lawsuits against former Presidents but less so than about criminal charges against former Presidents.

                Don’t want to give Presidents reasons to avoid losing elections or reasons to avoid leaving office peacefully. [Sad Smile]

                Oh, one H. Beam Piper story had a former Venus Politician who had lost the election and then fled Venus to avoid charges of political corruption.

                The comment was made that *any* Venus Politician who lost elections faced such charges. [Evil Grin]

                1. I once suggested that any sitting politician who runs for reelection and is defeated should be summarily executed. It would at least encourage them to retire when their odds of reelection aren’t wonderful.

                  No one takes me seriously…

                  1. Such a proposal is clearly too drastic to be seriously entertained.

                    Now, if you wanted to make them serve a year in prison for every two years in elected office …

                    1. I find the smirking corruption of the bureaucrats even more appalling than that of the elected officials. If we get any more Lerners, Koskinens, VA corruptocrats, and the like collecting fat paychecks & pensions while giving we citizens the middle finger, I fear that we may start to see some ad hoc application of Rule 303 (see ‘Breaker Morant’).

                2. As noted, it is a problematic precedent. But absent that what recourse do we have to restrain such abuse of office as has occurred? Piper also imagined a polity where politicians could be legally assassinated, I will note. While we can establish such a precedent with a very high bar, it is inevitable such a bar would erode with time or, alternatively, be so girded about by laws and regulations as to be insurmountable; the one thing of which we could be sure is that it would not remain static.

                  The one area I see where such a precedent can be limited might be compliance with campaign finance regulations, such as deliberately disabling reasonable protections intended to ensure all donations are from legitimate sources.

                  Of course, the real problem is with our media elite who determine what things are “healthy” for us to know and what things should not be permitted to trouble our tiny little minds. Any cure for that would require something far more drastic than anything we’ve herein discussed. While the marketplace is addressing the problem it is far too slow a process.

                  1. BTW – has anybody seen any stories about Bernie’s small donor contributions? I wonder whether he is employing Obama’s technique of driving through the loophole about not reporting donations of less than 200 dollars. if, for example, George Soros had underlings making $199 contributions under multiple identities (or just using Soros supplied debit cards for the purpose) George could contribute a near infinite amount of money to the Sanders campaign without being noticed.

                    Sure, making straw person donations is what got Dinesh D’Souza in trouble, but Dinesh is a Republican and a Conservative — different rules apply.

                    1. Remember, it wasn’t just the small donor; it was that Obama had the “foreign national” checks turned off.

                    2. Just because someone is named Wordpro Dodad and lives in the Gaza Strip is no reason to assume they are not a US citizen.

                  2. I think we need to establish a cabinet-level Inspector General, who is nominated by the House and confirmed by the Senate, that has authority to investigate any and all government employees.

                    1. Hmm, not sure on that – Ultimate-Super-IG sounds like a job our very own Iulius Gaius would have found very appealing back in his government job days – lots of intrinsic power and, once the legislaturists are sufficiently bought, a perfect place to consolidate more.

                    2. Which is why having the House nominate is so important. If the IGUS becomes too much of a problem, the people can vote in a new House that isn’t beholden to him. Throw in an 8 year term limit as well just to keep the mischief at a minimum.

                    3. no, wait…what was that rule…cognomen before pr…OK, it’s Gaius Iulius, right? No offence intended, Imperator.

                  3. I fear such cures and prescriptions would be worse than useless, faster than we could guess. I far more prefer to change the culture. A far harder thing, I know.

                    Consider. In a moral culture, where graft, lying, and corruption inspire revulsion in the average citizen, politicians would face immediate recall (tar, feathers, bell, and book) for even the lighter of offenses we’ve discussed thus far. The Constitution works for a *moral* people. For anything less…

                    We cannot idiot-proof a government- the idiots are too good at their respective idiocies. We can do things that seem good, or at least address the bad, in the short term. In the long term? Chaos.

                    It’s a greater challenge, bringing a sense of honor and decency back into everyday life. It is not popular these days. But absent that, how can we ever expect our leaders to act with good judgement, when they are drawn from a people who embrace *bad* judgement?

                    Make no mistake, I’m not declaiming “all is lost, the end is nigh!” Just that we need to keep an eye on the long view. We don’t need to make every single man woman and child perfect. More that we need, well, more folks who hold themselves and others to that high standard, keeping our word when we give it.

          3. Tar and Feather both Hilary and Obama for forbidding the troops from rescuing the Benghazi Embassy staff.

          1. Took me a couple of seconds to get the meaning of that…

            (For others: “The scalded cat fears cold water.”)

    3. I contend that the American War for Independence wasn’t a revolution; it was an insurrection. It wasn’t “kill them all and throw it all out and start over with Us Revolutionaries in charge” the way every other revolution in history had been. Rather, it was “Stop pinching us! If you hit us again, we’ll hit you back twice! Now go away and leave us alone!”

      1. Nod. It was the Colonial Governments telling the Main Government “Quit butting your head into our business”.

      2. Except you would be wrong. Too many people, including our hostess, seem to believe the American Revolution didn’t have a Terror. Wrong. Loyalists ran for the borders about two steps ahead of the lynch mobs, if they didn’t end up burned alive in their homes.

        It wasn’t as noticeable because unlike the aristos, Loyalists could run to other parts of the Empire, and didn’t stick out like sore thumbs of non-English speakers when they did.

          1. Actually, again, it did happen in several places as state action, as in passed by various state legislatures to relieve Loyalists of their property and exile them, no questions asked on how it was done. What it didn’t do is happen as a “national” action, mostly because the national level wasn’t organized enough for that.

            And again, the winners write the histories; George Washington was never referred to as “Father of His Country” in Lord Cornwallis’ officers mess.

            The point is that the Founders were very clear that they might have to do things their “sacred honor”” might find distasteful.

            1. No, Steve. There was no guillotine in the public square killing half the population. What you describe is common in any civil war, which the revolution was initially.

        1. Yes, the American Revolution produced more refugees than the French one, but that was because they were allowed to run.

  4. Amanda, just one quibble. Obama and FDR have certainly done a lot of damage to our country, but I think Wilson did as least as much as either of them and arguably, more.

    As to standing up and being heard, my wife and I will be at the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop on our primary election day, so we’ve made an effort to find out how to vote early (that’s possible in Tennessee). I also contacted my state representative and exhorted him to support a measure going through the TN assembly to call for an Article V amending convention to the US Constitution. I’m happy to say that the Tennessee assembly did pass (a few days later) a resolution calling for such a convention.

    What I’m saying is, being a thorn in the side (or a trusted advisor; it depends on how you look at it) to those elected to represent you does work. Not always, or quickly, but it does work.

      1. You’re a (defrocked) linguist Sarah, so tell me: is it true that the root is the same for “caucus” and “cockup”?

        1. The claimed etymology:

          “private meeting of party leaders,” 1763, American English (New England), perhaps from an Algonquian word caucauasu “counselor, elder, adviser” in the dialect of Virginia, or from the Caucus Club of Boston, a 1760s social & political club whose name possibly derived from Modern Greek kaukos “drinking cup.” Another old guess is caulker’s (meeting) [Pickering, 1816], but OED finds this dismissable.

          So a political club based on drinking. Kind of makes sense, at that…

        2. no one knows the root, but I think it means “few people understand it, so we’ll have a lot less opposition than in primary election, and we can cook it our way.”

  5. Back in 1981 Alexis Gilleland wrote a short trilogy starting with “Revolution from Rosinante.” In it, Austin TX is taken out by a cruise missile when the Air Force is unable to launch interceptors… because launch authority had to come from the EPA.

    It was ridiculous and amusing in 1981…

      1. Where rational people see warnings, Leftists see suggestions. I’ve almost reached the point where I want people to stop writing these things, lest the Left get any ideas they didn’t already have.

    1. What’s scary is that I could actually get behind something like that happening. Two reasons: 1) it would get rid of Texas’s most leftist citizens, and 2) it would provide impetus for Texas to secede from the US.

      1. But the only way a single cruise missile could take out an entire city is if it had a nuke warhead. Let’s think about who would be able to acquire and use such a combination successfully, and what it might mean. Of course, with a leftist federal administration’s studied ignorance of the evidence of such an impending attack, it might not be as unlikely as it sounds at first hearing.

        1. I thought it was a cruise missile shot through the TX governor’s office window at a point in time that the Feds were sore pressed about something the TX Governor had done.

          FedGov proceeded to round up all the student protestors that the TX Gov had been playing to and ship them off to a space station way out in the belt, which in the end declared independence from the US, and thus had to have a little shoot out with the IJN Space Forces with no support from the US Government (remember, this was back in the 80s when the Japanese were clearly going to rule the world).

          Lots of techy stuff, an AI that chose to use a John Wayne impression to inspire a team of snipers shooting from one space station structure to another in vacuum, and enough characters that were trying to do their best to go along with the splodey bits that I remember quite enjoying the trilogy.

      2. The most disturbing part of that is that I could see the .gov allowing it because ‘it’s only Texas’. Just like a snowstorm can get a disaster declaration if it affects a govt city but half a state on fire cannot because red state.

          1. Locality matters. The Weather Channel HQ is in Atlanta. Atlanta gets bit more rain or is a bit windier than usual and it’s The Weather News. Somewhere else (beside LA, NYC, or WDC) gets hit with $BIG_STORM it’s “…and in other weather news.” At least that’s how I recall it. Gave up cable, didn’t get satellite, refuse to get terrestrial antenna until at least after a Tuesday in November, if at all. Seems beneficial, as last time my blood pressure/pulse was checked it got a stare, a double take, a muttering of very low numbers and I was asked, “Are you alive?” Maybe next time I should answer “No” ? }:o)

                1. Perpetual Unearthly Forces Fund. Trope from Larry Correia’s Monster Hunter International.

                  Basically, all the legends are real. Zombies, vampires, werewolves, ghouls, cthuloid Old Ones, orcs, elves, magic, the whole shebang… right under our noses. And the U.S. gov’t is part of a world conspiracy keeping a lid on the monsters among us, because the Old Ones get more powerful the more people believe in them.

                  The P.U.F.F. is a bounty paid on humans that take out supernatural nasties. The exemption is for aforementioned nasties that work for the government for a time to prove they’re not a threat. Working for a government bureaucracy is, of course, a dirty, dangerous business, so there’s a cost to earning your P.U.F.F. exemption.

                  Private organizations exist to take advantage of the P.U.F.F. bounties, of which MHI is one. A badass, zombie stomping, werewolf slaying, vampire staking group that takes in folks who manage to survive a supernatural attack/event, and those who make the cut, they go hunting. Hugely dangerous, ridiculously profitable, and fun as all heck to read about.

                  Highly recommended.

                  1. Don’t worry, you’re not the only PUFF eligible commenter here. As long as you keep your teeth to yourself, we will leave you alone.

                    1. What about you should we worry about?

                      Horns, hooves, and occasionally wits, though sometimes I might seem to be in need having them sent out to be sharpened. The wits, not the horns.

                    2. Well, I think Orvan Taurus might be too smart to take on Bugs Bunny but he might also “fight” smarter than that guy. 😈

                  2. Trigger Warning: One of the main characters goes into battle clad in a jacket made from minotaur bullman hide.

                    Spoiler Alert: the jacket was a gift from the hide’s original owner.

                  1. Of course, locality matters. For instance, if you go to Ursula Vernon’s Castle Hangnail instead, you can get a job as a handyman or cook.

            1. Locality matters.

              “As you can see, it’s currently over Kansas. Of course, if we destroy Kansas, the world may not hear about it for years.” -Blofeld, on why he can’t use his Giant “Laser” right that moment.

          2. Not sure I’d agree with that. Flint MI’s gonna get more govt aid than Texas did with those wildfires a few years ago. All cuz then they can blame an R (as opposed to general .gov incompetence.

        1. The EPA disallowed the use of Dutch oil spill cleanup vessels after the Deepwater Horizon. The vessel would skim off oil on the water and return 98% clean water back to the sea. The clean discharge did not pass minimum clean discharge standards for ships dumping waste water. The ships sailed thousands of miles at Dutch expense to sit there and watch the oil spread.

          1. Speaking of making perfect the enemy of good….

            My favorite is the EPA rule that prohibits the draining of water from long- disused mines into local creeks…because the water is too pure.

              1. Sounds like a necessary prophylactic to prevent unscrupulous polluters from using that extra pure mine shaft water to dilute the pollutants they’ve dumped into creeks, obscuring their nefarious corruption of our nation’s soul soil.

                We cannot permit net polluters to hide their schemes behind marginal pollution!

              2. Thus saith the retired miner who now gives tours of one of the abandoned silver mines up in North Idaho.

      3. There are still high concentrations of leftists in Downtown Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, and El Paso…….

          1. Yes there are, just like there are a lot in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso, but the lefties have seized control of the city, and in most cases the county government. The downtown Dallas businessmen used to run the city up until the mid 1980’s, but their influence declined with the decline of business there as many began moving to the suburbs, or the old conservative guys retired/died and their university indoctrinated kids took over.

            For one perfect example of the kids, look at what happened after old man Augie Busch retired and his son took over and immediately took Anheiser-Busch to the left.

      4. With a deep enough Southern accent, “Austin, Texas” can sound an awful lot like “ostentatious”.

        I’m just sayin’…

    2. I need to dig those out again, sometime along here. He had some pretty good “outside the box” engineering ideas that I need to compare to my 30 years more of learning.

      IIRC, though, it wasn’t all of Austin – it was just the Governor’s Mansion. Unless I’m confusing it with the much later Kratman, which is quite possible…

      1. Yes, it was just the Governor’s Mansion. I remembered that after I hit “post”, of course…

        “It’s a good start!…”

        I loved the Dragon Scale Mirror and the Purple Shaft laser. Something like a 30-meter gas laser pumped by a 60-kilometer mirror. EE Smith would be pleased…

        1. What got me going was the HUGE spaceship that got its thrust from uranium heated to the plasma state…

  6. The Czechs … remembered how they were handed first to Hitler and then to Stalin on a silver platter.


    My heritage is Baltic. I’ve read stories about the Soviets relocating the population of “Paris on the Baltic” Riga, replacing them with Russian transplants and declaring that those treasures of the city which had survived were “achievements of the glorious Soviet People’s Republic” and never mind the lies the locals try to sell you.

    Now Putin makes noises about the need to protect the rights of Russian-ethnic communities in Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states while ignoring the local name for such ethnic enclaves: occupying forces.

    1. ^Yep. Alarm bells started going off in my head when the Russia-Ukraine flap first started and those were Putin’s ‘reasons.’ I was appalled that not one media outlet I saw–not ONE–drew the connection between that and what Hitler pulled.

      Of course, Britain and France had the same reaction back then: a sort of resounding “meh”…at least up until the Fuhrer was sitting on their doorsteps…

      1. Ja. No one seemed to comment on the fact that Stalin “relocated” far, far too many Ukrainians and others and planted ethnic Russians in their place. (I am teaching the Holodomor in a few weeks. I’m not looking forward to it.)

    2. My Latvian in-laws truly saw the German army as saving them from Stalin. Unfortunately, they also approved of Hitler’s solution to the Jewish problem.

      1. Pretty much everyone not ethnic Russian had that reaction. Fortunately, Hitler and most of the Nazis saw Slavs as Untermenschen and couldn’t take advantage.

        1. William Manchester addresses this in his Arms of Krupp. The Germans were welcomed as liberators of Ukraine but couldn’t put their own racism aside to profit from that role.

          Which sorta kinda trashes the whole “West must unite behind us to destroy the Soviets” meme, but what the heck.

  7. Let us remember that on three occasions (1992, 2000, 2008) the candidate who was ultimately nominated and elected president had not won his party’s primary in New Hampshire.

  8. Not going to happen with Israel, for two reasons:

    1. Israel is in the same position as the Zionist Yishuv in WWII. The hegemonic power in the region (Britain then, US now) is fighting against an enemy (Nazi Germany / Political Islam) with who is a mortal enemy for Jews. Therefore, the hegemonic power knows the Jews are on its side, and only needs to court the Arabs.

    2. Israelis will never live under Arab rule. If Israel loses, they won’t be slaves like the Checz, but dead.

      1. And were the latter to occur in the years down the line the living conditions for the Palestinians wouldn’t be better off than they are today. (In all probability it would be worse.)

        1. The sheer.. idiocy.. of the “Palestinians” was brought home clearly when Israel withdrew from some area, leaving all sorts of things behind – like a very nice greenhouse, useful for growing food plants. The reaction? Not, “Cool, we have a greenhouse to grow food for us in!” but “Jewish thing. SMASH!” If they can’t help themselves, why the precise Hell should anyone else help them? Maybe having to focus on their own survival from the elements might induce some reasoning. And if not, well, evolution happens. Good thing I’m not evil. Yet.

          1. That brings to mind an old saying:

            “Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.”

            1. The sad part of that saying is that I’ve been on the wrong side of it all too often:

              “Look, I know I screwed up by leaving this to the last minute. You shouldn’t have to put everything on hold to deal with my situation. However, that’s the only way my mess will get fixed…so, will you please do it anyway?”

              And every time, I know I’m racking up a bunch of karma that will need to be paid off in the form of a huge favor for someone…

          2. That would be the Gaza strip, from which Hamas has been launching Iranian rockets ever since.

            And complaining that the Israelis have imposed (and Egyptians have enforced) a blockade to prevent embargoed arms resupplying the terrorists.

            Also where Gazand build tunnels through which to invade Israel and murder Israeli civilians (a term not accepteded by Palestinians, who recognize only “our” civilians — meaning everybody the Zionists shoot at and everybody killed by Palestinian blue-on-blue fire.)

  9. My mother was active in church women’s conferences when we were teenagers, and at one of these conferences, she met with a woman from one of the Baltic states – Latvia, I think – who had experienced both the Nazi and the Soviet occupations. She told my mother that the Soviet version was several times more horrible than the Nazi, and not only because it lasted so much longer. My mother’s acquaintance said that the Nazi occupation was endurable/survivable if you were not Jewish or got involved in resistance activities. Keep your head down, go about your business, they’d pretty much leave you alone.
    Not so the Soviet occupation: if you were a business owner, part of the intelligentsia, minor nobility, worked in or owned a bank, had investments, owned property, were a land-lord. had served as a military officer, were a Latvian nationalist even in the mildest way, were even mildly prosperous … your goose was cooked, according to the Soviets. Entire and substantial portions of the population – just “othered” and eliminated.

  10. > Yalta

    The Yalta Conference was important… but it was Potsdam that sealed the fate of eastern Europe. Roosevelt’s failure to bring Truman up to speed was criminal IMHO. Truman was an astute politician, but he walked into the conference almost completely ignorant of the realities of dealing with “Uncle Joe.”

    Churchill was replaced by Attlee, who was better-briefed than Truman, but Roosevelt and Stalin had cut Churchill out of some private side deals, cutting the British out of their plans. Churchill flew to Moscow to try to cut his own deal and was snubbed. By Potsdam, the British were just sitting at the table by courtesy despite the “Special Relationship” and joint military command – while it’s largely forgotten today, the “Western Allies” were all under British command, via Churchill as Minister of War. (Eisenhower in particular was unhappy about that, and whinged about it in “Crusade In Europe”.)

    Churchill had all sorts of long-range plans for rearranging Europe, which he wrote about in his history of WWII. Attlee had no plans other than “bring the troops home, we’re done.” Truman was much the same. The job had been to liberate Europe from the Germans. Job done, go home. The Russians were an entirely different deal, and part of the price for getting rid of the Germans.

    Practically, there was nothing Yalta or Potsdam could have done about the Russians swallowing Eastern Europe; Stalin was going to grab everything he could and no negotiation was going to stop it. The only alternative would have been to go to war with the Russians. Win or lose, most of Eastern Europe would have been rubble in short order.

    Couldda-wouldda-shouldda… but the only options were “let them have it” or “war against the USSR.” Something which more than one major power had already failed at.

    1. correction: the *Pacific* was under British command; Europe was under American military command, but the order of command was Roosevelt (CIC), Churchill (MOW), Marshall (COS). At least, according to Churchill it was…

      1. **Correction** The CBI theater was under British command. The rest of the Pacific theater was an American show with Mac Arthur and Nimitz in command.

    2. I am an advocate of the position that our armed forces should have advanced as far east as possible without actually entering Soviet territory, and that we should have gone with Patton’s plan to use the Germans to make it easier.

      1. I suspect that demonization of Nazis/Germans and the revelations of the Concentration Camps made use of German military forces untenable.


        1. Quite possibly. But the leadership of the time should have listened to Patton on this, just like Truman should have gone with MacArthur on nuking Communist China to help win the Korean War. Decades of suffering Europe, and the continuing suffering in Korea, have been the outcome.

          1. (Waggles hand) Actually, the Korean issue could have been solved without nukes.
            Kick Macarthur upstairs and away from Korea, get on the horn with Mao, tell him the only troops approaching the Yalu will be ROK forces and they’ll go no further.
            I’m not sure if that would have worked, mind, but that would’ve been better than what we did do, or going nuclear.

            1. If Mac Arthur had listened to the intelligence folks who told him the Chinese were massing troops along the Yalu, he could have set up a trap that would have smashed the PLA and probably have precipitated the fall of Mao.

              1. He did listen to the intelligence. He wanted to bomb the Yalu bridges and secure the south side of the river. IIRC, it’s why he was relieved of command.

                1. No, he was relieved of command because he started making noises about bringing in the Nationalist Chinese and that Truman wasn’t doing what was necessary to win.

                  1. Embrace the power of and. What you state is admitted reason he was relieved (of course, Truman hated MacArthur, and would jump at any legitimate reason to relieve him, that wouldn’t splash too badly on him) but MacArthur also wanted to bomb the Yalu bridges and secure the river.

                    Personally I think he was correct about Truman and probably the Nationalist Chinese, but it wasn’t an acceptable thing for a military commander to be making public noises about.

    3. Roosevelt’s failure to bring Truman up to speed was criminal IMHO.

      One of his many criminal acts.

  11. While the MSM may attempt to declare the field for November set, New Hampshire was not even the end of the beginning, much less the beginning of the end.

    1. How can the Demoncrats view the race is settled when hardly anybody but non-hispanic whites have voted. Who do blacks like better of the two disastrous choices

  12. Now, I don’t know about you, but the last thing I want our military worrying about when they are under enemy fire is if shooting off that cannon will impact the environment.

    This is rapidly becoming a hobby horse for me, one that inspires massive outbursts of mental blue language.

    By imposing the various social-political stands that the government is presently placing upon the military they are hobbling the effectiveness of the forces. This pantie wasted-ness results in prolonging engagements, often meaning more casualties (forces and civilian). It also means that the engagement outlasts the national will to be involved, and we see forces withdrawn without achieving their objective, abandoning those who have supported us and leaving the problems in place. This results in greater loss of life and overall damage, political and environmentally.

    So, to co-opt a once popular phrase — we are going to destroy the world in order to save it.

    1. That’s part of the progressive tactics. They don’t want to actually fix anything, just look like they’re doing something. It is all about appearance over substance. In fact, if they make things worse, there are more problems for them to “fix” and more power to consolidate as a result.

      For the vast majority of those who support them, the appearance of working to fix things is all that matters. Most people are too focused on their own problems (which the progressives prefer) to actually take the time to understand the bigger issues.

      1. A natural result of “do something, dammit” as opposed to “WTF is going on, here?” – the latter implies a desire to know and understand.

      2. Which can be used to advantage, actually 😀 If I were the commander in question, I would grab my best psyops team and have them come up with the most impressive hot-air campaign (complete with powerpoint slides) ever seen. And then send that upstairs and not bother the grunts with *anything*. If they don’t care about results, give ’em bullshit! (Specialist Schwartz, to the white courtesy phone….)

  13. Who was it that said, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, those that do know it are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.”

  14. See, I think getting our military involved in climate change is a really good idea. I know of no better way to offset the model predicted trend towards global warming than the ground detonation of several thermonuclear devices. Too warm for you? Have a taste of nuclear winter. See, all better now.

    1. And an opportunity for field-expedient engineering — just how many thermonukes, of what sizes, in what places, will give the desired result? Inquiring minds want to calibrate this process!

  15. You’re coming at the numbers the wrong way ’round
    It’s more accurate to say that 14 out of the last 17 Presidents won their NH Primary. Obviously there are two parties running primary elections, and only one of them can win the presidency. So even if NH primaries possessed absolute accuracy they’d only be 50% predictive by your chosen measure.

  16. Those winners were Eisenhower (twice), Nixon (twice), Ford, Regan (twice), George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.


    1. Ford was never elected President (or Vice President).
    2. Reagan. Regan was one of his Cabinet secretaries.

    (okay, that 2nd one was just a typo, but still…) 🙂

      1. To be really picky (who me) Congress did not elect him, they just confirmed him when Nixon appointed him. Mind you the back-room deals that got him appointed had a goodly amount of input from Congress, but no election.

        1. I think you’re right, it was technically a confirmation – but they did get to vote on him, which cannot be said for the rest of the country.

  17. Negotiating the eventual zones of control before the end of the war in 1945 was necessary for the Allies in order to avoid a potential falling out over who grabbed what territory. Hitler was hoping for exactly this to happen and thus have a chance to survive by joining forces with whatever side would have him. Thankfully if there was one thing the Allies all agreed on it was that Hitler had to go, so there was no chance of that. But given Stalin’s paranoia it was wiser to reassure him by agreeing on boundaries rather than leave the matter who which army got where faster, especially given the Soviet Union’s much larger army.

    1. by agreeing on boundaries rather than leave the matter who which army got where faster, especially given the Soviet Union’s much larger army.

      Borders determined by where Patton got first (if he was given his way) would make gerrymandered districts in the U.S. look positively sane.

    2. If the US had gone to war with the USSR in Europe in 1945 while we were still mobilized, it would have been no contest. The Soviet Army was very close to the end of its logistical tether, and very close to running out of reliable manpower. It’s industrial power depended greatly upon American support and the Soviet air force was a one trick pony. Their military equipment was not very reliable either.

      Patton was right.

      1. Given the U.S. was still at war with Japan and wanted the Soviet Union’s help in defeating them, going to war with the U.S.S.R. in Europe wasn’t an option. English manpower was totally drained as well and Patton’s crazy notion of getting help from the Germans wasn’t realistic given the beating their armed forces had taken by then. By 1945 everyone was totally sick of war as well, and for good reason. There was no way the U.S. was going to instigate a war, period.

        1. Nod, the alt-hist mentioned earlier depended on Stalin going insane (or more insane) and attempting to conquer all of Europe while Patton has the job of trying to stop him.

          Without such insanity on Stalin’s part, there wouldn’t have been many people willing to “keep pushing East against Stalin”.

        2. Plus the US had pretty quickly started to pull US Army troops out of Europe and transship them towards the Pacific theater for the invasion of Japan – I have relatives who got the surrender news while on troop trains heading westward across the US with orders to load onto such and such transport ship heading out to points unnamed to stage for that invasion.

          Of course, Patton knew this too and was not a fool – his proposal forsaw needing time to re-train, re-equip, and reorganize the Wehrmacht troops before incorporating them in a joint drive eastward.

          Note that everything up to kicking off and heading east is what actually happened when the allies re-armed West Germany in the early 50s – a lot of the middle and noncom core strength of the Bundeswehr and new Luftwaffe were in fact WWII Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe veteran troops, and all this happened basically in the period only 5 to 10 years after the end of the war (i.e. less time ago then than the election of SuperGeniusBarry is from today).

  18. I notice no one has bitten on Cam Newton being a bad sport after the Super Bowl defeat.
    Why didn’t any reporter ask him how he felt about his whopping 198.8% tax rate for his stay in ‘San Francisco’. Think, if the Panthers had won, he would have paid a mere 99.6% of income to taxes.
    I think this could really make one’s mood bad, and besides, the reporters ask such stupid and dumb questions. “What did the Broncos do better than you?”; “They won.”

    1. The reporters do ask remarkable dumb questions, and yet somehow other losing players have managed to answer those questions without sounding like sulky kindergartners. Attending these sort of press conferences are part of what he gets paid for.

      1. How about;
        I was sitting there listening to the questions, and suddenly realized that I would owe California 198.8% in taxes. That would ruin anyone’s day.
        It would be amusing to see how the press spun that. Admittedly in my youth Football players were looked up at as role models, and good sportsmanship was expected. I don’t think that is particularly true anymore. Perhaps he needs to get a partnership in a beer distribution company and use the time wisely as Manning did. Notice he thought of his wife and kids first, then his promotional plugs.

        1. It would appear that sports agents are not doing a good job on training their clients in the fundamentals of brand development. Pretending admiration for an opponent’s professionalism and skill can significantly enhance one’s endorsement fees, and that’s where the real money and career longevity lies.

          Tiger Woods’ drop in endorsements was not primarily due to his sadly diminished golf skills.

          Of course, that can be a lesson taught by one’s opponents, albeit often in painful and embarrassing ways.

      2. I recall one sports analyst or such suggesting a solution to a problem (the problem?) in/with the NFL. A scouting/recruiting team would need to have two people. One would be the football expert, who could recommend this or that student player to move up into the big time. And the other wouldn’t need to know anything at all about the game, but would have absolute veto power. Specialty? Knowing the signs of a jerk.

  19. I suggest sending our politicians to the front lines of the next handy war. Since our politicians will have less military experience than the opposition, our politicians will be wiped out. That way we’ll lose the battle, but we’ll win the war!

    1. Besides, we need Top Men to monitor the latest DOD directives on gender equality and climate friendliness. Who better than the authors of these ideas?

  20. Not related to the topic at hand, but I ran across a quote from filmmaker Joel Coen via a link from Ace of Spades HQ on the subject of “needing” minority/gender/sexuality balance:

    He continued: “You don’t sit down and write a story and say, ‘I’m going to write a story that involves four black people, three Jews, and a dog,’—right? That’s not how stories get written. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything about how stories get written and you don’t realize that the question you’re asking is idiotic.”

    I…I’ve always enjoyed the Coen Brothers’ work, but right now, they’re two of my favorite human beings.

    More at: http://freebeacon.com/blog/coen-bros-destroy-complaints-about-diversity-in-their-films/


  21. Data error. Clinton’s comeback kid 1992 ‘victory’ in NH involved coming in second. Tsongas won. NH voters are notorious homers and always vote for neighbors over anyone else.

  22. Might be worth noting (unless someone already has in the previous 203 comments) that two of the Democratic winners of NH that you cited were sitting Presidents running for reelection. Neither Clinton nor Obama won NH first time around. Ditto George W. on the Republican side. So the stats look even worse if you take that into account (or better if you are, like me, un-enthused about the prospect of a Trump presidency)

Comments are closed.