I’ve been trying to deal with situations in Hong Kong and Big China more intensely over the past few days. A statement was put to me directly by a shot caller. “You have the best plan to resolve the situation but what would it look like if a Westerner (foreign, barbarian devil) solved this vexing problem?” They’re right. It would make them appear to be totally incompetent. Thus ends the comment.
In October 2017, Batygin said that there are “five different lines of observational evidence” that point to the existence of Planet Ten.
“No other model can explain the weirdness of these high-inclination orbits,” Batygin said at the time.
Thus, we know that something is out there, and we have evidence of it, but we haven’t seen it. There is a current theory that it might be a small primordial black hole, created shortly (in astronomical measurements of time) after the formation of the universe. All of the gravity without reflected light.
The Trump Doctrine
Anonymous whispered: That speech in that venue has no force of law. It commits or alters the behavior of the executive branch not in the slightest. It is functionally not an action of government.
Instead, why not report on recent changes to import tariffs which affect domestic prices? That is enforced by the police and does have an actual effect on me.
No speech at the UN has any force of law, but it does express foreign policy doctrine and to that extent it is useful. It also expresses intentions (such as the intention of not to do what Obama did, which was to agree with the UN arms control policy that would disarm Americans). He could have given that speech anywhere but the UN is a large international megaphone.
LSP speculates: It was was really good, imo. Who wrote it?
I don’t know but I expect that there was input from all of his speechwriters and from President Trump and Vice President Pence. That’s usually how this big speeches are formulated.
Camperfixer: Exceptional…only heard a portion of it and knew it was great…reading it in its entirety places it at a new level of phenomenal. This guy knows what is real and right…and I pray God continues to direct his path and keep him (et al) safe from the lunatics and subversives.
The concern, of course, is the better America and American’s do under Trump, the more insane lengths the Left will go to discredit him. HRC came out of hiding – acting pompass as usual – to clang the bell of “Trump is unfit for office”. This shows the Dem’s have zip – nada – zero ability to win on merit, so instead use every ugly tactic they can gin up. Dem’s are the definition of deplorable if there ever was one.
The Trump Administration has been remarkable amid lackluster American political movements over the years. It was a tectonic shift and the Deep State, accustomed to anointing puppets, was caught with their pants down. And as you suggest, the Dems don’t have much to put up against four more years of Trump except impeachment, not for a crime, but out of political desperation.
WSF: Didn’t pussyfoot, did he?
I spoke to a friend in China today. The friend didn’t like Trump’s tweets. I explained that it’s the only way that he can communicate to the American people – and to the world. The media would twist any words that he uttered. This speech to the UN is a lot like a tweet. It’s going to go to the world without substantial editing by the corrupt, lying press.
Paul L. Quandt: Thank you, LL, for posting this. I would not have otherwise seen it.
DRJIM: Totally missed it, so thanks for posting it here.
You’re welcome. It was a great speech. The world knows that the USA is back from the miserable tepid years when we were run by a catamite.
Old NFO: Listened to it. Great speech, and leaves no doubt where we (America) stands under Trump. And I love how Anon did the whatabout attempt to change the dialog… LOL
The world needed to know where we stood and President Trump explained it. The Chinese were outraged that they were called out on a public stage and that President Trump explained that they were a nation of mountebanks. There are a lot of Chinese businesses going under because fair trade is returning – a lot of anguish. They thought that they could feed off the US like a parasite endlessly. Didn’t work.
Beans: And people say he’s not a great speaker. Fools.
I have watched as many of his speeches as possible. He inspires and uplifts America. What more can we want from our president. He actually fights for us, for once.
Willingly voted for him in 2016, knowing he was a businessman and patriot, and not a politician. I will willingly vote for him in 2020 because he’s still a patriot.
Promises made, promises kept.
Chevalier Errant: An impressive speech, but misinterpreted and misunderstood over here.
I’m former Italian Army, BTW, and grew up in Washington DC in the seventies. I’ve tried to post a number of times, like on last father’s day, but was thrown out by the system time and again after my first couple of posts. I hope this one gets through.
Please keep up the good work: your posts are very informative, and much appreciated. I wish all the best to your most excellent and prolific family: you’ve every reason to be proud of them. An do keep on nudging the grandchildren towards the Space Force, even though this should reset and adopt rightful and sensible US Army traditions.
You would have to work hard to misunderstand what President Trump said, but with the media explaining it, I realize that black goes to white and the other way around. Thank you, Claudio, for your comment. I have 9 grandchildren now and hopefully at least a couple of them choose the Space Force.
Anonymous: To evaluate the performance of an automobile I want to hear about torque curves and transmission gear ratios; instead you are telling me about the color of the paint job. I don’t care about speeches the president makes which have no legal effect; it’s cosmetic.
The Obama administration and Trump administration have approximately the same number of employees working in approximately the same departments, doing I assume approximately the same jobs. The presidential administrations since 2000 have had very similar policies, and quite similar back to 1985. Same for budgets made by congress. This speech does not change or indicate change to any of that.
I have to disagree. Obama was Bush light in many respects. The last nationalist we had was President Reagan. The Trump Doctrine as laid out did not pander to China, it did not embrace a one-world government. It embraced nationalism and American exceptionalism. While I understand your interest in how the catsup is really made from a point of view of intense granularity, a speech at the UN isn’t where you get that. And I don’t know that it’s a president’s job to explain anything in excruciating detail. I’m thinking back to Lincoln trying to micromanage the War of Northern Aggression/American Civil War (however your tastes run) as his generals bungled again and again and again. He had no choice but to do what he did and to fire general after general after general. Today the American machine is so much larger and infinitely complex. It’s difficult for a President to give you what it is that you want.
Camperfixer: Ah, but intent matters. This speech – which giving it is part of the job description – shows proper intent, not pandering.
Results are key, and this President has shown results in spades because he is precisely not a politician (who talk instead of doing, then tell everyone within earshot their “accomplishments”.) The last guy was a talker who never got above community organizer rabble as far as I’m concerned…and it showed. In contrast, Trump’s entire life has centered around development…he is a doer, and every indicator shows this in spades.
That’s what I heard as well. And intent is key in a UN General Assembly speech.
Beans’ family tree: Got an ancestor tied to William. What turned into the Spensers.
William did such a good job that even the Anglo-Saxons found it safe to walk from one end of the realm to another, without being mugged or taxed.
Only thing really sad about William is the way he died. Internal rupture due to him landing wrong on the front cantle of his saddle when it stepped in a pothole while he and loyal troops were putting down a local rebellion. Took him days to die. Bad way to die. Would have been better getting a spear in the chest.
I think that many other warriors envied the arrow that went through Harold Godwinson’s eye there at Hastings. Party over. Lingering deaths are no way for a warrior to die. Patton said, “The last bullet of the last battle of the last war.” He was onto something.
Juliet clowns around: I’m William the Conqueror
My enemies stood no chance
They call me the first English king
Although I come from France
1066, the Doomsday book
I gave to history
So fat on death my body burst
But enough about me.
*Domesday* yeah, spell check, get your proper English right! Tch.
LSP contemplates his next tumble from an Arab woman: Yet another horsemanship warning!
Harold must have been remarkable. Marches his army to Stamford Bridge, beats the Vikings and then marches all the way back to the southern coast to face the Normans. Epic march.
But he lost and no wonder, must’ve been exhausted.
Beans lays out the advantage of the Norman combined arms approach rather than the Saxon (and Viking) shield walls below and I don’t want to step on his commentary. Harold had excellent Huscarls (professional heavy infantry) in addition to the fyrd, who were feudal levies. The march, the fight, the exceptional, unseasonable heat (portent of modern global warming in 1066), etc all played against Harold.
AND THE POPE gave a Papal Bull to William, showing Harold’s army that God was with the other side. We tend to discount that today with the mores and values of our time, but then, flying the Pope’s Flag sent a message of excommunication and hell to the opposing army.
Beans advises: Harold shouldn’t have looked up.
The English may have won at Hastings if the Fyrd hadn’t been sucked into chasing after the Norman cavalry. The Normans had perfected a heavy charge then a ‘desperate’ withdraw and sudden reform as a tactic to suck their enemies into following them.
The Normans really perfected the heavy cavalry/medium cavalry system.
Once the Fyrd was cut down by a third, the English Shield Wall started cracking. Sure, they were on the top of the hill, but not even the Saxon Huscarls could hold from a multi-directional attack while under constant arrow fire.
Oops. William used combined arms. Harold didn’t. Combined Arms tactics win. A lesson for all future war-leaders, but lost on so many in the future…
Re: Harold shouldn’t have looked up… The story goes that Harold got an arrow in the eye. Thus the combined arms attack of cavalry, infantry and missile troops wins the day.
On the Bayeaux tapestry, in the borders, there are illustrations of Norman troops stripping Saxon dead during the fight. Which goes to show that the Normans really pressed the Saxons hard, especially the Fyrd..
But, yeah, if’n you’re the boss, don’t get shot…
It was an epic struggle and underscored the will and determination of William, whose drive and ambition launched that second invasion on the eve of the Viking invasion + Tostig, could be said to be “heaven sent” by his ally the Pope. In war, timing, momentum, a full belly with lines of supply and communication, and luck are equally important. The Norman cavalry of the day would be viewed as very light cavalry by us today but it mixed things up and drew out the shield wall (as Beans points out). Also “Norman” means northmen. Many of the warriors who followed William descended by Vikings who had settled in Normandy.
During WW2 the German belt buckles bore the inscription “Gott Mit Uns” (God is with us). A lot of those belt buckles were buried along with their owners.