Featured Post

Why I Will Vote for Trump

On June 7, I will vote in the California primary. I will vote for Donald Trump to become the GOP nominee for President. This statement will ...

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

The Polls and My Shooting: Don't Count on a Bullseye

Finally made it to the range. Thought the Diplowife would join me, but she saw a Ross store and decided to go there while I went to do manly-man things.

Took my new .44 Mag plus my two .357 Mags. On this range run, I included my old reliable .357 from Guyana days, a wonderful piece of iron which I shamefully had neglected for some years. Cleaned it up. It shot wonderfully. That gun is over 55 years old and still works -- unlike its owner.

I did very well with the two .357s, and pretty well with the .44 when using .44 Special "Cowboy Action Rounds." Not so great when I went full .44 Magnum. OK, but nothing to brag about. Let's just say it's a good thing those splatter targets don't shoot back . . . I, however, did like the sound. Quite impressive even with a headset on.

My Washington-based son, a political junkie of the first degree, gave me a lesson yesterday and today on why the election polls are not to be believed. He says most polls have way over-sampled Democrats and make the invalid assumption that over 95% of Democrats will actually vote for The Hillary. He seems very confident of a Donald victory on November 8. I, however, am more cautious having gone through this in 2012, when I was pretty sure Romney would win. The electoral college remains a challenge for Trump, but . . . we'll see.

Now, of course, adding fuel to the fire of skepticism about the polls are some Wikileaks which apparently show senior Democratic activists discussing getting friendly pollsters to oversample Democrats in their polling data bases. I also find it suspicious how all the press are joining in a chorus of "It's All Over!" I can see this as a strategy trying to discourage Trump voters from going to the polls, but wonder if it might not have the opposite effect, and discourage Hillary voters who are markedly unenthusiastic about their candidate to begin with. I guess we will know the answers soon enough . . . assuming the illegal alien vote doesn't throw all calculations into the dust bin.

Best to disconnect from the media for a bit . . . allow sanity to return.

Love the smell of Hoppe's 9.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Reflections on my .44 Mag & the End of Our Civilization

Picked it up.

Oh, but first, our Spanish visitors left yesterday for Las Vegas in the company of my son, who knows his way around Vegas better than Elvis ever did--worrying, that. What euros our guests have left will soon clatter into the vault of some casino or another. Watch the euro-dollar exchange rate.

Yes, I picked it up.

California's absurd ten-day waiting period over, I drove my 'Stang this fine sunny Saturday morning to Turner's and picked up my new S&W 44 mag with a 6.5 inch barrel. A magnificent piece of work. Clint Eastwood has nothing on me now . . . well, except rugged good looks, international fame, and hundreds of millions of dollars . . . but besides that, nothing.

As I oiled and wiped my new S&W and put it to rest in the safe with the other 20 or so handguns (until range day, Monday), I couldn't help but think, "Does anybody really need a .44 Magnum?" I mean, "Aren't .357s and .45s enough for anybody?" Hmmm? The answer, of course, is, those are the wrong questions. The proper question is, "Why as a free citizen can I not have any gun I want?" In other words, where in the Constitution does it say the nanny state can determine what gun I can and can't own? I have no intention of holding up a liquor store, shooting up a church, or killing the neighbor's hideous cat. Why should the actions of criminals determine what I can or cannot do? Perhaps it's true that nobody needs a .44 Mag, a GT Mustang, a cigar, a fine whisky, a Harley, a speed boat, a large tattoo of an eagle, or an ill-fitting suit with a pink carnation in the lapel. But what if I want one, and can get one without taking anything from anybody or hurting anybody?

Freedom, baby, that's what it's all about, and freedom and its corollary fun are what progressives hate. If you are having fun, they are not in control.

This made me think about the current "uproar" over Trump's refusal to endorse the results of the November 8 election beforehand. That's the other thing progressives do. Not only do they tell you what you cannot have, they tell you what you must do and have: such as, give an ever increasing portion of your wealth to the progressives; wear a motorcycle helmet; wear seat belts; not eat your meat medium rare, and on and on.

In fact, I am going to go on about some of that "on and on."

Above all, the progressives want you not only to tolerate certain things they favor, they want and insist you endorse them. We, therefore, must not only go along with the progressive gag that there is no electoral fraud, we must endorse now the November 8 results of an electoral system we know is rife with progressive corruption of all sorts. We must not only tolerate gay marriage, we must endorse it; we must not only tolerate the sexual perversion known as transsexualism but must endorse it and allow these perverts to use bathrooms with our children. A baker, or a pizzeria owner must cater events his religion and conscience tell him not to. Speech codes determine the limits of discussion and even redefine the words we use.

We must all chant, "Diversity is our strength," when in many cities in our beleaguered Western Civilization, we cannot walk safely down the street, or take a bus thanks to the diversity that has been imposed upon us by progressive immigration laws and practices. Stockholm, once one of the world's safest cities, is now the rape capital of Europe thanks to progressive immigration policies; in fact, police there are instructed no longer to mention the "ethnicity" of the rapists. Here in the US, Trump states a truth that any Central American migrant headed north knows: women migrants in Mexico will be raped. He gets chastised for being a racist, for not refusing to see what is in front of his nose. We must not only tolerate the importation of thousands upon thousands of Muslim refugees who adhere to a creed that advocates our enslavement and death, we must embrace them; we must make up history showing that they have always been part of our culture; we must encourage MORE of them to come to the West. Any violence emanating from followers of Islam is to be attributed to lax gun laws,  and the failure to embrace the Muslims in our midsts even more lovingly.

They want us to be like Rohm's SA "Brownshirts" screaming, "Heil Hitler!" as they were executed by the firing squads sent by Hitler; like the victims of Stalin's purges forced to proclaim the greatness of the Comrade as they were lead off to receive a bullet in the back of the head.

Trump, win or lose, has managed to demonstrate how rotten our civilization has become under the tutelage of the progressives. We see in the volumes of Wikileaks documents how these progressives are so confident in their corruption and in their ability to manipulate us that they lay out their comments and plans in insecure emails and other texts. They can't imagine a world in which the stuff they say and plan might just be "triggering."

Triggering? Back to my .44 mag.

Molon Labe . . . and I just mailed in my ballot for Trump . . .

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Final Debate

The debate. I didn't watch it. I listened to it on Sirius radio as I drove back from San Diego. I, therefore, did not see the faces, the gestures or any of the other body language. Just listening to it, however, I thought Trump won most of it. He certainly gave the best summation either of the two has given at the end of any of the debates. He rocked her on the Clinton Foundation and on Wikileaks. I thought her answers were weak and tired.

Got to give credit to Chris Wallace who I thought was BY FAR the best moderator of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. He brought up topics previously ignored and pressed both candidates, and did a credible job of controlling both candidates without being obnoxious.

As usual, however, Trump gave the media something to yammer on about. He, again, stepped on his own performance. He, frankly, gave a bad answer on the question of whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost. I cringed while driving upon hearing his "I'll keep you in suspense." That gave Clinton the opening to launch one of her faux patriotic speeches about how that was unprecedented in 240 years of American elections, blah, blah, blah. She, of course, ignored, among others, the election of 1860, when a good chunk of American states seceded from the Union because they would not accept the election of Abraham Lincoln, and, more recently and less dramatic, Al Gore's lengthy refusal to admit he had been beaten in Florida by George W. Bush--both of those refusals, by the way, were by the Democratic Party. Trump needs a better answer, especially since his running mate and his own daughter have stated that, of course, Trump would accept the results. Bad coordination that.

I think Trump should have turned the question around and said something along the lines of, "Hillary, will you, right now, disavow the actions of your party--which we learned about through Wikileaks--to disrupt my rallies with violence and intimidate my followers? Will you join me in insisting that voters must be US citizens and that poll workers must insist that those who vote are indeed Americans and eligible to vote? Will you ask your party machine to help scrub from the rolls dead voters, illegal aliens, felons, etc.? Will you promise not to do what you did to Bernie Sanders? Will you abandon the Democratic Party's long, long history of electoral violence and fraud?"

Anyhow, yes, I think Trump "won" the debate, but will it make a difference? How many genuinely undecided were watching? Plus, of course, millions of people, living and dead, American and foreign, already have cast ballots in the idiotic process known as "early voting."

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

The Integrity of the Electoral Process

This will have to be short.

I am playing gracious host to some very nice Diplowife relatives from Spain. We spent yesterday in Hollywood (lotta freaks) and today at the Mission in San Juan Capistrano. Tomorrow is a visit to the USS Midway Museum in San Diego and then a Lakers-Warriors game at Valley View Casino; the day after, we are off to Universal Studios. Lot of highway, lot of miles.

While driving, I was listening on the radio to all sorts of progressives whining about "how dare" Trump question the "integrity" of our electoral process. You can link to all sorts of stories reporting the same. We have progressives telling us that it's essentially unpatriotic, even treasonous, to put in doubt the integrity of the electoral system. They cite all sorts of spurious data "proving" that voter fraud is almost unheard of, and very minor.

I have written before (here and here, for example) how vulnerable our electoral system is to voter fraud. As a person who has done a lot of formal election observing all over the world, I can assure you that I would never certify US elections as above board. We are the only country I have seen where voter identification is not required, where voters do not have to prove they are citizens. Of course there is fraud. The way the laws are written, however, makes it almost impossible to prove. God help the brave poll worker who challenges somebody to prove his or her citizenship. Let me be blunt: huge numbers of illegal and legal aliens will vote.

I heard Obama give an absurd defense of the system saying that its decentralized nature makes it almost impossible for fraud. Nonsense. Voting in more than one district is very possible and done. The Diplowife and I, for example, have in the past received mail-in ballots from Virginia, Florida, and California for the same election. We are honest folks so we threw away the extra ballots. And, of course, for decades Democrats have used their urban machines to register dead voters, and to provide multiple ballots to living ones. Our electoral college system makes voter fraud even more important as a small win in a big state, throws a huge chunk of electoral votes to the "winner." Go no further than the JFK campaign of 1960 and the state of Illinois.

I love the business that we are not allowed to "question" the voting process and its institutions. Might I suggest that we also make it not-allowed, for example, for progressives to question the integrity of urban police forces and that they must automatically accept the police version of any shooting? Wonder if the progs would agree to that?

Questioning is the essence of democracy.

Back to hosting . . .

Friday, October 14, 2016

Appalling Days

Haven't been writing as the Diplowife has returned from Spain. As I feared, my housekeeping did not meet her standards; your humble Diplomad, therefore, has been busy vacuuming, cleaning mirrors, wiping dust, mopping floors, and throwing out garbage. I don't know how she does it. She walks into a perfectly clean room and immediately spots the two beer cans on the foosball table, the old sneaker on the ottoman, and the half-eaten submarine on the sofa. How does she do it? Anyhow, the two dogs did not escape her wrath either, and have been sentenced to bath row, with execution scheduled for tomorrow. She shows no appreciation for how I recharged the battery in the '66 Olds, had the oil changed in the Expedition and the 2015 Mustang, fixed a tail-light problem in HER Jeep, started the paperwork for the ten-day waiting period on a new S&W .44 Mag, cleaned my guns, ordered hundreds of rounds of ammo from Cheaper-than-Dirt, or even how I had a gun safe installed in my walk-in closet. All that passes unawares in Diplowife world!

All of the aforementioned drama has kept me from watching, listening or reading too much election coverage. That's fine. I, frankly, am sick of it all; it's all been said. There's nothing more to say. I have never seen such a concentrated and coordinated effort by the media, working as the armed wing of the DNC, to destroy politically and personally a candidate. The polls? Who knows? They're all over the place, and many of them are extensions of that effort to destroy Trump. So, who knows where the voters actually stand? Are there enough ignorant, anti-American, progressive sheep along with some electoral corruption out there to put the Hillary criminal in the White House? Perhaps so. I give up reading the political scene.

The stuff coming out almost daily from Wikileaks re Clinton should be enough to derail any campaign and launch a thousand criminal investigations. Nothing. The MSM is trying to ignore the incredible evidence of illegality and immorality by the Clintons and to fill the air with 30-year-old allegations of sexual advances by Trump. Contrary to some, I do not believe allegations of sexual misconduct should be automatically believed any more than allegations of any other misconduct unless backed up by evidence: Duke Lacrosse? UVA? Ring a bell? I have a hard time taking too seriously some of the women who have come forward four weeks before the election with tales of alleged "inappropriate" conduct by Trump decades ago. I must call BS. At the same time, of course, there is a near total blackout on reporting of actual misconduct, up to and including rape by Bill Clinton and the enabling actions by Hillary.

The whole thing stinks and I fear for our Republic as I never have before.

Monday, October 10, 2016

The Rock is Overturned

I spent most of my life in what was once called the underdeveloped world, then it became the more politically correct Third World; I don't know what it's called now. I guess Third World is still an au courant phrase? Social Justice Warriors please correct me, and my apologies if by employing my white privileged vocabulary and labelling I have triggered anyone to retreat into his/her/ze/zir/its safe space.

Reading and listening to the reactions to last night's debate. Many of them are quite weird, well, until one realizes what is actually taking place. Let me explain in my usual stumbly, wordy, inarticulate way. We have a whole school of pundits who feign annoyance or contempt for the debate, with phrases such as "I don't know who won, but I know who lost, America." Lots of spurious fact-checking of everything Trump said with little of what Clinton said. We have some more Republican defections, e.g., Paul Ryan, who are adopting a holier-than-thou approach and refuse to support the Republican candidate--which makes me wonder why bother having a primary process? We have people for whom I once had respect, such as the two Bush Presidents and Mitt Romney, saying they will not vote for Trump, with some of them saying they will vote for Hillary Clinton. Ryan and other Republican congressional sorts, have hit on the strategy of keeping the Congress in Republican hands while ceding the White House to the Clinton Crime Family. It is sort of the Alamo ploy which we saw in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" in which any survivor of the initial battle is to retreat to a designated building and from there blow-up the bridge to halt the German counter-attack.

Yeah, sure, we all know how the original Alamo story ended. Lot of bravery and sacrifice, but in the end Santa Anna's troops poured over and through the walls.

We had a GOP-controlled Congress for most of the Obama misadministration's years in power. What did that get us? Did it slow down the attack of the progressives? Did we repeal Obamacare? Did we put honorable and honest people into key positions such as SecState and Attorney General? Did this Republican control prevent the willful and ongoing destruction of the world's greatest military machine via spending cuts and--even more destructive--the forcing of political correctness on our warriors? Have we named people to the Supreme Court who will actually adhere to the document? Did it secure our borders and repair our broken immigration system? Did we stop deficit spending and halt the growth of the public debt? Do you trust Ryan, et al, to do in the next four to eight years what they didn't do in the past six or so years in which they controlled the Congress? I know my answer.

You know, now that I think about it, it's not really an Alamo strategy, at all. It's more of General Petain and Vichy strategy. It is more of a hope that the crocodile will eat you last "strategy." In fact, it's more of a Quisling strategy; we will have some nominal power, we will keep our nice salaries and lobbyist sinecures, and we'll be fine.

Hillary Clinton at the debate last night referred to the "Trump Effect." This supposedly is one in which teachers report an increase in bullying and general nastiness. Trump is being blamed for the coarsening of dialog in the public square. All nonsense, of course. We have Hollywood stars who make a living out of coarseness and the glorification of gangsta culture and perversion all up in arms because Trump--who was once one of them--used some bad language.

The real Trump Effect is actually quite different. It is similar to the LePenn Effect in France or the Farage Effect in the UK. Trump, for all his flaws, has unleashed a force made up of people fed up with watching our country become a Third World souk, of watching all standards and definitions torn up and replaced by God-knows what gibberish coming out of the universities and the media. Above all I think we see large chunks of the American people gradually realize that our great nation has become a place where the elite have one set of standards and laws and benefits, and the rest of us something else quite different. The elite get armed guards and walls, we get speeches about tolerance and welcoming others. We are told that our country is evil and that the elite know what is best to address that evil--and, of course, that requires that we give up our money,  and our God-given rights so that the evil we have caused can be redressed. We have to become the Third World.

Trump, win or lose, and the system is in top gear to make sure he doesn't win the White House, has changed the country. I think he has highlighted the great divide not so much between rich and poor, but between the arrogant Washington-New York-Los Angeles elite and the working people of the country, the producers of the wealth upon which all the system depends. He has turned over the rock and the insects and worms are crawling out.

OK, I am going to stop. I am depressing myself, and have bathrooms to clean, etc., because the Diplowife returns tomorrow. And I fear her wrath . . .

Sunday, October 9, 2016

The Debate: He Does It

Wow! The Donald won and he won big.

I gave the last debate to Hillary on points, but this one had The Donald mopping the floor, the seats, the walls, and the ceiling with The Hillary. He had what should become one of the most memorable lines in any presidential debate when he said Hillary was trying to blame Abe Lincoln for her lies.

OK, let's review.

First of all, as always, I watched this debate with my two dogs. At the end of the debate, I immediately switched off the TV, and took them for a walk. I got home, made myself a vegetarian beef steak (comes from cattle that do not eat meat), had a can of V-8 juice, and sat down at the keyboard. I do not want any pundits or other outside influences affecting my evaluation and recollection of the debate.

The debate started with a pre-game event that clearly shook and shocked the Clinton campaign.  Trump held a little presser with several of the victims of Bill Clinton's sexual assaults, as well as the woman who was raped and Hillary got her assailant off. He then doubled down: he had Mayor Giuliani lead the women into the forum where they got front-row seats. Just after they sat down, the families of the candidates trooped in: the look on Bill Clinton's face was worth a million bucks. He looked ashen, and not all his jovial back-slapping country-boy self. He looked to the floor and tensely made his way to his seat with only a precursory greeting to Melania Trump. The two candidates then walked onto the stage and the tension was palpable. No handshake, no air kisses, no wishing of luck, none of the usual hypocrisy we require of political combatants.

Hillary's face was a frozen mask

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that Trump, for once, got under her skin. She knew that any time spent on the Trump tape would result in a retelling of the Clinton's sordid history of sex and scandal. And so it came to pass. I think Trump handled the tape question masterfully, pivoting not only to other issues more important, but then hitting Clinton between the eyes with her own behavior towards the women whom Bill had assaulted, and bringing up her own tape in which she is laughing after getting the rapist of the 12-year-old off. She did not want to talk about the tape anymore.

Brilliant. Give the man some credit.

The moderators were a joke, and it was hard to take seriously that the Muslim woman who asked a question was an "undecided" voter. Right. No matter. Trump handled them all. He dealt well with the Islamophobia question, called the moderators on their obvious bias throughout the evening, and tore into Clinton on Syria, Libya, her emails, and her lack of accomplishment as a Senator. Hilary completely fumbled the question about the leaked speech she gave to Goldman-Sachs in which she talked about the need to have a "public position and a private position." She gave a convoluted answer which not only confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document, but tried to claim that she  doing as Lincoln had done in trying to eliminate slavery (?) OK. The Donald seized on this and chastised Clinton for trying to blame Lincoln for her dishonesty: "Abe Lincoln did not lie, but you do."

There was lots more, but let me stop here, and shift gears a bit. Yes, Trump won, and won clearly. I think, however, that the Clinton campaign is not counting on the debates, on the substance of the issues, or on policy prescriptions; they are counting on more leaked scandal tapes about Trump including a rumored one in which he uses the n-word. Can he continue to deflect those tapes? We'll see.

I don't think this debate won Trump the presidency but it sure kept him alive, and Hillary did not look good. OK, off to listen to the pundits and see if they're copying me.