Featured Post

The Right of National Defense

Writing this post on Memorial Day, my thoughts, of course, turned to those who fought and died to preserve our country. My thoughts also tur...

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Battle of Britain Redux

Given that history "repeats itself," sort of, it's only appropriate that on the 77th anniversary of the original Battle of Britain, we see a new one underway.

As we have read, "somebody" tried to commit mass murder on a British commuter train; a "bucket" bomb went off inside a rail car injuring around 30 persons. Seems pure luck that we have no fatality to lament; it appears the bomb-maker was not exactly a master of his/her/xi craft, and the device failed to work "properly." Instead of a massive detonation in a packed and confined rail car, the bomb "merely" generated, per the press, some sort of "fireball" that produced serious but non-lethal injuries and a stampede. The media, no doubt, will let us know where the bomb-maker failed so that future ones won't repeat the same errors.

OK. Let us not jump to conclusions re the who and the what behind this latest atrocity. Let's put aside the giddy ISIS endorsement of the act. Let us not conclude, without evidence, who is the likely perp. I won't, therefore, jump to conclude that the bomber is a Mormon missionary, an Amish tourist, an Orthodox Rabbi, or a Catholic Priest. I also won't conclude that it is some Nazi upset about the result of the 1940 Battle of Britain. Somehow, however, despite all these non-jump cautions, I think we all know who and what lie behind the bombing. Dare we say it? I don't want to invoke a Google ban . . . so I will allow each reader to whisper, "Religion of Peace."

London, once one of if not the greatest of cities, is now a place of heavily armed cops, troops, and concrete barriers; its criminally idiotic mayor delivers platitudes about "not giving in to terror" when, in fact, London has (here and here). The mayor, himself, previously lectured the world about how terrorism is just something we have to expect in a major city, so carry on smartly, nothing to see here, immigrants, and refugees still welcome . . . white English people, not so much . . . I guess it's cheaper and easier to turn Western cities into armed zones and "no go areas" that to control whom enters and stays in the country: more politically correct and less "triggering," and, after all, isn't that what modern life is all about? Not offending guests. What's a bombing or acid attack by and among friends, eh?

As we have ranted on for years, London is not alone; this is not just a battle of and for Britain any more than the original 1940 battle. All of Europe is under assault, occupation even, by a hostile, murdering, totalitarian ideology that masquerades as a religion--I leave to my intrepid readers to utter the name of that "religion." On the same day as the London attack, we saw knife and hammer attacks in France, and reports of police preventing other "Religion of Peace" attacks elsewhere in Europe.

About 2 1/2 years ago, I wrote,
IT. IS. THE. ISLAM. (Ben Affleck, please read this over and over, slowly, so that it can sink into your Hollywood/progressive head) 
That's it. It's Islam: not some radical minority version of it, but mainstream, central core Islam that drives people to acts of murder and intolerance. Not hard to understand if you ever have studied Islam, spent time in Muslim countries or with Muslims in the West. It is a creed for the unbalanced, the fearful, the hate-filled. It is no wonder it thrives in prisons. Islam is a psychotic creed, not a religion as we understand religion. Islam is about conquest and, above all, about revenge: endless acts of revenge for endless slights real and imagined throughout history. 
As I repeatedly have said, you can be a good person or you can be a good Muslim. The Venn diagram showing an overlap between those two categories does not exist except in the minds of apologist hacks, progressive idiots, and Hollywood--which is to say the same thing. It is with Islam as it is with Communism, Nazism, or KKKism, you can be an honorable and good person, or you can believe in that mind-rot. 
Once upon a time that retrograde ideology, Islam, was confined largely to places most of us could not care less about. The Sudan had its Mahdi with his delusions of leading a global conquest for Islam; Jerusalem had its Nazi-loving Grand Mufti, and so on. They were Muslim crazies in lands of Muslim crazies. Thanks, however, to modern technology and Western soft-headedness, those Muslim crazies have set up shop in our countries. We in the West seem to have forgotten something we knew during the Cold War against the Communists, and during the Second World War against the Nazis and the Fascists, to wit, belief in freedom does not mean signing a suicide pact. We are not required to import millions of sworn enemies into our homes.
I wouldn't dare post that now, and risk a Google or Twitter ban . . .

Monday, September 11, 2017

September 11

I know that I have written ad nauseam about the September 11, 2001 horror. I will try not to repeat myself too much, but if we are ever able to eke out a victory over the forces that seek to destroy us, the West, the entire West, we can only do so by remembering that horror and all the others that have followed at the hands of the Religion of Peace,
Islam is not like other religions. It, in fact, is not a religion as we understand religion. Islam is more akin to Communism or Fascism: as previously noted, it offers a complete totalitarian political, economic, and cultural system demanding iron-clad obedience. Islam, in addition, promises sensual rewards in the afterlife for those who die defending or spreading it violently. As with Communism and Fascism, it preys on and takes over the minds and the emotions of the world's losers, of the aggrieved, of those who blame others for their own failings.
We in the West refuse to understand that simple fact, to wit, when Islam says it seeks to conquer us, it means it. Period.

Back on September 10, 2015, I noted that following the September 11, 2001 attack,
While the progressives and their enablers wrung their hands and looked for the causes of Muslim anger, ordinary folks--American, British, Australian, Canadian, and others around the world--went to war. I can tell you as somebody serving overseas at the time as Charge of a US Embassy, there was an electric current running through the air. The Bush people spoke loudly and clearly and laid down one of the great foreign policy lines of our time: "We appreciate your expressions of sympathy and condolences, but now you are either with us or against us." Captained by a furious United States President with blood in his eye, the Western allies moved at record speed and with overwhelmingly lethal force. At home, everybody it seemed was flying the flag; the military recruitment centers were overwhelmed with volunteers. Those were heady days to be an diplomat in the hard countries. Foreign officials listened very intently to what you said; those not particularly well-disposed to us knew that the American diplomat standing in front of them represented a President who had and would pull the trigger. Not many wanted to risk being seen as "against us." The Al Qaeda gang and their Taliban backers never knew what hit them. In weeks they were dead, or on the run. <...>

The West, and the USA, in particular, seemed to have an unassailable position of strength. Alas, that was not to last. Even at this moment of victory, the seeds of defeat had begun to germinate.
As I wrote elsewhere, in the wake of the Paris attacks, "delusions can get you killed,"
I see articles arguing over whether the attack is Al Qaeda or ISIS. Whether this attack is typical of this group or that one. I have said this so many times that I am reluctant to say it again. The issue is not Boko Haram, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jamyat Islamia, or any other terrorist band. The issue is not Islamist "extremism," or a nutty fringe of Islam. The threat we face comes from Islam and the progressive delusions that have allowed Islam to plant itself in our midsts and flourish, grow and operate with near impunity. My friends, as I have written many times (here, for example) progressivism will get you killed. Progressivism, also a totalitarian belief system, is clearly now the deadliest creed on the planet, and has formed a Molotov-Ribbentrop-type pact with Islam. 
Progressivism, above all, is about denying reality and promoting delusion.
Are we finally getting over our delusions?

Well, we took a major step in the USA by electing Donald Trump. It seems from the  limited reporting on it, that we are successfully pursuing a policy of turning large numbers of AQ, ISIS, Al Shabab, etc., into bloody jelly. As we have always known, the Islamists are good at torturing and killing flight attendants and other unarmed civilians,  but they don't do well when confronted by Western military know-how employed as it's meant to be employed. Trump deserves credit for, in effect, putting an end to the ISIS "Caliphate" in Iraq and Syria. That is an achievement not to be slighted. As, however, I noted before (sorry for all the links and links within links) when discussing the execrable Obama/Kerry misadministration's reaction to the attack in Istanbul,
I favor bombing Raqqa into the dirt, and killing these ISIS creeps by the bushel in Iraq and Syria, but it's too late for only that. A desultory bombing campaign against ISIS is not a strategy in what is a global assault against us. Thanks to progressive delusions, laws, and policies, the enemy have boots on the ground in Europe, America, Asia, Australia, and throughout Africa. Their field of operation is not restricted to dusty corners of Syria and Iraq. They have gone global by going local. Thousands of mosques all over the world, including in America, Australia, and Europe, serve as logistical and recruitment centers with social media serving as coordination and communication mechanisms--and all the while our societies' obsession with political correctness provides them protection.
That lethal obsession born of delusion continues,
We should be at war; instead, we are under attack. It should be a total war, not just restricted to drones and incursions in far away hamlets in Pakistan and North Africa. We need to look, inter alia, at our energy policies that send billions of dollars to corrupt Islamist regimes, and at our immigration and public assistance policies that let the enemy into our countries and then pay them to live here, and transform our societies into a copy of the corrupt societies from which they came.
We see the enormous resistance by our media-political-educational-bureaucratic elite to any effort to restrict Muslim migration to the West or to label the true enemy. This would be akin to our having successfully launched D-Day and a massive bombing campaign against Nazi Germany while simultaneously welcoming Nazi, SS, and Gestapo officials to come with their families and live in our cities, and implementing speech restrictions on our citizens that forbid "smearing" all Nazis for the actions of a few twisted individuals who have perverted the philosophy of Nazism.

We are going to win the battle overseas and lose the war at home. That still remains my bleak assessment on this sixteenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 massacres.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017


The coverage of hurricane Harvey and its aftermath didn't last long, nor did the possibility of impending war with the NORKs.

The media is on a horse with which they feel more comfortable, one they figure Trump can't ride well. I refer, of course, to DACA  (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). That horse lets them ride to the barn full of racist pigs, white supremacist hawks, and nativist rattlesnakes--and, of course, of lachrymose brown babies waiting to be deported to certain, uh, certain . . . Mexicaness, I guess. It seems, per prog logic, that it's better for all those oppressed aliens to remain in our white-supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi country rather than have them go home to enjoy their own culture free of the oppressiveness of white appropriation and privilege . . .

Back in the long ago dark ages of 2012, I wrote about the Obama announcement that led to DACA (here and here). I noted,
It is another ill-thought-out patch on our already chaotic immigration laws, regulations, and policies, and does nothing in the long term to deal with the ostensible problem it seeks to solve, i.e., dealing with young illegal aliens. It throws under the bus legal aliens who have played by the rules, already hard-pressed American workers looking for scarce jobs, and ongoing efforts to develop a rational approach to immigration.

It is an electoral stunt that leaves many important questions unanswered and highlights the hypocrisy of this misadministration. To start, the details are hazy. How will Homeland decide whether an illegal meets the requirements? Presumably that involves the alien confessing to being illegal, and, in the process, likely ratting out his parents, and perhaps other relatives. What happens to illegal alien spouses of such aliens? Do they benefit from the new status as "quasi-legal?" For how long can a person remain as a "quasi-legal?" 
There is so much wrong with what President Obama did last Friday unilaterally abrogating a portion of our immigration laws, and so little strong negative reaction.
That absurd speech of Obama's led to a memo from DHS that stated,
On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.
Well, it seems that the issues I raised so long ago have burst forward yet again. None of the questions got answered, and it became obvious that it was a stunt to get votes for 2012 and 2016. It had nothing to do with kids.

Also realize, contrary to MSM reporting, that DACA is NOT law, it's NOT even an Executive Order. Nope. It's, at best, an extra-legal temporary ("certain period of time") policy created by an Obama speech, and a subsequent memo from the-then DHS Secretary announcing that we would not enforce our immigration laws when it came to a certain class of illegal alien, i.e., "childhood arrivals." What we have, therefore, is a speech by an ex-President and a memo by a former cabinet member substituting for and defying the law of the land.

Also contrary to much press reporting and angst-ridden declarations coming from prog ponds around the nation, DACA does not "protect" children. As succinctly explained by FAIR, an good organization absurdly labelled a "hate group" by the increasingly deranged and corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center (my emphasis),
The Obama administration marketed DACA as a way to keep high school valedictorians, gifted students, and other high achieving young people in the United States. However, the demographic data on DACA applicants belies those claims. Most applicants were adults at the time they enrolled in the DACA program.

DACA accepts applications from qualifying illegal aliens who were 31 years old or younger on June 15, 2012. That means 36 year olds will be able to apply in 2017, provided they were 16 or under when they arrived in the United States. Clearly this was not a program aimed at protecting children from deportation
We see, thus, that for the denizens of the prog ponds a 36-year-old is a baby (readers, insert joke here). 

President Trump has played this well. I would have declared the whole DACA thing illegal, unconstitutional, and dropped it, but the President is more politically astute than I. He has given it six more months on paper, and challenged Congress to do something legal about it. Let us reflect on how clever this proves. Despite giving it six more months on paper, he has killed it. If you were an illegal "childhood arrival" would you go to renew your permit now and give ICE your current address and place of employment? I wouldn't, certainly not with Trump as President. He has put the burden on Congress, many of whose members face tight election battles next year. I want to see one of those Republican Congressmen in a tight battle who comes out for restoring DACA, and that on top of the Obamacare repeal disaster.

Well, I am looking at the TV right now, and one of the networks is running some tearful story about a handicapped "dreamer" now fearful of being deported, and no longer being able to access U.S. -taxpayer funded medical care. We're going to get a lot more of that stuff. 

Stay strong, Mr. President.   

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

The President as the Healer-in-Chief? No,Thanks

A quick one about a pet peeve of mine, to wit, putting politicians, especially the President, in the role of "healer" after a national disaster of some sort. I don't want it. Period.

I don't want or need the President to call for prayers and issue some platitudes about standing united, or depositing a teddy bear at some makeshift shrine, etc. I found it despicable, for example, when Queen Elizabeth II, a person of much class and dignity, got forced into participating in the over-the-top hype surrounding the death and funeral of Diana--a person of no real consequence except as a celebrity. I had my fill of Obama holding memorial services, e.g., Ft. Hood and Dallas massacres, and immediately turning them into "look at me" sessions with an adoring press heaping praise on him for his words and his graceful speaking style . . . . Empty calorie nonsense; I can drink beer or a sugary cola for that.

We see in the wake of the leftist-staged idiocy in Charlottesville, and the flooding in Texas, the lefties are deriding President Trump for his lack of skills as a "healer." They even generated a false "backlash" over FLOTUS wearing stylish heels as she was boarding the plane for Texas--crying about the "message" such foot gear sends (huh?) They also, of course, blasted Trump for going to Texas too early, and if he had waited a couple of days, of course, would have blasted him for going too late. They also blasted his speech in Texas for its "lack of empathy"and the Twitterverse is all atwitter with prog criticism of the President for his poor skills as a "healer."

All nonsense, of course.

I don't want a "healer" for President. I can go to a doctor or a priest for that. I want the President to be a hard-ass realist who does his or her duty in line with the Constitution, especially the requirement to protect the country from all threats. FDR was not a "healer"; after Pearl Harbor he promised the Imperial Japanese defeat and rallied the country to war. Lincoln? Churchill? Few statesmen in modern times have faced the number and strength of crises that faced them. They confronted those crises honestly, openly, did not sugar-coat the challenges facing their nations and called for victory. Even the much-maligned George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11 did a masterful job (on the whole) of committing the nation to bringing the scoundrels who murdered thousands of our citizens to heel, note, not to heal.

I had noted many times before that I have had enough of candle-light vigils, "we are not afraid" marches, teddy bears, and empty words. We need real leaders who will confront issues openly and view them without politically correct glasses.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Statute of Limitations on Statues?

I was in Spain during the tumult following the death in 1975 of long-time dictator Francisco Franco. One of the things that struck me during those unsettled early years of the transition from dictatorship to democracy was the Spanish passion for tearing down statues and renaming the hundreds of streets and plazas that bore the name of Franco or of some other now politically incorrect former dignitary.  As an American, I found it curious and hypocritical (more below).

I remember, in particular, a small monument across the street from my aunt's home in San Sebastian, on the Avenida de Colon, in the now posh Gros neighborhood. Erected, I think, in the 1940's, it recalled the September 13, 1939 liberation/occupation (you decide) of San Sebastian by Franco's forces under General Mola; it stood in a small square, more of a triangular space really, near the Santa Catalina bridge that spans the Urumea river. If memory serves, it was a small, rectangular plinth with some kind of bronze laurels or swords on top and a greenish plaque that read along the lines of, "In commemoration of when the Marxist chains that held down San Sebastian were broken." Every September 13, the local Movimiento types would hold a short ceremony in front of the monument; they would lay a wreath, sing the national anthem, and maybe some other nationalist ditty. With the death of El Caudillo, this monument became an issue of contention, along with the names of various streets which had been de-Basqued during the long Franco regime. It must have been in 1976 or so, can't remember exactly, when somebody took a sledgehammer to the little monument, and ripped off the swords or laurels and the plaque and threw it all in the river. The Movimiento sorts, still around and fighting a losing battle to preserve Franco's legacy, rushed out, put up a new temporary wooden plaque and laid a wreath in front of the battered plinth. The new plaque and wreath, in short order, were floating down the Urumea to the sea. The Franquistas came back, put up another temporary plaque, and this time stood guard for a couple of days. As soon as their vigilance came to an end, well, you guessed it, more debris in the river, and another couple of whacks at the plinth. This went on for some time. As far as I know, the little monument is now gone and most youngsters in San Sebastian probably don't know it ever existed. I also doubt they know what September 13 was about.

All this, at the time, struck me as odd. I understood, of course, that Franco had not been everybody's cup of tea, to say the least. His regime initially had been exceptionally brutal--so brutal, in fact, that in the 1940s, the German Nazis, yes, those Nazis, the real ones, not the ones with Tiki torches, urged Franco to ease off on the executions as he was on the verge of wiping out the skilled working class. As the years went on, however, the regime settled down to a drab almost comical routine of pomp, empty pronouncements and corruption, but one that also brought unprecedented stability and prosperity to Spain, and even allowed a relatively high degree of personal liberty: Spaniards could travel abroad freely, open businesses, own property, worship, and complain about all sorts of things. It wasn't exactly Athenian or Jeffersonian democracy, but not exactly the USSR or the DPRK, either. Watching a Franco statue being removed in Madrid, I remember asking a somewhat lefty Spanish friend of mine what he thought this would accomplish. He said, "We want no trace of that odious dictatorship." I asked him if he thought all the dams, highways, bridges, airports, housing blocs, etc., built under Franco should also be removed in the interest of erasing the dictatorship. What about all the stuff built by Spain's long-line of autocratic monarchs? He smiled sheepishly and invited me to a drink and some tapas. Conversation over.

I used to bore my Spanish friends with how in the US we didn't go around tearing down statues or trying to erase history, and that it seemed we had greater respect for history than they did. I remember, quite specifically, citing the streets named for and the statues to Confederate generals, and the Confederate-inspired state flags in the South, as a sign of our greater enlightenment. I also pointed out that the US military names weapon systems after formidable Native American opponents. I guess, if my Spaniard interlocutors remember those long-ago conversations, they are probably having themselves a laugh at my expense. Go ahead, I deserve it.

I know the story of some of those statues and Confederate-inspired state flags. A lot of them appeared well after the 1861-1865 Civil War, and many were acts of rebellion by Democrats against growing demands for racial equality and against--horrors!--the Republican Party and its support for those demands. Democrats continued to control most of the South well into the 1990s, and had been the creators of the KKK, and the foremost proponents of Jim Crow. I have stated before (June 23, 2015),
My view on the Rebel flag and other Confederate symbols is clear. I do not, never have, and never will fly or paste any Confederate symbol, flag . . . over my house, or on my vehicles, clothing, or coffee mugs, etc. I spent my professional life representing one flag, that of the USA, and have no loyalty to any other. I admire the courage and fighting spirit, as well as the tactical and strategic talents of Confederate Generals and soldiers, love reading about the Civil War and visiting battle sites such as Gettysburg and Vicksburg. I, however, am pro-Union, pro-Stars-and-Stripes, anti-slavery, pro-Lincoln, pro-Grant, pro-Sherman, pro-Frederick Douglass just about all the way. I do not share in the sympathy for and romanticism of some for the Southern cause in the, ahem, "War of Northern Aggression." Slavery was an inherited curse on our nation which we should have dispelled long before it came to war--and, yes, I do see slavery as the overriding reason for the great 1861-65 war, and, of course, as the proximate cause for the creation of the Republican Party shortly before that war. Men such as Washington and Jefferson, both slave owners, knew slavery was evil, but compromised with that "peculiar institution" to our long-standing misfortune. Great men, great flaws. I fully understand why black Americans could and would find Confederate flags and other symbols offensive.
What we have going on in the United States, however, is not some movement led by offended black persons who want to remove offensive symbols put up, often, in the 1920s and 1950s. I personally know no black person who has ever told me that we should remove Confederate statues. Most, apparently, seem to agree with ex-NBA star Charles Barkley--Why doesn't he run for office?--that they have never paid any attention to those "stupid statues."

What we have is something else going on. As I hinted at in The Target is Never What it Seems, the real targets of progressive ire are not statues, rebel flags, gay marriage, bathroom signs, use of plastic bags, transgender military, gay Boy Scouts, climate change, gender neutral pronouns, etc. The real purpose of the progressives is
to create turmoil, chaos; keep society and its institutions reeling from one punch to the next. The only solution to this turmoil? Why, naturally, more progressive government and regulation.
It is an assault by trivia: the tyranny of trivial pursuit. If you give in on one, you are set up and undermined for the next assault. It is the old Indian chess story of how one grain of rice on a chessboard square becomes acres and acres of rice. The assault is not just restricted to the USA and Confederate items. We see the beginning of demands to tear down statues of Columbus, Peter Stuyvesant, Captain Cook, Admiral Nelson, Cecil Rhodes, Winston Churchill, Junipero Serra, and on and on. Soon it will be demands to tear down or close symbols of ancient "white repression" such as California's Spanish missions, or Europe's castles, manor estates, and other reminders of monarchy. It seems all must be seen though the lens of our present day sensibilities; if a great person who did wonders for the welfare of humanity is revealed to have had doubts about, say, gay marriage, or did not speak up about the evils of denying women the vote, well, then that person must be expunged from our memory.

All this, of course, is aided, abetted, and furthered by Western schools and universities churning out legions of uneducated, self-entitled, emotional brutes full of grievance and hatred for their own society and civilization. These are the children of the 1960s; I shudder to think what their children will be like.

Meanwhile, of course, the jihadis continue to murder us and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons . . . but at least that statue of Robert E. Lee won't attack anybody anymore.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Afghanistan, Done Right?

I have been writing a long screed about the progressive assault on just about everything, but I find myself repeating lots of stuff I wrote years ago. I will get back to it, but first I wanted to take a break and comment on the President's Afghanistan speech.

I thought it an excellent speech, and one that cannot be ignored.

So, of course, the mainstream media is trying to ignore it, with Bozos such as Jim Acosta of CNN sneeringly dismissing it in a tweet as not worthy of a presidential address to the nation:
  Aug 21MoreTypically a presidential prime time address comes with major policy announcement or marks pivotal moment for country. We didn't get that.
Clearly, Cosmo didn't listen to the speech or had his tweet all ready to go, and wasn't going to cancel sending it.

The speech had lots of meat, both visible and some, I think, cooking away in the bottom oven out of sight.

He also did something very significant: he acknowledged that he had changed his mind about pulling out of Afghanistan after spending time studying the situation. It's not often you hear that from a politician.

The President summed it all up quite nicely here,
[T]he consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable: 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan, because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, would instantly fill just as happened before September 11th. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks. 
We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq. Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan, and the broader region, are immense. Today 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. <...>
Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power—diplomatic, economic, and military—toward a successful outcome. Some day, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever-lasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.
That is the essence of the threat and job we face. It is not enough to confine the jihadis to some remote place; they will kill us in our homes if we don't kill them in theirs.

Back in the nineteenth century, for example, most of the world could ignore some lunatic such as the Sudan's self-proclaimed Mahdi, aka Muhammad Ahmad, and his followers -- sort of an ISIS/AQ of its day. His apocalyptic pronouncements and promises to build a Caliphate probably did not resonate much in London and New York. In the end, of course, the British defeated this caliphate (Madihya) in 1898, nearly 15 years after the Mahdi himself had died. That jihadi movement of the nineteenth century posed a very limited threat to core Western civilization.

Not so today.

They might be born and raised in fetid caves and hovels in some of the most benighted countries on earth, but thanks to modern technology, progressive immigration laws, and the pronounced suicidal bent in today's Western civilization, the jihadis are welcomed into our midsts, paid to live among us, and protected by our enlightened legal and political systems. Then, in return, well, you know what happens then: Paris, Barcelona, Turku, San Bernardino, Malmo, Orlando, London, Madrid, Boston, New York, Ft. Hood, Sydney and on and on. They kill us. It seems Trump is promising to return the favor.

President Trump also has, it seems, stopped pulling the punches when it comes to Pakistan.
[T]he next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe-havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. 
Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked to together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices. But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately.
He had a big shout out to India, reminding them of all the benefits they derive from their relations with the USA. That has to have them with sweaty palms in Islamabad.

The President also said he was unleashing our military and dropping many of the restrictions that had hampered them before. He also refused to announce deadlines or troop levels. All good.

OK. You can read the text for yourselves and decide.

Let me just add, that I think we are slowly moving to the Diplomad solution for Afghanistan: get out of nation-building (the US Army is not the Salvation Army); stop threatening them with Democracy, and use, even pay, the traditional warlords to help us to keep ISIS, AQ, Taliban in check; keep a potent military fist in Afghanistan that can strike quickly to provide either back-up or punishment for local authorities who don't keep their side of the bargain. This is not too dissimilar from how the British ruled South Asia. All that is new . . .

It is a good vision, well, as good as we can get given the mess we have this century. We, after all, are stuck with Afghanistan for the foreseeable future so might as well have a realistic approach to that particular mess.

Friday, August 18, 2017


We add yet another city to the list of public arenas for the Religion of Peace to demonstrate its core beliefs.

As they did in Nice, in Barcelona the jihadis used a vehicle to plow through a congested pedestrian area at the height of the tourist season. At least 14 innocent people are now dead, and scores more injured. In nearby Cambrils, the cops managed to put away five jihadis with some well-placed rounds--press reports indicate that one cop killed four of the five himself. It also seems the jihadis were planning on building a truck bomb but they accidentally blew up their shop in Alcanar.

Spanish friends and relatives of mine had told me well before this that they felt "relatively" safe in Spain for a mix of logical reasons: Spain is not a big actor on the world scene, no reason to be attacked; Spain has always had good relations with the Muslims (El Cid, calm down); and most cynically the refugees entering Spain don't really want to be in Spain because they can get better public benefits elsewhere in Europe--in other words, they only use Spain as a pathway. Well, the facts scream otherwise, it would seem.

So Barcelona joins the long, long list of cities rewarded for their generosity to the "refugees" of the Religion of Peace with death and destruction. The blame for this, of course, goes first to the Islamists, but then to progressive loons in the EU and European national governments, and to Obama's feckless and destructive policy of abasement and surrender in the Middle East.

One final note. My wife and daughter are currently in Spain (far from Barcelona). The Diplowife tells me that where she is marches are being organized in response to this massacre to reject Islamophobia and right-wing racism. OK . . .

Yes, that is a society hell-bent on suicide.

Well, back to worrying about an imminent attack by century-old statues of Confederates . . .

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Hate

I am going to write about something that is not my area of expertise--I admit, it's not hard to find such an area. I am going to write about the insanity on some of our streets; in particular the insanity that masquerades as political discourse.

We've all seen the fiasco in the beautiful town of Charlottesville.

It seems some (How many?) so-called neo-Nazis/white supremacist thugs decided to hold a march in that community. It gets murky after that: Did the city authorities authorize it? Did they authorize the much larger counter-demonstration by so-called Anti-fascist thugs? Where were the police? Is it true that authorities called back the cops and told them to stand down? If so, why?

Who the hell is the miserable little punk who drove a car into the crowd killing one woman and injuring a score of other people? From what I've seen in the news about him--and I won't write his name--he has a somewhat whacky personal history including lasting only a few months in the military. I am sure that as the facts gradually emerge he will become a more complex character, and, I predict, much of the current "he was a pro-Trump guy" narrative will change, and perhaps even disappear.

The President put out an OK statement condemning the violence in rather general terms, and calling for national unity. The media and the enlightened elite, of course, are all aflame that the President did not specifically name "white nationalists" and "white supremacists" as the culpable party on the violence. Perhaps he should have been more specific in his denunciation, but I certainly had no trouble understanding that he was condemning the "Nazis." He, of course, has the example of President Obama who, let us not forget, invited the Black Lives Matter gangsters to the White House, and never could get himself to condemn them, the Antifa thugs, or Islamic terrorists for their actions. I trust President Trump will not follow the Obama example; I doubt he will invite the "Nazis" to the White House. So there is that.

Do the left really think that Trump is responsible for the apparent rise of white nationalist groups? Might they not look at the past several years of progressive white bashing as a more realistic cause? The left has insisted on reopening old racial wounds and resurrecting old and long-buried race monsters and now they are surprised? I wrote over four years ago that you can only keep pushing people so far before they will react.

Now, let me be very clear. I think, in no uncertain terms, that if you live in a Western country and you go around waving Nazi or Communist flags, or espousing Nazi or Communist ideology, you are a Moron. Period. You are not a person to be taken seriously as a thinker or problem solver.

In the US, your Moronism is protected by the first amendment. Fine. That, however, does not give you the right to beat people up and kill them whether it is with a gun, bicycle lock, or a car. If you do any of those, you are a Moron AND a criminal.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Korea, Again

The news coming out of the Korean peninsula these last few days is not good . . . but it's not new. I, for example, would note that this humble blog alerted its six seven readers back in April 2013 that some news reports based on info coming out of the DIA indicated that Little Kim seemed to have achieved the miniaturization of a nuclear warhead suitable for a missile. That info seems to have been recycled.

A bit earlier that same month in 2013, I posted a piece about Korea and the cost of unfinished business. I noted that a
[T]ruly stunning example of half-measures and unfinished business coming back to bite us is the Korean War. We, once again, see the consequences as Kim Jong-Un, a gangnam-style Pillsbury doughboy with a bad haircut, threatens to rain nuclear weapons on our Pacific bases and even our cities. Little Kim is the dictator of a decrepit country of zero importance to the world. This repellent little communist monarchy stands across the DMZ from the Republic of Korea, one of the truly great political, economic, and social success stories of the past seventy years. North Korea's leaders, however mad and absurd they might appear, know how to play with Western reluctance to apply total solutions. They look at the current leadership in Washington, and what do they see? The most anti-military President, Secretary of State AND Secretary of Defense in our history, i.e., the Three Stooges of the Apocalypse. They see us babbling about nonsense, and openly vowing to destroy our own military in order to provide free stuff to people who vote for Obama. We have a pompous, lying, rich boy, blowhard as Secretary of State who vows to do "whatever is necessary"( Note: In a style reminiscent of "Genghis Khan," eh?) but who has a record of opposing whatever is necessary, and has committed public acts of treason. We have the irony of having the very liberal Democrats who so opposed anti-missile defenses now being forced to move into place those very systems they sought to abort. The same bunker buster bombs which the Democrats opposed developing are being loaded into B-2s and would play a critical role in case of war against North Korea. The military which the Democrats have for years sought to cut and make into a playground for their social experiments now stands as the defense for Los Angeles, and other Democratic-governed urban centers. The ironies go on and on. 
This is what happens when you go hunting to wound the bear.
In those two cited pieces I naively wondered how Obama would handle a nuclear threat to the United States--remember this was a couple of years before he funded the Iranian nuclear program. He "handled" it by ignoring it, acting as though it were not there.

Obama left the Nork Nuke mess for his successor. That successor is handling it as well as can be expected. What remains shocking--perhaps it shouldn't--is that the progressive mau-mau machine seeks to make Trump's, properly, stern rhetoric is response to Kim a greater threat than Kim's popping off missiles and bragging about incinerating the USA. This is not unlike blaming Churchill's anti-Hitler rhetoric for Hitler's actions in Europe.

I am no expert on Korea, and don't play one on the internet. It, however, seems to me that dismissing Kim as insane does not get us very far. He might be a psychopath, but he ain't stupid or suicidal. He knows that a war with the United States would end very badly for him and his regime. He is clearly testing the new administration and probably looking for deal like the one his granddad and dad got from Clinton and, even better, the deal the Iranians got from Obama.

The solution? Not an easy one, but sooner or later it will end in war unless there is a dramatic change inside North Korea, perhaps fostered by China working with some element or another of the Nork military.

Frankly, if we're going to have a war, and this is a brutal thing to say, sooner is better than  later. Just as it would have been much better to confront Hitler in 1935 than in 1939, so it is now. It would have to be an overwhelming, quick, and brutal attack. I am glad I don't have to make that decision.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Immigration (Again)

Sorry for the long delay in posting.

I have been in another one of my blue funks wherein I see nothing happening worth commenting upon--or at least, nothing happening to which I can add anything useful. So much of what's on the news---both in the MSM and the Off-Broadway media--is so weird and much of it is likely fake that I don't know what to say.

I have, for example, no idea what Congresswoman and former DNC head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  was doing or thought she was doing with those bizarre Pakistani IT "experts." Was she being blackmailed? Were these guys some sort of clever ISI operation? Were they just crooks? I suspect that whatever was going on we will never find out as the media will decide--and the Republicans will agree a la Whitewater--that it's all too complex and not worth examining.

Anyhow, let's look at the perennial immigration issue.

Back in March 2016, I wrote that it appeared that immigration would become the big issue in the presidential elections,
Do voters consider the immigration issue a high priority? I think, yes, absolutely, regardless of what some exit polls suggest. I think voters meld the immigration issue into national defense, national pride, and the national economy. They do so, correctly. It is part of all of these, all part of the return of the Carteresque "national malaise." I don't think voters separate out the immigration issue as some of the pollsters seek to do. Part of the political genius of Trump is that he realizes this. If he can continue to hammer home this message, I think he could pick up considerable support from African-Americans and from the large, legal, Hispanic and Asian communities, as well. Illegal immigration affects the lower ends of the economic scale much more than it does the upper ends. Huge chunks of the populace labelled as poor, are, in fact, illegal immigrants.
I think that holds up.  Even prior to that piece, I had written quite a bit about immigration. One piece, "The Right of National Defense", which I wrote in May of 2013, noted the disaster in Europe, especially Britain, brought about by deliberate policies of unfettered immigration and that,
[I]t does no good to have elaborate military and police organizations, and committees looking into extremism, if we let the enemy enter through our front doors. Make no mistake, as I noted before, "We should be at war; instead, we are under attack." It should be a total war, not just restricted to drones and incursions in far away hamlets in Pakistan and North Africa. We need to look, inter alia, at our energy policies that send billions of dollars to corrupt Islamist regimes, and at our immigration and public assistance policies that let the enemy into our countries and then pay them to live here, and transform our societies into a copy of the corrupt societies from which they came.
Perhaps more to the point about what I want to discuss today, I wrote in June 2013, that our immigration debate misses the point because,
I do not hear discussion about whether we need none, little, some, or a lot of immigration, and if we do, what type of immigration we should seek. Do we need millions more of semi and unskilled people from Mexico and other poor countries? Absent widespread elimination or reduction in minimum wage, taxation, public assistance, and zoning laws, how will these people contribute to the economic growth of our country? This is not nineteenth century America with small factories and workshops on every street corner, and belching smokestack industries eager for cheap workers. This is the America of EPA regulations, OSHA bureaucrats, job killing minimum wage and health insurance laws, outsourcing, and of a growing ethos that sees single parents living on the public dole as an honorable existence. It is also the America of multiculturalism whereby immigrants are encouraged never to become Americans. 
The rubbish being put out by Obama and others on the taxes that these new immigrants will pay is just that, rubbish. They will draw public assistance and not pay taxes. What impact will this continuing flood of poor migrants have on the job and advancement prospects of struggling poor and middle class black, white and brown Americans? I haven't heard much said about that, but I predict it won't be good.

Is our immigration law going to continue based on the idea of family reunification? Will adults be able to petition for their adult siblings and those siblings' families? Will we continue to ignore promises that the new immigrants will not become a public assistance burden? If so, we are in for an endless cascade of new immigrants petitioning for their relatives and on and on and on. Yes, sure, technically we will have solved the "illegal alien" problem by making them all legal. Is that what is best for our country, I stress for our country not for the Democratic party?
That, too, holds up today--in my humble opinion, of course.

I see that the Trump Administration, apparently, will make an effort to reform radically our immigration system. That's good. I also notice that there seems to be an emphasis on merit and extra points for speaking English and having a skill (ABBA does well on both!) Those are also good things. I see, also, the beginning of a debate, very quiet one for now, on the key issues I raised above, to wit, do we need immigration, how much, and what kinds? This is all good. I continue to believe that the President should suspend all or nearly all immigration for a period of time until we draft a new immigration code.

Now, of course, every silver cloud has a dark lining. Given the abysmal Congressional/GOP performance on what should have been a no-brainer, the repeal of the odious Obamacare, how many of you believe that we will see meaningful action on immigration? What's happening with tax reform?

If you thought Obamacare was rife with politicization and misrepresentations, just wait until you start arguing immigration! The number of interest groups, many of them overtly malevolent, vested in our current system is astounding. The media will go to town on this topic like you have never seen before! I doubt there are many Congressmen or other politicians willing to withstand that sort of withering fire. I don't think it will happen. I hope I am wrong.

Now back to worrying about Russia . .  .

Wednesday, July 26, 2017


I overcame my reluctance to go to a movie theater and went to an IMAX screen to see "Dunkirk" by Anglo-American Director Christopher Nolan. The last time I was in a movie theater was January 2015 for Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper."

OK. I was hesitant about seeing "Dunkirk."

I feared that political correctness would wreck that amazing story. I worried that we would have Idris Alba cast as Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Joan Collins as BEF General Lord Gort. Diploson (1), however, saw it and strongly recommended it; in addition, I read the review of the aerial action sequences in one of my favorite blogs (Chant du Depart) and if the exacting author of that fine and exceptionally beautiful blog can find them full of merit, that's good enough for me. So off I went with the Diplowife and Diploson (2).

Let me start by saying that it is a beautifully shot film. The aerial combat scenes, indeed, are exceptional; they provide a breathtaking approximation for us civilians of what must be the chaotic, all-aspect nature of old-time dogfighting. It was hard to believe that the film did not use lots of real Spitfires, Me-109s, Heinkles, etc. The scenes of attacks on shipping, too, evoke a special horror, and the director plays quite effectively on the fear we all (I think) have of drowning in a tight space. In these action scenes, Nolan has produced an amazing technical and artistic achievement that puts to shame a lot of the CGI to which we have become accustomed.

Overall, however, the film left me somewhat cold and distant.

First, there was a bit of the political correctness infection. I counted only two times that the word "German" was used; both were in a scene where British soldiers question a man as to whether he is German. The word "Enemy" is used throughout, including in the opening credits which explain that "The enemy have driven British and French forces . . . " No soldier ever says "Hun," or "Jerry," or "Kraut," or even the word "Nazi." Hitler is never mentioned. Just a faceless, almost sci-fi type enemy. Got to get that German market, eh?

More damning, however, there was no central character with which we could identify fully. One main character was a semi-cowardly, scheming soldier who would do almost anything to get home, including cutting in line and pulling off a variety of deceptions to get on board a rescue vessel. That might well have happened, but I suspect that was NOT the big story at Dunkirk. Maybe I am wrong--tell me, if so. The brave yachtsman played by the superb Mark Rylance might have been more fully developed, but he doesn't get to do much to interest us in his story. He, admittedly, takes part in some very well filmed rescue scenes, but, in the end, those are pretty standard Hollywood/Pinewood.

There are a couple of emotional scenes worth mentioning. One is when the mist clears off the beach at Dunkirk and we see a flotilla of small private craft massed to bring the boys (no girls on this beach) home. Another comes at the end when a soldier on the train going home reads aloud a portion of Churchill's "We Shall Never Surrender" speech to the Parliament after the successful evacuation of hundreds-of-thousands of men from the French coast. Made me think of the state of Britain and the West today, besieged as we are by a new invader, one welcomed by decades of Quisling officialdom. Could Churchill give that speech today without being accused of "hate" speech and xenophobia?

This is still not the definitive movie about Dunkirk. That operation, lest we forget, saved the West from the Nazis. If the BEF had been lost in France, it would be hard to imagine how Britain could have carried on. Churchill probably would have been replaced and the pressure on the new government to negotiate a settlement with Hitler would have been immense and likely irresistible. That's admittedly speculative "what if" history, but I think it is a likely scenario since without the United States the war could not have been won, but without Britain it would surely have been lost. Dunkirk, in my humble view, saved us all from that loss. It deserves a big accurate thorough screen treatment. I will keep looking; meanwhile, however, do go see Nolan's "Dunkirk" and let me know what you think.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Bored With It All (Almost)

Having a good time with my Spanish relatives who will be leaving for home in a couple of days. We have done a lot of sightseeing. They also have taken over our kitchen and, frankly, produced some genuinely superb meals. I always am amazed and in awe of people who can walk into a kitchen, open a few cabinet doors, check the pantry and the refrigerator and--Presto!--whip up an awesome lunch or dinner. These folks can certainly do that! Amazing! I am sorry they will be going.

I have tuned into the news only off-and-on for the past couple of weeks.

I can tell from my more in-depth session today, that I haven't missed much of great interest.

The silly Russia election hack/campaign collusion story sputters along, with no more evidence of any wrong-doing now than several months ago. CNN continues to prove itself, perhaps, the most deranged "news" outlet in the Western world. Not just its broadcasts, but the tweets and other comments of its key personnel show that there is some serious mental issues afoot in the Atlanta HQS and throughout CNN's tattered empire. The level of ignorance of history, the world, and everything else is truly astounding. Most other "news" outlets are not far behind.

"Fact checking" seems to be a lost art.

I see that the GOP hopelessly complicated and destroyed its effort to "repeal and replace" the disastrous Obamacare. The mess is "inexplicable" unless one just concludes that once in Washington it is irrelevant whether the politician is Dem or Rep, he or she becomes of Washington, with the mentality of Washington.

I think the effort to dump Obamacare should have been a two-stage process: 1) repeal the damn thing;  and, 2) remove all laws and regulations that hamper the operation of a free market in the health insurance business. In other words, Congress should repeal Obamacare, and we, ordinary Americans, will take charge of replacing it with what we want.

Maybe there is still hope that this will happen? I don't know, just as I am also having serious doubts that they will ever get around to reforming our tax rates and stifling government regulations to allow something akin to a genuine free market in goods and services.

The media is also abuzz with new polls. One dubious poll showing that Trump's support is on the wane, and other showing that the population of most foreign countries is opposed (?) to a wall on the US-Mexico border. What? Should we have a poll to see if Americans are opposed to the wall between the ocean and parts of Holland? Should people in France ask us whether we want to see a bullet-proof glass barrier put around the Eiffel Tower? Who cares?

All very boring and inconsequential.

I will struggle to get more interested.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Democrats Russian into a Wall at 100 MPH

Just got back from the long drive from Vegas. Lots of traffic and heat, but I love the desert so it's OK.

I broke "even" in my bid at being a gambling man. By "even," of course, I mean that I didn't annihilate my kids' inheritance or hit my credit card limits. I found this crazy Chinese electronic game called either "Magic Crystals" or "Dragon's Eggs," or something akin to those tags. It has immense blinking and rotating lights, very loud music and special effects, a flying dragon, gold coins flashing and raining down, reels spinning, and an angry Chinese man who yells at you "Look up! Time for Orb selection!" It is an epileptic's nightmare, but I walked away with a couple hundred bucks to off-set my poker and blackjack losses. So, yes, "even," that's my story . . .

Got a chance to read some more about the latest media outburst on Russia! Bombshell! Smoking! Gun! Red! Handed!

It's! All! Nonsense!

You can go read Donald Trump, Jr.'s email chain on this episode and reach your own conclusions. I, however, started writing a piece while still in the hotel expressing some serious doubts about this latest story. I had gotten pretty far along, when I read a terrific American Spectator article (h/t to the great Instapundit) which eviscerates the whole story with a thoroughness and erudition that I cannot match.

I, therefore, deleted most of what I had written, and now refer my six readers to the "American Spectator" take-down of this latest story about "collusion." The AS article lends a lot of credence to the theory that Trump's campaign got set up by an elaborate Democratic Party/Obama administration dirty trick, e.g., the Obama DOJ let the attorney into the US with a waiver on her visa expressly to attend the meeting with Don, Jr.

Donald Trump, Jr., a political novice, got taken advantage of. I go back to what I stated before that the story is a,
convoluted, poorly sourced account of a mysterious meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and a Russian attorney. The whole story makes no sense and upon reading it in the NYT, I kept asking, "And? What is the crime?"
It seems nothing transpired either way: Trump campaign got nothing, and Russia got nothing. There was no crime.

If, in fact, the Trump campaign had been colluding with the Russians would they have needed an email from British media hack Rob Goldstone alerting them to the Russian attorney's request for a meeting? (Yes, the same Goldstone apparently involved in the production of the lurid and fake "Trump Dossier.") Wouldn't there be other, more subtle channels to pass along information? Would the Russians have been so naive to have told Goldstone, as he claims in his emails, that they wanted Trump to win and were working to that end? Please . . .

It was a set-up.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

What's Important

Leaving for Vegas tomorrow. Will be off the grid for a few days.

Couldn't resist commenting on what the media thinks important.

As I noted before (here). President Trump dominated the G20 leaders' meeting and the lead up to it. His speech in Poland was a great one. Nobody else on stage in Hamburg seemed to matter. He set the tone for a new age of American leadership. He didn't bow before the gods of climate change and confronted Putin while at the same time trying to get him on side in the fight against terror.

In other international news, ISIS is actually and for real this time on the run. Their forces in Iraq and Syria are being methodically ground into fine dust by a more aggressive and effective American policy of using a mix of special forces, air support, and the training of local forces to confront a conventional army such as the one ISIS sought to build. From all accounts I have read, the Iraqi forces proved very competent in the vicious house-to-house fighting in Mosul.

The alliance among Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the USA is being strengthened and revitalized as we confront the apparently growing NORK threat. I suspect that even Dear Leader (bis) must recognize, in his private moments, at least, that war with Trump's America is a losing proposition.

The Mad Maduro regime in Caracas is gurgling its death rattle as the consequences of socialism become so apparent that only the mainstream media can miss it. A sure sign that end times approach for Chavismo is the release from prison of prominent opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. When these sorts of regimes start freeing political prisoners it means they are desperately looking for a deal and want our help in reaching it. Watch.

These are major and positive developments so, of course, our media tsars are going back to the "RUSSIA!" story. Now they have come up with some convoluted, poorly sourced account of a mysterious meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and a Russian attorney. The whole story makes no sense and upon reading it in the NYT, I kept asking, "And? What is the crime?"

The progs just won't give it a rest and us a break.  Was Russian meddling in our election worse and more consequential than that by Mexico? The answer is "No!" But that, apparently, will not draw a Special Prosecutor, or even a few NYT editorials.

The slots await!

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Not So Innocent Abroad After All: President Trump Dominates Global Gathering

Aside from President Trump is there anybody else at the G20 in Hamburg--I mean aside from the fascists rioting in the streets? The man dominates gatherings like nobody else.

He started with a tremendous speech in Poland in which he unequivocally stated that Western Civilization is worth defending. Hard to believe that needs saying, but it does. Judging from the wacky prog reaction to his speech, President Trump demonstrated, yet again, that somebody big and powerful needs to speak up for Western Civilization. Magnificent speech delivered in a country, Poland, that knows full well what can happen when we don't respect borders and hold to the values of that Civilization. On a scale of 1-10, I give the man a 12.

By the way, I wonder what Putin thinks about the guy he supposedly "got elected"? Might have backed the wrong horse, eh? Does anybody imagine a President Hillary Clinton giving a speech like that in a place such as Poland? Not even Jules Verne could come up wit that scenario.

In Hamburg, it seems Trump is the host and the master-of-ceremonies. Nobody else seems to matter. Everything revolves around Trump as thousands of fascists riot in the streets and confirm everything Trump has said about the path that Europe has set for itself. In his meeting with Putin, according to the post meeting read-outs, Trump seems to have held his own and pressed Putin on election meddling and other nefarious Soviet Russian practices--this despite all sorts of predictions on CNN and MSNBC that Trump would not touch the election issue.

Bottom line: I trust Trump to represent US interests in dealing with Moscow, something I could not do with Obama.

Back to my tour guide duties. Off to Vegas on Monday night. Trying to catch my breath between excursions.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Happy 4th from Frisco

I continue my role as tour guide for my wife's European relatives.

Tonight we are in San Francisco. Flew in from San Diego (world's most beautiful and efficient airport) and got an Uber with a very funny and smart Indian driver. He gave an excellent account of why Hillary C lost the election ("very corrupt, lots of baggage, and a lousy campaigner") and thought we all should give Donald T a chance.

We quickly whisked into town thanks to very light holiday traffic, checked into our hotel at the Fisherman's Wharf, and went off to do tourist things. Huge crowds everywhere. Lots of European and Aussie tourists doing their best to help our balance of trade and make Trump happy. We had a mediocre but expensive lunch, which fortunately consisted of small portions so everything balanced out.

We just came back from watching the fireworks--excellent, despite the fog and cold breeze--and listening to lots of patriotic music booming out over the loudspeakers--yes, in San Francisco, so not all is lost. The anti-terror police presence was heavy, impressive, and most welcome.

Anyhow, more tourist things tomorrow. I think we are either taking a bus tour of the city or going on a boat to freeze in the Bay. One or the other.

I have been a bit lax in reading and listening to the news, and yet not only do I survive but so does the Republic. I see the President is dominating the news cycle again with his wrestling GIF. The news media is beclowning itself, once again, letting President Trump not only troll them but show them up for the weak, watery, half-melted snowflakes that they are. The man is a political genius, no doubt about it.

OK, not much more to say. I am folding up my new Apple laptop and hitting the sack.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Progressives and Their Tom Thumb's Blues

Taking a brief break from my duties as tour guide for our visiting Spanish guests. Took them yesterday over the mountains to visit the beautiful San Juan Capistrano Mission. I figured Spaniards would like to see a Spanish-built church. We had magnificent weather and a picturesque drive on a winding mountain road. They seemed to like it judging from the hundreds of pictures they took. California has a great and colorful history; it's future? Hmmm . . . maybe not so much.

Anyhow, the Diplowife has taken our guests on a shopping expedition, and I sit alone, supervising the washing machine as it churns away, and listening to Bob Dylan. I had forgotten how good he is. He deserved that Nobel prize. In particular I love his "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues." The music has a Leibner/Stoller "Smokey Joe's Cafe" feel, but the real magic is in the words. Dylan's use of words is akin to that in the poems of Gertrude Stein; he uses them more for their sound than their meaning to tell the story and set the mood. Jazz with words--and the harmonica is great. Brilliant stuff.
When you're lost in the rain in Juarez when it's Easter time, too/
And your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through/
Don't put on any airs when you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there and they really make a mess outta you/
Now, if you see Saint Annie, please tell her thanks a lot/
I cannot move, my fingers are all in a knot/
I don't have the strength to get up and take another shot/
And my best friend, my doctor, won't even say what it is I've got. 
Sweet Melinda, the peasants call her the goddess of gloom/
She speaks good English and she invites you up into her room/
And you're so kind and careful not to go to her too soon/
And she takes your voice and leaves you howling at the moon...
Gotta love Dylan's description of "Sweet Melinda." It got me thinking about the progressives and their collective melt-down over the past few days and weeks. President Trump has done something remarkable with his tweets, his speeches, his actions, and his general attitude, to wit, he's taken the progressives' voice and left them "howling at the moon."

President Trump has used words as much for setting the mood as for their actual definition. While the progressives try to parse and pick apart those words, the rest of us understand exactly what he's saying, how he's tapping into our own thoughts and letting them gush forth like a wildcat oil well.

He is leaving the progs "howling at the moon." They don't know what else to say about him, what other slanders and libels to heave in his direction, what more fake narratives and news to conjure up. Nothing seems to work. It all boomerangs.

If Trump can keep this up, he will go down as one of the great presidents. He is a revolutionary force. I am more than impressed.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Back from DC & Maybe Just a Little Too Happy . . .

Got back last night from the wedding in DC.

My number three son and a wonderfully funny, smart and very pretty lady got married at the Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown. Great wedding and lots of fun. Got to get together with some old friends, make some new ones, and act as tour guide for my wife's relatives from Spain. They loved the Smithsonian Air and Space museum (possibly the greatest museum in the world), the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and the time we spent at Ford's Theatre delving into the story of America's Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln by a Shakespearean actor who became obsessed with killing Caesar--hmmm, sound familiar?

The weather was great, and DC, a city for which I never had any love when I worked there, was actually pleasant, clean, efficient, and even civilized. Everybody, and I mean everybody, I encountered on the street, in restaurants, in stores, at monuments, etc., was very polite, well-mannered, and helpful.

I was there for almost seven days and had not one rude or untoward experience with anybody, be they American, foreign, black, white, brown, or any other of God's brands. How can this be? Are things on the ground perhaps not really as bad as pretentious pundits declare? Is it all "fake news" a la CNN? Is the grief and conflict we see, hear, and read about in the media just the handiwork of power-mad politicians and unscrupulous "journalists" and "activists"? The Diplomad will explore this matrix and get back to you . . . and, meanwhile, enjoy yet another Trumpian victory over CNN. Gotta love it!

Monday, June 19, 2017

Operation Barbarossa and its Lessons for Today

Seventy-six years ago, June 22, 1941, Hitler launched "Operation Barbarossa," the massive invasion of the Soviet Union. It involved some 4.5 million Axis troops, over three million of them German, and within six months had placed the Nazis on the outskirts of Moscow, and, it seemed, on the verge of a total victory over Stalin's USSR. In the end, of course, it didn't turn out that way. I will not go into a military history of Barbarossa and the disaster into which it ultimately became for the Axis powers; some of the readers of this blog probably could write volumes about WWII. No, that's not the purpose of this little piece.

I began thinking about Barbarossa as I watched a couple of clips of lefty Democrats going on and on about Trump-Russia "collusion." Interesting that the American left now have sudden concerns about not just our national security, but with Russian "influence." They fret and rage that Putin colluded with Trump to thwart Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House. They fret and rage, of course, despite the lack of any evidence that such "collusion" took place.

It is worth recalling that in days not really so long ago, there was collusion between the left and the Moscow. In fact, the collusion was so close that the left was willing to accept the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact without skipping a beat. Let us not forget that prior to the signing in August 1939 of that "Non-Aggression" accord between Moscow and Berlin, the left in Europe and America was vehemently anti-Nazi--remember the Spanish Civil War. Once, however, word came out that Hitler and Stalin had reached an understanding, the left switched to opposing war against the Nazis. We should note, for example, that the Communists in France, responding to orders from Moscow, gave up non-Communist members of the French resistance to the Nazi occupiers and a slow, painful death. Communists in America and Europe opposed helping the evil capitalist imperialists in London as Churchill's Britain waged its desperate and lonely war against the Nazis. All that changed in an instant when the Nazi alliance invaded the USSR. Suddenly, "We have always been at war with Eastasia Hitler" was the slogan and the left insisted we forget about the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact, the invasion of Finland, the Nazi-Soviet partition of Poland, etc. Through its well-placed web of agents and fellow-travelers in the mass media, academia, and, of course, the government bureaucracy (see Senator McCarthy) suddenly the message was one of concern for national security and of the imperative need to defeat Hitler--and save the USSR.

They are at it, again.

Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned in the USSR, and his band of followers, who have never had a kind word to say about American national security, are up-in-arms about Russian "interference" in our elections. Bernie, of course, is not alone. Democrats and other assorted lefties, such as Hillary Clinton who with her husband engaged in, shall we say, some highly profitable "collusion" with Moscow, and even tried to "reset" relations with Russians, have formed a chorus demanding an "explanation" of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia, and even put out demands for Trump's impeachment. It would seem that Communist Russia, aka the USSR, was something for us to  co-exist with while the much weaker Russia of Putin is something for us to fear. We hear that Russia is taking over!

"We have always been at war with Eastasia Russia."

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Leftist Savagery Continues

On May 1, I posted a piece "commemorating" the 100 days of leftist savagery that we had seen since President Trump's inauguration. I noted that during those first 100 days,
Opponents tried to disrupt the inauguration, and have engaged in a consistent pattern of street violence and thuggery aimed at intimidating Trump supporters and trying to give the impression that the country is ungovernable unless the progressives are in charge. Nothing is off limits, including Trump's family, in this assault on the new president. Unprecedented coarseness, violence, and fake news are all arrows in the progressive quiver and being unleashed on Trump and supporters daily.
We have marched past the 100-day milestone and this leftist savagery shows no signs of abating. As the Russian collusion nonsense implodes, especially after the bizarre Comey's bizarre testimony, the lefties are going for some sort of an obstruction of justice gambit in which Trump is accused of trying to block an investigation on him which was not happening, and somehow trying to block an investigation into others by saying that he hoped it would proceed. Whole thing doesn't make sense except in the whacky world of Washington where process, crime, words, actions, leaks all become melded into some weird legalistic lawyer salad in which one can pick out any little piece of condiment one wants and say the whole salad is about that.

Even Kafka would be amazed at how people can be accused of nonsense, then be accused of debunking that nonsense, and then accused of preventing an investigation of that nonsense that was not happening in the first place. . .

What exactly is the Special Counsel investigating? He's investigating an investigation that found nothing, and is determined, it seems, to bring charges of some kind against somebody for doing nothing wrong. A sad, horrible, destructive joke, and, of course, after AG Sessions masterful appearance before the Senate, this whole thing should go away . . . but, no, no it won't . . ..

The leftist savages, not content to limit their terrorism to the faux legal/media world, have encouraged it to spill out into the real world where real people live and work and play. They have expanded and built on the savagery evinced by the BLM "movement" and the thugs from ANTIFA. We now have seen a Bernie Bro take up a weapon, and go Republican hunting on a baseball diamond in Virginia. Thank God and some brave and straight-shooting Capitol Hill cops, the only one who departed this planet was the lefty psycho. As so happens every time the lefties' narrative takes a hit, you know, the one about Trump people being violent fascists, they try to shift it to something else. Gun control is the standard fall back, and now we also are hearing that the Bernie Bro was driven to his actions by the hateful rhetoric of the Trumpsters. The hateful eliminationist rhetoric and play acting of the left and its echo chamber media, that had nothing to do with anything since that's just art and free expression. Only right-wing speech and symbols can drive people on the right and on the left to violence.

Gotta keep up, folks, gotta keep up. Confederate flags will turn ordinary people into mass murderers, but Communist and Anarchist flags, idiotic "comedians" pretending to behead the President, stage actors "assassinating" the President, a defeated and corrupt Democrat Presidential candidate talking about joining the "Resistance," well, that's just freedom at work, nothing to see here, move along, move along, the next meeting of that Resistance is in five minutes, drinks and ammo will be provided.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Questionable Decisions and an Impending Wedding

My blogging is being affected in a bigly way by the impending marriage of my number three son. He lives in DC and his wedding is on the 24th. The preparations have been immense and as we come down to the wire the Diplowife's tyranny has grown.

Today I had to do the thing I hate the most on this earth: try on clothes. Went to a local clothing store a few weeks ago, ordered a couple of suits, ties, etc., and thought that was the end of it. But no! Today I had to go try the things on and, of course, the Diplowife was unhappy with how I looked--now she notices? Alterations, fried nerves, agitation, looming deadline. . . ugh! When I left the State Department I ceremoniously trashed all my suits, ties, sport coats, dress shoes . . . I sought to live the rest of my life in sweat pant and sneaker glory.

Now to have to go back and get that stuff again . .  . well, it has ultra frazzled my already frazzled nerves and is making blogging very difficult.

Anyhow, the boy is marrying a perfectly delightful lady--she appears on FOX News as an expert on education, and works at the Heritage Foundation . .  . so, of course, she has the Diplomad Approval Stamp. She's a YUGE Trump fan, proving that not all youngsters are lost to the progressive maw.

I've been a bit discombobulated, and have made some decisions which I hope are not too questionable. I sold my 1966 Olds AND my 2015 GT Mustang. My 73 Mach 1 and my 76 Cadillac are also up for sale (Laguna Classic Cars).  Please buy them and make the Diplowife happy.

I have bought two Jeep Wranglers to console myself. They are great! Lot of fun. I am decking them out with everything I can think of, and some day, yes, some day, might actually take them off-road. The Diplowife doesn't want to hear it because, as she says, we've spent most of our married life "off-road" in places such as Pakistan, Guatemala, and Bolivia, and she's had enough dirt roads and rocky climbs to last her a lifetime. So I think my wonderfully equipped Wranglers will be confined to making COSTCO runs, but they will impress!

As an old-school fart, I have made sure that both Wranglers have six-speed manual transmissions--keeps the number of potential wanna-be drivers down. Yesterday, in fact, I was showing off one of these beauts to my neighbor when he looked inside and asked "What's that third pedal for?" This is when it was confirmed to me that my beloved Western Civilization is in a deep, deep crisis . . . "What's that third pedal for?" shall be the motto, the very leitmotif of our campaign to organize, to rally, to lead the drive to restore that Civilization to its former glory! NO automatic transmissions! No driverless cars! No hybrids! No electric cars! No power windows! OK, OK, we will accept cup holders, but that's it!

Back to something about cleaning the house for when our foreign guests arrive after the wedding. No more GSO to take care of that sort of thing . . .

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Comey Serves Up a Nothingburger with Fries and Slaw

The Comey hearing. OK, I watched the damn thing. I am trying to avoid reading the post-hearing professional punditry so that I won't be influenced by the "experts" as I offer my own amateur punditry.

I think Comey damaged his reputation further (here, here, here) and came off as a cry baby with seriously hurt feelings. More important, however, at least to my mind, the whole thing was over in the first few minutes of Comey being questioned.

OK, my checklist:

--The President does have the right to fire the FBI director;

--The President, although he has the authority to do so, did not try to halt the investigation into General Flynn and "Collusion with Russia";

--The President told the truth when he said Comey had told him that Trump was not a target of the investigation;

--The President told Comey to continue with the investigation as he wanted to know if any of his "satellites" had done something wrong;

--The investigation continues even without Comey.

So what the hell is this all about? Where's the crime? Where's the scandal? Waiter, I would like a little meat between the bread slices, please.

Now there was a big nothingburger when it comes to "Trump scandals," but there also was a large order of fries and a side of slaw thrown on our plates a bit later.

First, as many of us suspected, Comey was the leaker of the Comey "memos." He admitted it, saying he did it to provoke the creation of a Special Counsel probe into the Russia issue. That is outrageous and helps explain this ex-Director's lax attitude towards leaks. Once he wrote those memos as FBI Director, those memos did not belong to him; they belonged to the United States Government and are subject to the appropriate USG classification and use regulations. The ex-Director should be charged.

Second, he casually acknowledged what many of us also had suspected, to wit, that former AG Lynch did try to interfere in the FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal. Lynch needs to be subpoenaed, investigated, and, if appropriate, charged with obstruction of justice. Comey's own lax behavior in the wake of the Lynch attempt to obstruct justice should also be investigated, and he should face charges.

What comes out negative for President Trump?

Simply put, he got hoisted by his and his staff's inexperience with the slippery oily ways of Washington.

As a man who grew up in the construction/real estate business, mostly in the brutal New York market, Trump knows how to deal with sharks. He knows that, in the end, 99% of the time, a deal can be struck in which both parties emerge as winners. "Come on. We're alone now. What's your bottom line?" DC is different. DC is a town of lawyers. The DC sharks tend to be wily but cowardly; they hide behind lawyers, the endless reams of legal code that choke the town, and press leaks. Everything is quasi-legal and any "slip" an outrage to be exploited by the progressive media.

You need a lawyer to do almost anything; no conversation should be held without a lawyer present. In the DC environment, Trump expressing his wish that Flynn be spared further embarrassment and prosecution after already having been abruptly dismissed from his job as National Security Advisor, turns into a lawyer gabfest. Did the President try to interfere with any investigation into Flynn? Not that I know. So he expressed his wish to see the guy not be slimed anymore, so what?

This has to stop. We have people out of work; jihadis running amok; the Norks threatening to pop nukes over Honolulu and Okinawa; the Chinese paving over the South China Sea; and Putin laughing his head off as we run around chasing our tails with these idiotic scandals.

To quote PM May, "Enough is enough!"

Sunday, June 4, 2017

London, Again

I can't write much more about this topic. It's all been said, so many, many times. The murdering SOBs have struck again in the heart of the one of the world's greatest cities. The British armed police reacted quickly and effectively, killing the three rampaging jihadis in a hail of bullets within eight minutes of the start of attack. Attack is the word: as I wrote years ago, when it comes to the Islamists, "We are under attack, when we should be at war."

Now the usual lefty proggy search for "answers" and "motives" begins. We hear, of course, the calls to avoid a backlash against Muslims because they follow a Religion of Peace. We see the lashing out at President Trump for calling again for greater travel restrictions (not a "ban") on citizens from certain jihadi-providing countries. I am sick of this script. I am sick of the teddy bears, flowers, empty "motivational" slogans, and hashtags.

PM May has boldly stated, "Enough is enough!" Really? So whatcha gonna do, Madam? What are all of our leaders going to do?

How many more deaths before the brutal reality of what we have done to our cities and societies becomes apparent? How many more must die before our governments do what governments are supposed to do: protect us from the killers, or, at least, allow us to protect ourselves.

Disgusted beyond words.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Le Président Trump dit, "Au revoir mon précieux Paris!"

And we're out!

I had begun to have doubts that he would pull the trigger. I guess I had read too much media about all the possible permutations of a possible President Trump announcement on the absurd Paris Climate Agreement (the link provided has the entire text; if you have nothing else to do, please read it. I find that the people who most support it, haven't read it.)

President Trump spoke in his usual blunt way, i.e., not a whole lot of diplo-speak,
I am fighting every day for the great people of this country. Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord -- (applause) -- thank you, thank you -- but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine. (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens. The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers -- who I love -- and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production. 
Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.
He laid out the case for getting out of the Accord in a magnificent manner; it's well-worth reading the whole announcement.

He identified it clearly as just another progressive wealth suppression and distribution scheme, that would increase government power, diminish the economic opportunities of ordinary Americans, further burden the US taxpayer, and do nothing about the environment. It allowed YUGE polluters such as China and India waivers on just about everything for years to come, and promised India trillions of dollars in aid. It set up a bureaucratic monstrosity, some sort of UN-run Green Fund, that would administer billions of dollars to Third World countries to help them (unspecified how) fight climate change. All rubbish.

I have seen some commentators saying the President should have gone along with the Agreement because it was voluntary, and we could unwind its provisions quietly at home. Yeah, yeah. Look, I have written before about how progressives use words to change the nature of debate. They also aim at false targets, "we . . . find repeatedly that the announced target of progressive wrath is not the ultimate target. The target is altered." The real target of this sort of accord is not combating some illusory global warming or cooling. It is about increasing the power of the institutions controlled by progressives. The United States, for example, is a nation obsessed with laws. An accord such as this one, although not ratified by the Senate, would quickly find its way into our law books and spawn endless lawsuits and civil actions against firms, individuals, and government agencies not complying with the Accord. It is yet another in the endless effort to provide full employment to divisions of progressive lawyers.

Thank you, President Trump.