War is Hell, Combat is worse.

Apparently the Obama people are having trouble with the word :"combat".  Master Sgt Wheeler was killed in action against an armed enemy of the United States.  This is a Master Sgt, nearly 20 years in the Army, kind of guy who knows all the answers, an old pro, it's not some 18 year old private who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. Sgt Wheeler knew what he was doing. 
   Let the Dem pencil necks quibble about words.  I mourn the loss of an American fighting man. 

Tactical lessons from the US Civil War

Defense always wins.  That's the lesson.  In most of the great battles of the Civil War, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Antietam, Chickamauga, one side got there first, dug in, and awaited assault.  The offensive side would give enemy lines as much artillery fire as possible, and then send the infantry forward.  The new rifle-muskets of that year could reach out a couple of hundred yards and get hits.  The assaulting infantry had to cover the last two hundred yards under accurate fire.  In all cases, the defenders shot so many attackers down that they no longer had the numbers to win the hand-to-hand bayonet struggle for possession of the trench line.  Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg is the classic example, but there were plenty of others. 
   Grant was the only Civil War general who seemed to understand this.  Grant's decisive victories, Island Number 10, Shiloh, and Vicksburg were all won by maneuver, rather than bloody frontal assault.
    This tactical lesson held true thruout WWI.  Few European generals had read much about the US Civil War. 

Does Government funded R&D pay off?

Matt Ridley, writing in the Wall St Journal today says "No it doesn't."  As a retired engineer, who spent forty years gainfully employed in private industry, doing R&D, I can relate to this.  I created, either in part or in whole, an medical ultrasonic imager, a portable Holter monitor, a data acquisition system running off an IBM PC, a digital oscilloscope,  a cardiac Xray system, a video compression chip, and an overfill protection system for fuel tank trucks.  All of 'em privately funded, half of 'em made it to market.  Government funding is not required for technological advance.  Nor was basic scientific research in to basic scientific principles needed.  In fact, the one time I picked up some basic research from a scientific journal for a project, it turned out to be wrong, it worked, but at only one half the performance claimed in the journal article.  I looked up the author and telephoned him. After a lengthy conversation, the author admitted that yes, he had exaggerated his claims a little bit.
   On the other hand, during the existential struggle that was World War II, government funded R&D produced nuclear weapons, jet aircraft,  radar, airborne magnetometers, proximity fuses, handheld two way voice radios, and effective back pack anti tank weapons.  In the following Cold War, government funded projects took us to the Moon and launched the Internet.
   Much university research is funded by government grants.  On the other hand you have all seen the video of a shrimp on a treadmill, government funded all the way. As long as corporations are allowed to deduct R&D expenses for tax purposes, progress will be made.  
   

So who is our best candidate against Hillary?

The Dems are weeding out their field.  Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Lincoln Chaffee have all pulled out, leaving just Hillary and Bernie Sanders.  To me, a Republican, there is little to chose between them. Hillary is a liar who throws people under the bus, running on Wall St money.  Bernie is a Commie nutcase, locked in a time warp back to the 1960's, promising free stuff for all.  The pundits all say Hillary is gonna be the Dem candidate, and that's believeable.
   So who should we pick to maximize our chances next November?  Can Trump beat Hillary? Can Ben Carson? What about Cruz, Rubio, Carly, Kaisich, JEB, and the rest of 'em?  Right now, I got my doubts about The Donald, I think his negatives are too high.  Carson is polling well these last couple of days, but is he too soft spoken to make a decent president?  The rest of 'em are a tossup.  Carly was looking good, but then she said there is no need for entitlement reform, which I don't believe.  Either she is totally clueless, or she is lying. 
  

Grillary

The other damaging revelation from yesterday's hearing.  An email from Hillary to Chelsea, the night of Benghazi, where in Hillary states that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  She also emailed the same to the President of Egypt.  Only the next day did she put forth the "anti-Muslim video provoked mob violence" idea.  She allowed Susan Rice to go on five Sunday talk shows peddling this falsehood, which pretty much ruined Susan Rice's career when the truth came out.  In short, Hillary is a liar, and she is perfectly willing to throw a co worker under the bus. 
   Put that together with Hillary's admission that she allowed bureaucrats at State to short stop messages from Ambassador Stevens says to me that Hillary would be a terrible president. 

Obama vetoes $600 billion defense spending bill

Dunno what for.  Fox reported that Obama didn't like some unexplainable technicality.  Whoop Whoop.  There has gotta be a juicier reason than that.  Obama doesn't care about technicalities.  Maybe he likes continuing resolutions 'cause they give the bureacracy more leeway to spend as much as they like?
   Congress ought to say to Obama "This is the defense spending bill. If you don't sign it, you shut the armed forces down.  We ain't changing it."

Hillary on the stand

Hillary admitted that security requests from Libya were handled by lower level staffers and never came to her desk.
   This is wrong, 100% wrong, and a good reason not to elect Hillary next year.  When the top man, the ambassador, to a country in which we are doing regime change, wants to get top level attention at State, his messages should NOT get short stopped by mid level bureaucrats. 
   As a rule ALL messages from ambassadors should go to the Secretary of State.