Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cool Breeze]

Our right of natural sovereignty (border negligence and anti-american policies), our right for unfettered elections (illegals not voting, nor with illegal methods), our right to bear arms (restricted), our right to religious freedom (tithing to God, not coerced payments to a central government which steals our money on coveters behalf), and all of the other rights that have been curtailed due to made up SCOTUS rulings for things not given to the states (Amendment 10) - mostly on the basis of the so-called commerce clause.

[Bob Butler]

Our right of natural sovereignty (border negligence and anti-american policies), our right for unfettered elections (illegals not voting, nor with illegal methods), our right to bear arms (restricted), our right to religious freedom (tithing to God, not coerced payments to a central government which steals our money on coveters behalf), and all of the other rights that have been curtailed due to made up SCOTUS rulings for things not given to the states (Amendment 10) - mostly on the basis of the so-called commerce clause.

Hmm. Lots of valid issues. Not all of them involve rights specified in the Bill of Rights or similar subsequent amendments.

Yes, immigration is a problem, but I don’t see where it is a right.

Apparently, non citizens may not vote in federal elections and no state constitution guarantees a non citizen the right to vote in state elections. A few municipalities do let non citizens vote in local elections, including several cities in Maryland, plus New York City and San Francisco. I would lean against it, but there are more important issues. There ought to be a right for one vote per citizen, at least for non felons and non insane. The biggest attempt to work around it is in the south. If minorities try to vote, some will try to prevent it. There ought to be a right…

The Right to Bear Arms was guaranteed just as militias had the most impact on the English Civil War and US Revolution. It was a good idea at the time. There were natives in the woods, a tiny standing army and virtually no police forces. Citizens had to handle things themselves. It may still seem a good idea in rural areas, but letting spree killers arm with assault rifles? Definitely a bogus idea of what the law meant was accepted for years. My position on the issue is complex, but let’s save this issue for another day.

As far as I know you can give what you want to any church. Have you had trouble? Your requirement to pay taxes is entirely different. The government needs revenue to provide services and doesn’t recognize a right to not pay them.

The commerce clause? Again, not in the Bill of Rights. Yeah, that can be a headache. The big fight on that was about the time of the Great Depression. FDR wanted to regulate the economy, thought the amendment process too slow, so he just regulated away. Conservative judges wouldn’t let him, and by the wording of the constitution they shouldn’t have. When it became clear that what FDR wanted the economy needed and people supported, the justices backed down. But that left it a big mess since. There is a habit of Congress doing anything they want and repeating ‘commerce clause’ to justify it. Ugh.

[Xeraphim1]

Monday September 12th, 2022

analysts from multiple media sources are expressing shock and surprise with how successful lightning strikes by Ukrainian forces over the weekend have recovered so much territory in Northeast donbas. as hundreds of Russian troops are being withdrawn, some analysts are even suggesting that Russia's army is collapsing.

it appears that Russia is moving its troops South, to defend Mariupol and other Southern cities in case Ukrainian forces attack there.

whatever happens next, it now appears that the Ukraine war has taken a decisive turn in Ukraine's favor, at least for the time being.

The only way out for the Russians after the immediate debacle months ago was to mobilize reservist infantry to fill out the Russian units. This was necessary as the Russian forces that went in were basically just the operators of the vehicles. There was no infantry to put protective "screens" around the armored vehicles, and the Ukrainians had a field day with modern anti-tank weapons.

Putin seems completely unwilling to mobilize. Sure, they have shanghaied lots of unwilling young men from the breakaway republics, and then given them outdated weapons and no training, but this obviously didn't do it.

As this goes on, the Russians are getting more and more demoralized. At this point, the Russian Army does need to disengage to reorganize and recover.

Yes, the Russian army has been short on infantry for quite a while, but a general mobilization isn't likely to make things better. Part of the issue is that this isn't WWII; you don't just hand out rifles and point the warm bodies in a general direction. These days infantry is a skilled job and cannon fodder isn't very useful. Also, those troops would need to be equipped and supplied, both tasks that Russia is having difficulty doing with its more limited manpower.

What Russia really needs is a revamped doctrine with a professional army cutting the conscripts out completely. But that's a project for decades and Russia has wasted the past 30 years tinkering around the edges instead of paying attention to the rest of the world and making needed changes. Even China is much ahead on Russia in doctrine and strategy.

And, Russia is running out of stuff. It seems to be keeping a core of modern equipment for emergencies, but otherwise is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's going to Iran and North Korea to buy things which must be humiliating.

Putin may be thinking he can turn the tide by imposing economic pain on Germany, but this isn't going to provide his forces with the infantry they need.

The longer this goes on, the higher the likelihood that the military is able to work out some kind of coup to take Putin out. Then we will probably have a competent military leader in charge of Russia, someone who will mobilize and refit/reorganize the Army to punish Ukraine and those that aided them. Yes, an even more nationalistic leader than Putin.

It's certainly possible there could be a worse leader than Putin, but probably not from the military. They know what's sitting in the cupboard and know that there isn't much.

Meanwhile, NATO is moving towards serious infighting. The Poles recently told the Germans they want at least a Trillion$ as compensation for WW2. So now the Poles and Germans are going to have another argument, while neither has the wherewithal to heat homes as it gets cold.

The Poles have been talking different amount of restitution for a decade now and never made a real demand.

Then there is the distinct possibility of Turkey starting an actual war with the Greeks.

Possible, but not highly likely. Especially since Turkish elections are coming up and it's entirely possible AK will lose power.

To top things off in Europe, the Italians could actually return to Fascism, while Sweden may become embroiled in domestic political turmoil even before they can join NATO.

Not likely for Italy. Though described as far right, in American terms Brothers of Italy is moderately conservative. Also not likely to be anything serious in Sweden. I mean, it's Sweden.

As a "I told you so", I am seeing more and more articles about the US and NATO being desperately short of ammunition, and without the ability to replace the shortage for years, as everything is being sent to the Ukraine.

Not desperately short but production does need to ramp up. But, how would that ammunition be used on? Not China since that would be a mostly air and sea war. The only other real problem is... Russia. All those weapons being transferred to Ukraine are doing exactly what they were built for; killing Russians but no NATO soldiers are dying for it.

I don't have rose colored glasses, but I think things are not as dire as you are predicting.

[Guest]

This quote from BB is very telling. He doesn't even know what kind of governing system (Constitutional Republic) we have....

Could you then provide a similar summary of your vision of a Constitutional Republic? You criticize without specifics or alternative.

A constitutional, representative republic is not based on mob (majority) rule. You seem to believe we are a pure democracy when we are not. I shouldn't have to educate you on such matters.

BB believes in mob rule by the lowest of the low. He wants to drag America into the gutter with him and his friends.

There is a special place in Hell already prepared for him and his friends.

Bob might not believe in Hell right now, but he will one day.

When he is in it.

[Navigator]

Yes, immigration is a problem, but I don’t see where it is a right.

Given the context, I think you are saying that we don't have a "right" to limit immigration. It may not be a right, but it has been a legal practice for since probably the 1840s. We have had bad immigration laws in the past, but "Open Borders" is a recipe for disaster.

A few municipalities do let non citizens vote in local elections, including several cities in Maryland, plus New York City and San Francisco. I would lean against it, but there are more important issues.

Allowing non-citizens to swing elections and to vote themselves more handouts is another recipe for disaster. And we are seeing it in several cities in Maryland, New York, San Francisco, and wherever this is allowed. I can't believe this isn't illegal and the people allowing it prosecuted.

There ought to be a right for one vote per citizen, at least for non felons and non insane.

Last I heard, the liberals were even attempting to allow felons to vote too.

The biggest attempt to work around it is in the south. If minorities try to vote, some will try to prevent it. There ought to be a right…

The so called "vote suppression" in the south amounts to the following:
Voters need to have IDs. It suppresses people from voting multiple times, or illegal immigrants or felons from voting.
Not mass mailing mail-in ballots. This means that you have to request a ballot. This requires forethought and limits mail-in ballots from ending up in the hands of people who shouldn't be voting
Limiting number of ballot drop boxes So you have to mail your ballot, big deal. Unless you forgot until the absolute last minute.

BTW, the founding father's idea was that the electorate was informed, and knew the issues and understood the potential implications of their vote. They would have created restrictions themselves to limit people voting themselves things, or voting in ignorance. Wait, they did create voting laws like that.

The Right to Bear Arms was guaranteed just as militias had the most impact on the English Civil War and US Revolution. It was a good idea at the time. There were natives in the woods, a tiny standing army and virtually no police forces. Citizens had to handle things themselves. It may still seem a good idea in rural areas, but letting spree killers arm with assault rifles? Definitely a bogus idea of what the law meant was accepted for years. My position on the issue is complex, but let’s save this issue for another day.

I wrote extensively on Gun Control on my web blog at www.comingstorms.com. Please refer there as this is a complex issue.

As far as I know you can give what you want to any church. Have you had trouble? Your requirement to pay taxes is entirely different. The government needs revenue to provide services and doesn’t recognize a right to not pay them.

Agreed here, but the problem for the Government is that it is maybe collecting half of what it needs to provide the services it has decided to. The rest is funded by governmental debt, which is now over $30 Trillion at the federal level.

The commerce clause? Again, not in the Bill of Rights. Yeah, that can be a headache. The big fight on that was about the time of the Great Depression. FDR wanted to regulate the economy, thought the amendment process too slow, so he just regulated away. Conservative judges wouldn’t let him, and by the wording of the constitution they shouldn’t have. When it became clear that what FDR wanted the economy needed and people supported, the justices backed down.

The constitution says the Supreme Court gets to decide what is legal and what isn't. They had every right and justification to strike down dictatorial edicts, in this case, issued by FDR. As I stated earlier, FDR's policies and edicts prolonged and worsened the depression, they did NOT fix it. A combination of bankruptcy and personal savings did.

[Navigator]

Monday September 12th, 2022

analysts from multiple media sources are expressing shock and surprise with how successful lightning strikes by Ukrainian forces over the weekend have recovered so much territory in Northeast donbas. as hundreds of Russian troops are being withdrawn, some analysts are even suggesting that Russia's army is collapsing.

it appears that Russia is moving its troops South, to defend Mariupol and other Southern cities in case Ukrainian forces attack there.

whatever happens next, it now appears that the Ukraine war has taken a decisive turn in Ukraine's favor, at least for the time being.

The only way out for the Russians after the immediate debacle months ago was to mobilize reservist infantry to fill out the Russian units. This was necessary as the Russian forces that went in were basically just the operators of the vehicles. There was no infantry to put protective "screens" around the armored vehicles, and the Ukrainians had a field day with modern anti-tank weapons.

Putin seems completely unwilling to mobilize. Sure, they have shanghaied lots of unwilling young men from the breakaway republics, and then given them outdated weapons and no training, but this obviously didn't do it.

As this goes on, the Russians are getting more and more demoralized. At this point, the Russian Army does need to disengage to reorganize and recover.

Yes, the Russian army has been short on infantry for quite a while, but a general mobilization isn't likely to make things better. Part of the issue is that this isn't WWII; you don't just hand out rifles and point the warm bodies in a general direction. These days infantry is a skilled job and cannon fodder isn't very useful. Also, those troops would need to be equipped and supplied, both tasks that Russia is having difficulty doing with its more limited manpower.

What Russia really needs is a revamped doctrine with a professional army cutting the conscripts out completely. But that's a project for decades and Russia has wasted the past 30 years tinkering around the edges instead of paying attention to the rest of the world and making needed changes. Even China is much ahead on Russia in doctrine and strategy.

And, Russia is running out of stuff. It seems to be keeping a core of modern equipment for emergencies, but otherwise is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's going to Iran and North Korea to buy things which must be humiliating.

Russia is certainly in a "fine pickle" of a mess in Ukraine. General mobilization would help them a lot. They have trained reservists. Not as good as US reservists, but as well trained as the Ukrainian reservists that are kicking them in the butt right now.

Yes, the Russians need to do a lot to improve the quality of their Army. They have no NCO corps to speak of for example, but neither do the Ukrainians have much of one either.

In any case, they will have to make the adjustments "on the fly" as they did in 1941/42.

Putin may be thinking he can turn the tide by imposing economic pain on Germany, but this isn't going to provide his forces with the infantry they need.

The longer this goes on, the higher the likelihood that the military is able to work out some kind of coup to take Putin out. Then we will probably have a competent military leader in charge of Russia, someone who will mobilize and refit/reorganize the Army to punish Ukraine and those that aided them. Yes, an even more nationalistic leader than Putin.

It's certainly possible there could be a worse leader than Putin, but probably not from the military. They know what's sitting in the cupboard and know that there isn't much.

Agreed that a replacement for Putin is a big unknown. What I do believe is that Russia will get a leader that will take off the gloves and "fix" the Ukraine situation. How this plays out is unknown. Could be mobilization and war declaration. Could be tactical nukes or nerve gas or other extremely dangerous measures of desperation.

The Russian leadership is not, IMHO, going to just throw in the towel.

Meanwhile, NATO is moving towards serious infighting. The Poles recently told the Germans they want at least a Trillion$ as compensation for WW2. So now the Poles and Germans are going to have another argument, while neither has the wherewithal to heat homes as it gets cold.

The Poles have been talking different amount of restitution for a decade now and never made a real demand.

This is very recent, but they made a demand for $1.3 Trillion. Not exactly good timing right now.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 022-09-01/

Then there is the distinct possibility of Turkey starting an actual war with the Greeks.

Possible, but not highly likely. Especially since Turkish elections are coming up and it's entirely possible AK will lose power.

Unfortunately, the possibility of AK starting a war to stay in power is a distinct possibility

To top things off in Europe, the Italians could actually return to Fascism, while Sweden may become embroiled in domestic political turmoil even before they can join NATO.

Not likely for Italy. Though described as far right, in American terms Brothers of Italy is moderately conservative. Also not likely to be anything serious in Sweden. I mean, it's Sweden.

Yes, the Italian "Fascists" are not Mussolini and the Black Shirts, but it could well mean an Italy that is non supportive of NATO should push come to shove.

The Sweden thing could mean drastic changes in immigration laws and handouts, which could lead to serious civil disorder in Sweden. It is just something that could weaken them when they need to have strength. But then they have had serious problems with their immigrant population for years now.

As a "I told you so", I am seeing more and more articles about the US and NATO being desperately short of ammunition, and without the ability to replace the shortage for years, as everything is being sent to the Ukraine.

Not desperately short but production does need to ramp up. But, how would that ammunition be used on? Not China since that would be a mostly air and sea war. The only other real problem is... Russia. All those weapons being transferred to Ukraine are doing exactly what they were built for; killing Russians but no NATO soldiers are dying for it.

I don't have rose colored glasses, but I think things are not as dire as you are predicting.

If shooting starts with China, it will probably initially be an air/sea type of thing. Let's even say that their invasion of Taiwan fails. Do you think that the CCP would just give up at that point? It won't. The war will change to the Chinese doing everything they can with the military power that they have, for years on end.

The example for this is Germany in WW1. After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan in September 1914, they had little to no hope of winning the war. But it went on anyway. Ultimately there were German troops in such unimaginable places as Serbia, Greece, Romania, Italy, and even Turkish Palestine. They did everything they could in any theater they could get to to try and beat the Entente/Allies. It took four years to end that nightmare.

The Chinese will do the same. The CCP doesn't care if that means death/starvation for the overwhelming majority of their population. They will fight against India, Vietnam, South Korea (alongside North Korea) and they will even provide troops and equipment to help out the Russians. It may not seem likely now, but a real war causes these "longshot" things to happen, like German troops in Serbia 1915 and Romania in 1916.

Before every big war, the "experts" all say that it won't last that long, maybe a couple of months at most. Then it lasts for years until the entire strength of nations are expended. This is what I expect from what is coming, and, unfortunately, that will be pretty bad.

This is why the ammunition thing is such a big deal. If a war goes on for more than a couple of weeks, the west will be out of Ammo, and has little capacity to make more. This is a major problem in a World War.

Still, I hope you are right, and it will all be a minor affair and we can just get on with our lives.

[Xeraphim1]

Agreed that a replacement for Putin is a big unknown. What I do believe is that Russia will get a leader that will take off the gloves and "fix" the Ukraine situation. How this plays out is unknown. Could be mobilization and war declaration. Could be tactical nukes or nerve gas or other extremely dangerous measures of desperation.

The Russian leadership is not, IMHO, going to just throw in the towel.

The question is what would mobilization accomplish? Yes, more warm bodies but without equipment and supplies they're a net negative. Also consider that Putin has not called up reserves for a reason; there would be massive discontent in pulling people back into service, particularly in Moscow and St Petersburg. Annoying the people out in the sticks doesn't matter, but important people live in the big cities and their.. acquiescence... matters.

This is very recent, but they made a demand for $1.3 Trillion. Not exactly good timing right now.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 022-09-01/

It wasn't a formal demand. Individuals in PIS have been doing this since 2017. Until it's a formal demand it's just various politicians saying things.

Unfortunately, the possibility of AK starting a war to stay in power is a distinct possibility

The Turkish military has been neutered and I have doubts they have any interest in going on the war path. That would more likely lead to another coup than war.

Yes, the Italian "Fascists" are not Mussolini and the Black Shirts, but it could well mean an Italy that is non supportive of NATO should push come to shove.

Brothers of Italy is actually pro NATO and pro Ukraine. They are anti immigrant and lower tax.

The Sweden thing could mean drastic changes in immigration laws and handouts, which could lead to serious civil disorder in Sweden. It is just something that could weaken them when they need to have strength. But then they have had serious problems with their immigrant population for years now.

Swedish disorder would be be a queue of mildly disapproving people? If they tried to kick out the people already there, I could see problems in the immigrant heavy areas. I don't know that is being proposed. I haven't paid that much attention lately. But even "far right" in Sweden is sort of a squishy Republican in the US, not anything really extreme.

If shooting starts with China, it will probably initially be an air/sea type of thing. Let's even say that their invasion of Taiwan fails. Do you think that the CCP would just give up at that point? It won't. The war will change to the Chinese doing everything they can with the military power that they have, for years on end.

The example for this is Germany in WW1. After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan in September 1914, they had little to no hope of winning the war. But it went on anyway. Ultimately there were German troops in such unimaginable places as Serbia, Greece, Romania, Italy, and even Turkish Palestine. They did everything they could in any theater they could get to to try and beat the Entente/Allies. It took four years to end that nightmare.

The Chinese will do the same. The CCP doesn't care if that means death/starvation for the overwhelming majority of their population. They will fight against India, Vietnam, South Korea (alongside North Korea) and they will even provide troops and equipment to help out the Russians. It may not seem likely now, but a real war causes these "longshot" things to happen, like German troops in Serbia 1915 and Romania in 1916.

Before every big war, the "experts" all say that it won't last that long, maybe a couple of months at most. Then it lasts for years until the entire strength of nations are expended. This is what I expect from what is coming, and, unfortunately, that will be pretty bad.

This is why the ammunition thing is such a big deal. If a war goes on for more than a couple of weeks, the west will be out of Ammo, and has little capacity to make more. This is a major problem in a World War.

Still, I hope you are right, and it will all be a minor affair and we can just get on with our lives.

No one is proposing a US invasion of China, especially not the US military. Any war would be on the sea and in the air along with long range missile strikes. Tanks and artillery would not be of much use unless China, for some insane reason, decided to invade South Korea through North Korea. The only country that really needs to worry in that regard is India and even they aren't worried about a full scale invasion, especially since they have nuclear weapons as well.

As to helping Russia with troops, why would they? Supporting forces in European Russia would be next to impossible since China doesn't have the doctrine, training or equipment to do so. And a losing Russia would be ripe for snipping off various parts that China wants.

The West has a lot of capacity to produce more ammo, it just isn't placing the orders. Putting in a multiyear guaranteed order would see expansion to whatever capacity needed in short order. But then again, there isn't a big need for artillery shells except against Russia.

[Bob Butler]

Yes, immigration is a problem, but I don’t see where it is a right.

Given the context, I think you are saying that we don't have a "right" to limit immigration. It may not be a right, but it has been a legal practice for since probably the 1840s. We have had bad immigration laws in the past, but "Open Borders" is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, I was working in the context of a system where the will of the majority is blocked by the rights of an individual. Under that, rights are absolute, there are a limited number of them, but if none of them apply and you are in the minority you are out of luck. There seems to be a feeling by some people that conservatives should get their way anyway?

[thomasglee]

Yes, immigration is a problem, but I don’t see where it is a right.

Given the context, I think you are saying that we don't have a "right" to limit immigration. It may not be a right, but it has been a legal practice for since probably the 1840s. We have had bad immigration laws in the past, but "Open Borders" is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, I was working in the context of a system where the will of the majority is blocked by the rights of an individual. Under that, rights are absolute, there are a limited number of them, but if none of them apply and you are in the minority you are out of luck. There seems to be a feeling by some people that leftist liberals should get their way anyway?

There, FIFY

[Tom Mazanec]

I thought the Great Depression was ended not by FDR nor bankruptcy and savings but by WWII.