Featured Post

An American Coup D'etat?

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banan...

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Australia! Stop Scaring Me!

OK, I have been holding off commenting on the elections Down Under.

First of all, I had violated the Diplomad Rule of Politics 101: Ignore the polls especially when they show the Progs will win when it doesn't make sense. I had read the polls which, almost universally predicted a Labor victory validating Bill Shorten's emphasis on Global Climate Change, and the need to dismantle Australia's economy and society as a sacrifice to the Junk Science and the Open Borders Creed of the Cult of Global Prognazism.

I also held back, frankly, because Australia has a rather sophisticated voting system which requires, I thought, a deep understanding of complex Quantum Mechanics in order to tally the votes. I, furthermore, had had my deepest schooling on Australian vote counting by watching one of my favorite shows, Rake, with the nefarious schemer Clever Greene (played by the outstanding Richard Roxburgh) strategizing to get himself elected Senator by a wonderfully complex--for me--use of the preferential voting provision.

So I held back my celebration. Had Labor actually won? The Diplomad pondered, fretted, tossed and turned . . .

Fortunately, an Aussie friend explained how the system actually works, and, while I still don't like mandatory voting, I find that it's not bad at all.

So it seems we can celebrate!

The good guys have won when they were expected to lose. ScoMo scored more. Judging from the shocked reaction of the progs in Australia and their globalist buddies at the New York Times, this Morrison win just "weren't supposed to be."

I have been having a wonderful time reading the twists and turns of the prog media trying to explain the Liberal coalition victory. The explanation basically comes down to the people are morons! They have rejected the one and true faith! They didn't really know what they were voting for! We have had five hot summers so we must return to the Middle Ages! Morrison MUST, I tell you, Must now develop a Climate Change Plan that will appease those who lost the election running on Climate Change nonsense! And on, and on, and on. It was akin to that fabulous night in November 2016 when the Progs sustained another massive mule kick to their transgender nether regions. It recalled the recent Israeli elections and, of course, BREXIT, horribly sabotaged by May and her Deep State.

The Progs . . . they love humanity and hate people.

Keep Australia Great!

Friday, May 17, 2019

President's Immigration Proposal

President Trump's announced goal to overhaul our creaky, leaky, and harmful immigration system seems  a good start. As with any new proposal, of course, many questions exist which need answering.

I like the idea of FINALLY putting the emphasis on merit for immigration, including some level of English-language proficiency, and not just so-called "family reunification." According to some pundits, take that for what it's worth, the Trump proposal would make merit the basis for immigration in about 57% of cases as opposed to the current level of about 13%. That's a good start.

To digress a moment into the Diplostore of memories, I will never forget a frustrated nuclear physicist, who spoke beautiful English, and who desperately wanted to immigrate to the US, but had no family ties here. I tried to help him as much as I could legally, and ended up helping get him a job offer from a major university; off he went as a "temporary" worker with the hope of maybe getting some sort of adjustment of status eventually. I don't know what eventually happened. It was absurd. Every day on the visa line in that same country we sent hundreds of poor and unskilled people to the US just because they had a parent, a sibling, or a child who had "somehow" gotten into the US, adjusted status, and now sought to bring all his or her relatives.

The proposal is short on key details. I am particularly concerned about the numbers of immigrants. The proposal doesn't seem to address that. How many immigrants do we really need? Emphasis on NEED. We certainly don't need that bizarre lottery system, nor do we need adults petitioning for adult siblings.

I would favor a temporary halt to virtually all immigration--I imagine you would have to make an exception for spouses and minor children of a US citizen--until we figure out what we need as a country. We might, for example, want to adopt more child friendly tax and other legal structures to encourage Americans to have more children instead of importing workers from abroad.

Our first priority should be to take care of our own. Any immigration that depresses wages, become a drain on public resources, denies jobs to qualified Americans, and fosters criminal activity . . . well, I'd say we don't need it. We have lots of homegrown criminals willing and able to commit crime.

Let's see how this plays out in 2020.

Monday, May 13, 2019

Braking China

Sorry for the long break from blogging. Lots of activity at the Diplohouses, but much too boring to relate . . . so I won't.

China is back in the news, again, so let's discuss that.

Many years ago--April 2, 2012, to be exact--I wrote a little piece in this humble blog titled "China's Century?" If you have time, I would ask that you go back and read it; it's not too long or cutesy. In fact, I think a lot of it still holds up. The main contention of that long-ago post was to dispute those who see the 21st as "China's century." I argued that it could become China's only if we gave it away. That seems an accurate assessment. Probably the single biggest miss, however, in the article was that "experts" wowed by the "inexorable" rise of China seemed to ignore,
the overseas political side of it. China's trading partners, the US and Europe most notably, are reaching the end of their patience with China's currency manipulations. A trade war is not inconceivable; China would have the most to lose.
I thought, for sure, that the West's patience with China's political and economic shenanigans would prove much shorter than it has, and that we would have seen a trade war or the inklings of one well before 2019. The West seemed content to allow whole swathes of our economies to be either devastated or just uprooted and transplanted to China: manufacturing was deemed largely dead in the West; our political and economic leadership seemed absolutely fine with that, and with China's active intellectual property theft and aggressive intel operations. Anybody else wonder, for example, why new Chinese weapon systems seem to look so much like those of the United States?

The West, furthermore, went along with the absurd Paris Climate Deal that would have destroyed, for example, the coal industries in the US and Australia, and benefited those in China and India. In other words, our leaders didn't really believe the nonsense about global climate change, they just wanted the "dirty" industries moved somewhere else. Not in My Backyard.

Well, things appear changing. Another one of the consequences of the 2016 election is that we have a President not afraid to take on the Chinese. He correctly determined that our national security and prosperity were imperiled by our dhimmi-like attitude towards Beijing. Tariffs are always a blunt instrument and they can have negative consequences; they should never be the first line of defense when dealing with unfair trade practises. They, however, are more than justified in the current situation. Nobody wants a "trade war," and such an event or the threat of one can and will have economic consequences--I see them in my stock portfolio. That, however, is more a result of our having allowed our economy and our deficit spending to be in hock to Beijing. We have allowed corporations to make absurd intellectual property deals with the Chinese in "exchange" for the Chinese "allowing" us to set up factories in China, with Chinese partners, and export the product back to our own countries. That is a prescription for economic suicide.

I would have no problem with making the new higher tariffs on Chinese goods permanent. Western corporations and their budding Chinese overlords must learn that trade is supposed to be a two-way affair; trade doesn't mean, or shouldn't mean, we give away our factories, jobs, and technological crown jewels in exchange for cheap consumer goods, the financing of our debt, and a growing military threat in areas of concern to us.  

I hope President Trump hangs tough on this. Put the brakes on China.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

In Contempt

Hard to return to the keyboard. We've been spending time in Wilmington, and find it grows on us every day. Wonderful town. From my house here, I've got my favorite gun store at 3/4s of a mile; my favorite gun range at about three miles; a great park for the dogs at just over a mile; a funky downtown with some fascinating history going back to the time of the colony; the beach; the museums; even an old and rare books store within walking distance . . . and did I mention the gun range?

I watched the House Committee on the Judiciary under its reprehensible Chairman Jerry Nadler vote to hold AG Barr in contempt for refusing to testify before the Committee--after the Committee changed the format--and to turn over to the Committee the entire unredacted Mueller report along with millions of underlying documents and legally protected grand jury testimony. Total nonsense.

The Dems have gone into full sweaty-palm syndrome, trying desperately to come up with some shiny new thing, e.g., contempt, Trump's tax returns, to distract from Barr's ongoing investigation into the origins and perpetuation of the Russia collusion hoax.

They act as protectors of the Deep State which, in turn, protects them.

The speeches unleashed on America by the Dem members of the Committee proved absurd in the extreme; they border on the insane, heck with that, they cross that border. The last thing the Dems want is for the investigatory spotlight to shine on the elephant in the room, to wit, the Dems knowingly perpetuated a colossal hoax (with, it appears, some help from the UK and the Russian intel services) in the hopes of reversing the result of the 2016 election.

Nadler says we have now gone into a Constitutional crisis because the President defends the Constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch. Nadler keeps saying that Congress forms an equal branch of the government. Yes, indeed, and so does the executive branch headed by the President. No, no Constitutional crisis there. Any such crisis comes from elsewhere.

We, in fact, do have a Constitutional crisis: the DNC and the Deep State sought to pull a coup. There's your Constitutional crisis and your contempt.

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Harmless Fun with Guns

OK. Let's take a break from all the news and talk about important stuff. Here at the ol' Diplomad homestead that, of course, means guns, in particular 1911's.

I must confess. Yes, I did it again. I sneaked out of the house and over to my favorite gun store in Wilmington, Backwater Guns. I spent about an hour boring the very nice folks over there and then ended up buying a Dan Wesson Specialist chambered in .45.

Without hesitation I headed over to the local gun range and began blasting away. I know there's a lot of hype out there about Dan Wesson's (now owned by CZ) but this specimen, at least, lived up to it. It shot flawlessly with only one fail to feed when I used an aftermarket 10 round mag. If I stuck to the mags that came with the gun, no problems at all.

It's a beautiful gun, and very well made. Lots of attention to detail, lots more than you would expect in a production gun. Very smooth action, excellent trigger, great grips, and pretty neat sights. Even I shot very well at my usual chicken 10 yard distance. Tight groups; easy to keep the gun on target. It's a keeper.

Get one for Mother's Day.

Not to be a buzz-kill but my day at the range was almost ruined by a couple of new Wilson mags which I used in my Colt 38 Super. I know Wilson's have a good rep, and I have used them in other guns, but what a disaster in the 38 Super. I cycled both magazines through three times each. That's six  mag loads for those of you raised on the metric system. Every time, EVERY single time on the last round, the gun would not only jam, but the slide stop lever would partially come out and a HUGE jam would ensue. I showed it to the range gun smith; he said he had never seen something like that; I let him fire it, and--bam!--it happened again. No problem at all with the standard mags that come with the gun. I have left a message over at Wilson and will see if they call back. And Venezuelans think they have problems . . . ha!

One other note, a political one: the attack on AG Barr shows how genuinely desperate the Dems have become. They have to destroy Barr before he can show how the Russian Collusion story was the greatest political hoax of our time--much worse than the Dreadnought hoax--and involved senior levels of America's (and Britain's?) intel and law enforcement services. If I were the Dems, I, too, would be frantically trying to do something, anything, to head off that story.

We'll discuss it soon.

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Venezuela: Socialism's Poster Boy

Over the years I have written a great deal about Venezuela's horrid Chavez/Maduro socialist regime. In addition, as a Foreign Service Officer, particularly when I worked in Guyana, at the UN, in SouthCom and at the OAS, I dealt with prior Venezuelan governments as well as the current regime and its supporters and opponents.

Venezuela provides one of the great tragic stories of our time. A tragedy in the true sense of the word: the players know the outcome but keep on acting their assigned roles. Even before gangster Chavez assumed the presidency, the place had very serious problems. It had striking wealth and striking poverty; it had some very modern sectors and some very backwards ones. It had an unstable, corrupt, and barely functioning democracy, but it did have a lively free press, and opponents did not get themselves exiled, imprisoned, or have their property seized--unlike under Chavez/Maduro.

In MY experience, with some exceptions, Venezuelan diplomats, regardless of the party in power in Caracas, came across, as insufferable, arrogant and ignorant. Decidedly anti-American, they thought Venezuela deserved a much more prominent place in the sun, one denied them by the US. I found them poorly trained, and, again, as a rule, not very knowledgeable about anything except their diplomatic immunities and duty-free rights. Not a pleasant crowd. Under the Chavez/Maduro regime, that diplomatic corps became outright gangsters who would bully, insult, and threaten to get their way. They threw around oil money as though it would last forever. I had many clashes with Venezuelan diplomats in private in back rooms negotiating some accord or another, and in public on the floor of the OAS. They were not very impressive. The Venezuelan people did not get their money's worth.

Well, it seems, and I emphasize that word, we might have entered the last days of the evil Chavez/Maduro regime. I don't know, but certainly hope so--although I have absolutely no idea, nor does anybody else, about what comes next and how. The end of Maduro's rule, while most welcome, will not end the troubles for Venezuela. Under socialism, this previously already troubled country has become an absolute wreck. Any leader after Maduro will have his hands full, and enjoy a VERY short honeymoon. A new leader will inherit a horrific situation, a challenge of incredible proportions.

The economy has all but disappeared. People are starving in the dark, yes, starving with no electricity in an oil-rich country in the 21st century. Basic public services, including hospitals, have ceased to function. Perhaps as many as four million people have fled abroad, including doctors, nurses, engineers, and, of course, investors and businessmen, foreign and domestic, large and small. How will any new government get them to return? How will Venezuela resuscitate its dying oil sector? How will it address the dire food and medical shortages? What about the chaotic situation in the streets, to wit, Caracas as the murder capital of the world? How will Venezuela deal with its huge foreign debt, the depletion of its foreign currency reserves, and the collapse of its currency? How will it handle millions of people now entirely dependent on the government? What about meting out justice to the drug-dealing crooks and savages of the socialist Chavez/Maduro regime? The questions come in an endless cascade; the answers not even in a trickle.

And the USA? Obama completely mishandled Venezuela. Under that administration, we engaged in full retreat; we rarely if ever responded to the attacks, insults, and lies hurled at us by that criminal regime. Bush did not prove much better. Under both Bush and Obama, we allowed Chavez/Maduro to challenge us in our hemisphere; join ranks with narcos, terrorists, and other of our enemies; we let Caracas interfere in the political processes of multiple nations in the region; as noted, we did little or nothing about any of it. Trump has handled Venezuela much better with targeted sanctions, tough honest talk, and, of course, by unleashing our own energy potential undermining not only the crooks in Venezuela but those in Russia and in Iran, as well.

I do not want US military intervention in Venezuela. The challenge posed by the disaster in Venezuela appears one more for Colombia, Brazil, and others in the region than for the USA. We should encourage the Latin Americans, who seem finally to have woken to the Venezuelan calamity, to handle the situation. Let them intervene if they want; we should not. We should stand ready to help as part of an international humanitarian effort, but that's it--with one exception, see below. We should not want to own this mess. To put it mildly, little to no gain exists for the USA in military intervention in Venezuela. The negatives FAR outweigh any positives. I repeat, we do not want ownership of the Venezuelan disaster.

Russia? Moscow stands to become a big loser if the Maduro regime goes down. If that happens, it appears uncertain that Russia (or China) would get back their huge investments and loans. Even more important for the Russians, collapse of Maduro's rule would unravel what remains of the old Soviet play in Latin America. Could the end of the vile socialist regimes in Nicaragua and Cuba--both dependent on discounted Venezuelan oil--come far behind? In sum, what remains of Moscow's challenge to the US in this hemisphere crumbles with the end of the Chavez/Maduro criminal regime.

This brings us to the exception to no US intervention. Aside from providing humanitarian assistance, we should make clear to the Russians--and their Cuban puppets--as well as the Chinese, that they must stay out; they cannot try to run the game in Venezuela; if they do, they will face consequences from us.

Best of luck to the people of Venezuela.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Trump Strikes Again: Dumping the UN Arms Treaty

I am sitting in the Imperial Capital, aka, Washington DC.  Lovely weather, a beautiful day. The Diplowife and I walked all over the city, and now she's off to go shopping while I recover in the hotel.

I was delighted to read that President Trump is withdrawing our signature from the so-called UN Arms Treaty. He signed the notification to the Senate with a typical Trumpian flourish, while giving a speech at the NRA HQS. He knows politics like nobody else does! The Dems are going to have their hands full in 2020.

Your humble Diplomad had written about this travesty of a treaty WAY BACK in July of 2012. I noted back then that this UN effort posed innumerable threats to American sovereignty and to the rights of Americans. It also promised to be an endless source of employment for lawyers and leftist activists. It would have devastated the small arms industry, and essentially ended individual ownership of firearms. It was a disaster, so, of course, Obama signed it and sent it to the Senate for ratification, where it languished.

Trump has canceled that signature.

Delightful news.


Thursday, April 25, 2019

Biden: Third Time's the Charm, or Three Strikes and You're Out?

Yaaaaaaaaawn . . . Biden is running. What a surprise, not.

It seems he's been running for Prez my whole adult life. Harold Stassen reboot? Or, maybe, a male version of Florence Foster Jenkins, the world's worst singer, "always eaten in the end" by the lions?

I have written before about him and how he's going to have to fend off the leftist lions who now run the Democratic Party Colosseum. I won't repeat all that. 

Let me, however, note that Biden's not very smart; has a lousy record of achievement; is a proven liar; is associated with all of the Obama failed policies and scandals; has been a corruptocrat his whole life; hasn't ever had an original thought; is an abysmal speaker; and, overall, is as exciting as Jello for dinner. 

He, therefore, is the best candidate the Democrats have.

At least he doesn't hate America--well, at least not overtly--and is not batshit insane, well, not yet; we'll see if his bid for the nomination doesn't drive him into the loony bin to compete for the support now going to his competitors. Free stuff for everybody! Voting rights for felons in prison! No guns for law abiding citizens! More illegals are good! Reparations! Hate whitey!

Will he give up his "middle of the road" Jello politics for the more exciting spicy politics of identity and endless grievance?  The world wonders.

More important, will he face the one ultimate question, the one never clearly put to Hillary Clinton? 

You know the one: When you had power, what did you do with it? Take your time.

Popcorn is available in the lobby. 

Free for everybody!

Monday, April 22, 2019

Sri Lanka Massacre

The death toll from the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka continues to climb. From press reports, it seems that perhaps some 300 people were murdered and hundreds more injured. Absolutely disgusting barbarity.

I lived in Sri Lanka for three years, and know almost all the bombed sites, including St. Anthony's. I made a lot of friends in Sri Lanka, and am horrified by what "some people" did to their beautiful country.

Almost as repulsive as these attacks on innocent people has been the reaction of the media and much of the political elite around the world. As George Orwell famously observed in 1946, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." Let's engage in that struggle.

When word of the horror first began to get out, the media, in the guise of not jumping to conclusions, spent a long time talking about Sri Lanka's past civil war, trying to make it seem as if these bombings form part of a long history, i.e., nothing to see here, move along, it's just Sri Lanka. I read and heard commentary that the attacks likely had come from some reborn LTTE (Tamil Tigers) faction, or from Buddhists upset by Christian proselytizing. All hideous nonsense.

We had those Great Regulators of Moral Standards, President Obama and Crooked Hillary, issuing almost identical Tweets bemoaning attacks (by whom?) on foreign tourists and, my favorite phrase, on "Easter worshippers." What a great phrase, "Easter worshippers." When I first saw it, I thought something had happened on Easter Island. Then I thought, who worships Easter? Nobody I know. Maybe these paragons of moral rectitude just had a senior moment, and let slip away the word they really meant to use, you know, "Christians." Yes, there I said it, Christians.

"Some people" carried out deliberate and well-planned attacks meant to kill hundreds of Christians, local and foreign: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Now that I think of it, have we left something out of our commentary? Have we missed something in our own struggle "to see what is in front of one's nose"? What could it be? What, what could it be? Oh, yes! The "some people"! Guess who they were? One guess, only. Yes, the Religion of Peace! Don't I give the hardest quizzes? Wonder if Obama and Crooked Hillary could pass?

These attacks form part of a long-running war, one of some 1400 years, of Islam against Christianity and Judaism. This war takes place in Western places such as New York, San Bernardino, Tampa, Boston, Ft. Hood, Copenhagen, London, Paris, Nice, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Brussels, Sydney, and Ottawa; let us not forget, however much the press might want us to, that it also occurs even more violently and often with much higher death tolls in places such as Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, India, and, now, Sri Lanka.

As I noted long ago, "We should be at war; instead, we are under attack." Let's be very clear: these murderers were not "radicalized" by the internet, nor do they comprise some crazy 1% fringe that have misinterpreted the teachings of Islam. They are Islam.

When you look in front of your nose you will see, it is the Islam.

Islam is not a religion like the others. It is a creed of conquest and destruction. We see that, again, this time in the churches, hotels, and streets of Sri Lanka.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Russian Collusion: The Real Costs of the Greatest Political Hoax in US History

A recent post here noted that unlike many of the "pundits," I would not pretend to have read the 400-plus page Muller report, and wasn't even sure I ever would read the thing. Well . . . . curiosity, alas, got the better of me, and like that ill-fated cat, I began to churn through the Great Tome. I have not gotten too far, and, frankly, remain uncertain about finishing it. Skimming pages, jumping around within the text, and . . .  finding it a whole lotta crapola.

Costing somewhere around $26-$35 million to produce, the Mueller Report, the world's most expensive book, comes off as a bad rip-off from that iconic Seinfeld TV show, you know, a show "about nothing."

Yep, 400 pages about nothing, and not even funny.

Seinfeld did "nothing" better.

Unfair to label the Muller tome a story about nothing? The pretext, certainly, for the investigation of Trump-Putin collusion proved total nonsense, a "nothing." It was a hoax invented by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton's desperate campaign, getting salacious "info" from a hack former British spy on the DOJ payroll, and funneling that unverified "info" through the shady GPS Fusion outfit, which had ties to the FBI. The "information" came from internet chat rooms, informants working for the FBI, and, quite possibly the Russians, always eager to sow confusion. This activity, of course, was aided and abetted by our hack mainstream media, and, of course, by President Obama who used our law enforcement and intelligence agencies as arms of the DNC--as this little blog stated from the start of the "scandal," e.g., here, here, and here, just to mention a few of many posts.

The Democrats and their Deep State allies "leaked" fake information to the press, and then cited the subsequent press reports as evidence of the validity of the fake info and of Trump's perfidy. That fake information, we now know, backed up by the fake press reports "confirming" the fake information, formed the basis for seeking and getting FISA warrants, "unmasking" of American citizens, and conducting Beria-type interviews of Trump supporters. Real people, innocent people, had their lives turned upside down, bank accounts wiped out, and reputations smeared by lies and Mueller's NKVD bully-boy tactics in service of an attempted coup.

Since limits exist to how much and how long one can fake something, after over two-and-half years of this brutal nonsense, the report had to admit no such collusion existed. This "nothing" report's "nothing" result, however, has some genuine "historical value" in that it serves as official testimony to something unprecedented in over 240 years of U.S. history. Drafted by angry pro-Clinton Democrats, the Mueller report provides a one-sided, remarkably tone-deaf account by some of the very plotters of how they went about trying to undo an election result, overthrow a democratically elected President of the United States, and--complete insanity--how they "investigated" a story they themselves invented.

How these Democrat hacks must have laughed when they got that gig! Why not have Al Capone investigate the Valentine Day's massacre?

From day one, the "investigators" knew the result, no collusion; they knew they had the task of "investigating" a fake accusation. This "investigation" sought to provoke Trump into some angry "obstruction" act and perjury. Period. Nail him on procedural nonsense re a crime that never existed, and the ensuing "perjury" and "obstruction" hullabaloo would cover up that no collusion ever existed. That was the "insurance policy": I repeat, frame Trump with an absurd collusion story, get him angry enough to"obstruct" or even shut down the investigation and, therefore, provide "grounds" for impeachment.

The authors of the report desperately wanted the coup to succeed; that desire oozes out of the entire report but especially so in the second half on "obstruction." That half fulfills another one of this humble blog's predictions (March 23), that the Muellerites likely would slip a poison pill into the report to keep the coup plot alive,
[N]one of us has seen the report, or knows how Mueller will phrase his conclusions/recommendations. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing? I doubt that very much. He might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, but maybe Congress should consider impeachment, or any number of variations on that theme
Mueller, indeed, went full reptile. He explicitly stated that he couldn't indict the President on collusion or obstruction but also refused to "exonerate" the President on obstruction--as though a prosecutor exonerates--and then did a smear job on the President to encourage the crazies in Congress to impeach him or, at least, keep him tied up with investigations, subpoenas, and a daily barrage of "news" stories on obstruction. This is what blind rage and hate do even to "professional" prosecutors.

That the coup did not take place (yet?) might prove one of those lucky events in American history right there with the carriers not being at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; Jimmy Carter losing the 1980 election; Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election; and General Washington carrying off the tricky crossing of the frozen Delaware River to defeat the Hessians on that Christmas in 1776.

The coup plot continues, have no doubt.

The real cost of the Russia collusion hoax and the wearisome Mueller volume far exceeds those $30 million or so the taxpayers spent. The real cost comes from the perversion of powerful institutions, the undermining of faith in the whole system, and the fear, yes, fear, the investigation, the report and subsequent Congressional actions inspire in private citizens. It seems the Congress can insist on getting Grand Jury testimony, and can demand private citizens' tax returns for public scrutiny. Congress and powerful members of the Deep State can lie and leak and distort information with no consequences; citizens can be dragged from their beds by armed men at dawn to face minor procedural charges, etc. The report does not condemn these tactics, and the drafters, of course, not only favor these but themselves used them.

The report does two things, however, that might prove beneficial:

1) The Russian election meddling highlighted in the report came during and with the knowledge of the Obama misadministration, and Obama did nothing about it;

2) By declaring it found no evidence of collusion, the report raises the question of why there was an investigation. How did it get started and by whom?

I hope that the Trump administration and the Senate delve, at least, into those two rather fascinating nuggets that have emerged from the muck of the travesty known as the Mueller Report.  

Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Mueller Report . . . Not

Unlike a lot of "journalists," I will not pretend to have read the 400-page Mueller Report.

I heard AG Barr's news conference today, and thought that he did a very good job of presenting the results, describing the process followed since receipt of the report, laying out the legal requirements for how to handle the report, and stating its major conclusion,  i.e., no Trump-Moscow collusion.

The "journalists" at the presser came off as idiotic political hacks, and Barr fielded their questions and comments with aplomb and wit. The "unprecedented" bit was wonderful; pure sitcom gold.

The journalists also seemed unaware that in the USA, supposedly, a person remains innocent until proven guilty. The Muller investigation did not find evidence of President Trump's guilt. Trump, hence, is not indicted and not guilty.

Will I read the Mueller Report? Maybe, I don't know. It's a bit like getting handed a new giant mystery novel by a turgid writer and being told, "By the way, the butler did it." Not an encouragement to read it.

One issue not getting much press attention: it seems that the report implicitly points the finger at Obama; Russian election meddling took place on his watch. He failed to protect us from that.

I'll see if I change my mind about reading the tome . . . just waiting to see if the hideous clowns who produced the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax will face consequences.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

A Little Post-Taxes Fun: 1911 Colt Competition Stainless in 38 Super

Well, friends, as did all of you, I have paid my taxes for 2018. I am not happy. I had an enormous tax bill; I just hope all those illegal aliens enjoy all the stuff I provide them. So, in anticipation of April 15, I decided to get myself something a bit more fun than another IRS form. Why, yes, it does mean yet another handgun joining the family. 

Two friends, one Aussie and one Mexican, had for years told me about the glories of the 38 Super. I didn't pay much attention as surely nothing could compete with the .45 ACP, especially a 1911 chambered in that righteous round.  

Well, things happen. In a blue funk thinking about my money going to Uncle Sam, I started reading about the 38 Super, and got intrigued by its history in shooting competitions, and by the generally positive things professional shooters had to say about the cartridge. I watched a lot of videos comparing the 9mm, .40, .45, and the 38 Super. I grew more and more interested; never having shot, much less owned, one of these rare birds, I headed over to my favorite gun store in Wilmington (Backwater Guns.) As they didn't have one hanging about, I ordered one. Three or four days later, it arrived straight from the Colt factory, giving off that new gun smell.

Here it is: 




The eagle-eyed among you will notice that the slide looks dirty. Yes, indeed. I snapped this picture right after we got back from the range in Raleigh. No more new gun smell.

I ran just over 220 rounds of Sig .38 Super +P 125 grain FMJ through it. I had two fail-to-feed incidents both with the same expensive after-market magazine, and both on the last round. I put that mag aside, and the day proceeded without incident. In fact, it proceeded beautifully!

The gun is simply an amazing and very sweet shooter. It has a superb trigger, and great ergonomics--that is a fancy word for the grip is real good. The thing stays on target as if glued there. I provide some proof of that with the following image:



This shows the results of about 30 rounds at ten yards on a two second timer (i.e., the target faces you for two seconds; then flips sideways for five seconds; then returns to face you for two seconds, etc.)

I brought along my trusty 45 S&W MP 2.0 for comparison and--believe it or not--the Colt outshot the S&W--and that S&W shoots very well. The main difference, in my totally unqualified opinion, being the trigger; the Colt trigger is far superior even to the improved trigger in the 2.0. The other factor, perhaps, might be the caliber; much less recoil with the Colt.

I hate to admit that my Aussie and Mexican friends were right--I'll never hear the end of it--but honesty compels me to announce my love for the 38 Super. I would carry it, but this 1911 is just a little too big.

OK, now back to the depressing world . . .

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Progracism, Part II: No Illegals in My Backyard (NIMBY)!

A few weeks back, I wrote a little piece about the prog obsession with race (here) and, more recently, another about prog virtue signaling on "reparations" for mistreated minorities (here). The prog's lunatic obsession with race has been revealed yet again by the Master Troller, His Exalted Excellency President of the United States of America and Commander-In-Chief Donald J. Trump. In a couple of tweets, he has exposed the prog race mania, and how their alleged concern for the welfare of poor brown people forms merely another part of the prog scam.

President Trump lives inside the heads of his enemies. They come to battle him already exhausted, and more than half-defeated. He has an ability to make them go CRAZY! Well, better said, he has ability to reveal the crazy at the core of their philosophy of promoting endless turmoil and radical change.

I, in this case, refer to his statement that he has under consideration "placing" released illegal aliens in sanctuary cities and states.

HEADS EXPLODE! It is illegal to do that! It's so cynical! NO!

Well, of course, the progs lie: it is not illegal to transport aliens, released by our absurd and destructive "catch and release" legal system, to places that will welcome and care for them, i..e., sanctuary cities and states.

Please note that the Obama administration did something similar: the Obamistas transported people from Somalia, the Middle East, Mexico, and Central America, and placed them in traditionally Republican rural, semi-rural, and suburban areas. Permission was not sought of the local communities.

I PERSONALLY witnessed, and wrote about this in a piece posted July 3, 2014. At that time, the Border Patrol tried to "process" bus-loads of illegals and release them into the small Republican town of Murrieta, California, where I lived,
I was encouraged to see the citizens of small Murrieta, California, a town I know very well, rise up against the Border Patrol and its effort to dump several hundred "children" at its facility in Murrieta for "processing," i.e., cutting free. In a near-repeat of the Bundy ranch stand-off, Murrieta residents blocked the USBP buses and made them turn back. Perhaps these buses could head for the White House or for the Kennedy compound in Martha's Vineyard? 
Mayor of Murrieta Alan Long, a decent man, said that his town suffers the consequences of a "failed federal policy." I must disagree with the Honorable Mayor: Murrieta and America suffer the consequences of a deliberate federal and Democratic party policy aimed at changing the nature of our country forever.
Once again, the President has shown that everything about the prog agenda is a hoax, except for the desire to create havoc and open avenues to increased power for the progs. They care only about destroying what exists, and replacing it with something only the progs control. They certainly don't care about the illegals as humans; they have revealed clearly they don't want them around, but are perfectly fine with them spilling into Arizona and Texas towns. All that stuff about how wonderful all these illegals are, how they commit fewer crimes, work harder, etc., than the rest of us, form just more hoax talking points. The progs don't believe all that.

Disgusting. Progs are racists. Period.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Reparations

Reparations.

Lots of politicians and pundits talking about "reparations." Not very clear on how much? For what? To whom? By whom? A good legal definition and some quick descriptions of reparations in the recent past can be found here.

Cory Booker, deeply affected by his previous life as Spartacus, the rebellious slave, has introduced a bill in the Senate to establish a reparations commission:
Such a commission would seek to remedy generations-worth of discrimination as a result of "overt policies fueled by white supremacy and racism that have oppressed African-Americans economically for generations," the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement, in addition to policies "that have ushered millions of Americans into the middle class" but "systematically excluded blacks." 
"This bill is a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy and implicit racial bias in our country," Booker added. "It will bring together the best minds to study the issue and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms and make sure we are a country where all dignity and humanity is affirmed."
This proposal moves significantly beyond those kicking around for about 150 years to provide some sort of government (aka taxpayer) reparations to former slaves, and then to descendants of former slaves.

Booker's proposal, a virtue-signaling gab fest, if enacted would produce what we all can predict, to wit, a conclusion drafted by the usual commission of prog academics and staffers ("the best minds" don'cha know?) and herded along by the usual prog pundits and race hustlers--a permanent gig for Al Sharpton, for example. You don't know what the commission would conclude? You come from the dark side of the moon?

Let me fill you in (SPOILER ALERT): America and its supremacist white population were and are racist, evil patriarchs who hate black and brown people, as well as poor people, women, gays, lesbians, transgenders, immigrants, Native Americans, and, of course, the environment. Have I missed anything? If so, please fill in additional details and forward care of: Spartacus, Senate, New Rome, DC.

The commission, of course, would recommend reparations. What does that mean? Nobody really knows, except reparations would need management by the "best minds," which means, of course, creating a new, massive government bureaucracy and programs, lots of new programs, to hand out reparations in the form of cash, goodies, or services to those so afflicted by America that they never leave--and, in fact, the commission would invite more people to come here to get oppressed.

We, of course, will need racial purity commissions to determine who is or is not black or brown, and, hence, oppressed. We need a percentage of blood rule. Shall we adopt South African standards? How about Nazi standards of racial purity? Will somebody such as Barack Obama, get "a reparations taste," a man so oppressed by America that he became the world's most powerful man, and descends on both his white American mother's and his black Kenyan father's side from slave owners and traders? Will billionaire Oprah get a cut of the action? How about Bill Cosby? How about Spartacus, himself? Will every illegal alien from El Salvador also get a slice? What about people born as one race or gender but who now identify as another race or gender? The "best minds" have their work cut out for them.

One minor suggestion: perhaps the Democrat Party, the party of slavery and Jim Crow, should cough up for slavery reparations? Just a suggestion.

Can't wait to see this unfold.


Sunday, April 7, 2019

Progs: Making the Case for a New Imperialism?

Almost eighteen months ago, I wrote a little post which noted that the progs had become,
engaged in a great debate about the remarks President Trump supposedly made along the lines of "why do we get so many immigrants from sh*thole countries?" Did he or didn't he say it? Not clear. White House denials have been, in my view, masterfully evasive almost as though if he didn't say it, he would like credit for having said it but yet maintain plausible deniability that he did. The progs and many international capitals have taken the bait, and now thrash furiously on yet another Trump hook. Wheels within wheels with this President; we should not forget that this indeed is a president who plays 4-D chess; he has an amazing ability, an unparalleled ability, to troll the progs, make them explode in outrage and, thereby, reveal the slimy hypocrisy that flows though their scaly bodies.
That hypocrisy continues to flow and gush as we debate--screaming match, really--immigration policies not just in the USA, but throughout the Western world. Here at home, our increasingly deranged and leftist Dem party inexorably has moved to the Open Borders position that their toxic logic on immigration requires--just as they now endorse infanticide as their logic on abortion requires.

We have Senator Kamala "Sleep My Way to the Top" Harris, for example, "welcoming" all "immigrants"--including those now considered illegal. Beto "DUI" O'Rourke proclaims that as President he would order all border barriers torn down--they pose a menace to drunk drivers, perhaps?--no word on whether those at his house or a Beto-occupied White House also would go. Elizabeth "1/1024" Warren, and other progs, want to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.  Now, to put the cherry on the ICE-ing, we have a Demo candidate for President, Julian Castro, a former Mayor of San Antonio, as well as a former Obama cabinet official, calling for decriminalizing all border crossing. Yes, come on in! The more the better! No limits! Free stuff!

All the candidates support tax-supported welfare programs for "migrants," oppose deportation, and certainly have no objection to aliens voting in our elections--on the contrary, they live here, right? Sign'em up. In addition, let's do away with the Electoral College, and have voting by mail and email to ensure every vote in Tijuana, Dhaka, and San Pedro Sula counts! Make America the Great Souk! The Tower of Babel/Babble coming to your neighborhood!

According to the Demo candidates and their university and media acolytes, the USA, a racist, xenophobic, patriarchal, etc., tyranny must get rebuilt in the image of . . . well, not clear, but maybe Haiti? Venezuela? Cuba? Curiously, our white supremacist, xenophobic, etc., society remains a magnet for people all over the world, especially the non-Anglo world, and most notably south of the Rio Grande and west of Hawaii. We have to take people in and give them everything we've got, obviously, because, obviously, they can't return to their own countries. It, obviously, constitutes cruelty beyond compare to have a Mexican child raised in Mexico, a country with a great history and culture, as a proud Mexican by his Mexican family! The worst thing, obviously, that can happen to people from Somalia, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala is to live in Somalia, Mexico, El Salvador, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Honduras, and Guatemala. They, obviously, must live as proud Somalis, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Bangladeshis, Nigerians, Hondurans, and Guatemalans, but here, and only here, in the evil, racist, etc., USA! Well, obviously!

We hear similar nonsense spouted by progs in Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Netherlands, Germany, France, etc. Everywhere that traditional Western Civilization has an outpost, it faces the demand to take in anybody and everybody who seeks to move in. Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians, etc., obviously, have no right to decide who can and cannot live in their countries because . . . RACISM! It's akin to what we hear re Israel: Jews, obviously, must not live in "Arab" lands, but Arabs, obviously, have the right to live in Israel, Europe, Australia, and America. Because . . . wait for it . . . RACISM! Obviously!

As noted, the progs rule out deportation. While, however, these progs object, in public, to the term "shit-hole country," they tacitly acknowledge it as true. Their twisted logic on no deportation and in favor of Open Borders, gives away their real view of much of the rest of the world, to wit, that a whole lotta  countries out there earn that "S-H" title. The prog solution, obviously, consists of turning our Western countries, as I noted before, into open-ended repositories for people from around the world, and soon into copies of the countries from whence come these migrants. The Bill of Rights as a suicide note.

OK, if they can come here because their countries are a mess, let me make a modest proposal, and one not original with me. Some years back, in the 1990's I believe, the UN briefly discussed, didn't get too far, establishing a process for declaring certain countries"Failed States." Once such a declaration occured, the proposal went, a benign sort of colonial administration would run the country: somewhat like when the US ran Haiti, 1914-1934. Borrowing from that idea, therefore, we could have an Anglo-American-Australian headed consortium that would help bring the civilization of the Western world to those people so desperate to live under it. Save them the trip. Might prove cheaper and less risky all around. Uber-eats meets imperialism? British Empire, part II?

Maybe not. I guess the progs aren't ready for the ultimate logical conclusion to their own arguments on immigration. Obviously!

Build the wall. Obviously!

Thursday, April 4, 2019

A Little Praise for NETFLIX: Highwaymen

I love the idea of NETFLIX but haven't been crazy about much of their product. I like that non-Hollywood productions get a good shot at major audience shares, and that a lot of very talented filmmakers from around the world get exposure. I have been very impressed with some of the films coming out of Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and Spain. That said, much if not most NETFLIX programming, nevertheless, remains very PC/prog oriented. Is nearly every senior British, American, or Swedish police detective a black, lesbian single mom? Too much.

There, however, are some exceptions to this PC dominance. One of the best is Highwaymen starring a grizzled Kevin Costner and an even more grizzled Woody Harrelson as the two ex-Texas Rangers (Frank Hamer and Maney Gault, respectively) who led the successful hunt for Bonnie and Clyde in 1934. Unlike other films made about Bonnie and Clyde, this one focuses on the (flawed) guys who went after them--the Rangers, we should note, and Hamer and Gault specifically, had a history of brutality especially when dealing with Mexican outlaws. Hamer and Gault come off as old time cowboys caught in and trying to navigate their way through a world of slick FBI agents, politicians, early forensic science, two-way radios, and fake news.

Let's face it: B&C were serial murderers or spree killers, who showed no respect for the lives of others, especially cops. In Highwaymen, the two bandits, rarely seen, are not the glamorous figures of Arthur Penn's 1967 Bonnie and Clyde.

Just about everything in the film seems period correct: the language, the scandalous press, the crushing poverty, the B&C groupies, the migrant camps, the clothes, the guns, the cars (OK, forget about the radial tires). It even has a wonderful scene at a local gun store when Hamer buys the weaponry and ammo for his team. The superb photography, by the way, draws you into the environment of Depression-era Texas and Louisiana.

The band of cops put together by Hamer and Gault who eventually caught up to and killed B&C also seem era appropriate: no bad-ass woman, no obligatory black or Asian guy, no hints of homosexuality. On women, Cathy Bates does an excellent job with the role of the colorful and bigger than life Ma "Two Governors for the Price of One" Ferguson, first woman governor of Texas, and while a hater of the Texas Rangers, politically aware enough to realize that she needed some truly hard men to put an end to B&C. The ambush scene, incidentally, was filmed at the exact spot in Louisiana where it took place, a nice tribute to the true story.

Sure, at times the movie is a bit slow, but that is compensated by the truly excellent acting of Kosner and, especially, Harrelson.

Give it a shot. It's good old fashioned story telling. A good time will be had.

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Destroying Biden: Karma, Baby, Karma

Joe Biden: not my cup of tea, glass of IPA, shot of bourbon, caliber of gun or any other cutesy idiom you want. I've always seen him as a pompous bore, and, frankly, not terribly bright. I mean, folks, please, in 1988, he plagiarized from Neil Kinnock, yes, Neil Kinnock, another not very interesting, pompous bore full of conventional establishment "wisdom." If you're going to steal speeches from Kinnock . . . well, never mind.

In sum, if Biden ever had a "best-if-used-by" date he appears to have passed it--as we will see.

A typical old-style corrupt Democrat politician, a poor man's Edward "Watch-What-My-Oldsmobile-Can-Do" Kennedy, Biden loved cameras, spouted 1980s vintage pedestrian "social justice" slogans, and yet nestled comfortably in the pocket of banking and credit card interests. He tried to portray himself as just, "Uncle Joe, your neighbor. Let's have a beer." Yawn. A bore. Only his gaffes, ponderous lectures, and hair-transplant travails made him mildly amusing. I found surprising when Obama picked him as his VP in 2008, but, those wiser explained that it made sense: Biden could bring in some middle class male white vote; perhaps ease the concerns of powerful financial people about Obama's leftist views; serve as the voice of experience; and, of course, he would not outshine President Obama. A correct calculation? I don't know. I leave that discussion to pollsters and campaign historians. I know one thing for certain, he did not capture this white dude's vote, nor allay this white dude's concerns about the Obama misadministration.

Well, Uncle Joe got himself screwed over in 2016. It seems he thought that eight years as Obama's loyal sidekick finally would earn him, entitle him, ensure him the machine's backing for the Democrat nomination that he had sought for some 30 years. Nope. Not so fast, white guy. Obama promised that to Hillary Clinton and her powerful money printing press. Joe was talked out of running, given a "surprise" Presidential Medal of Freedom, and sent off to graze in Delaware. See ya, Joe!

As we can see from the score or so of calamities now running or about to run for the Dem nomination in 2020, the ground in the Democratic Party, the world's oldest political party, has shifted radically. Poor Joe, apparently, did not get the memo, the one that says white guys not welcome, or he misunderstood it, "That can't mean me! I love women! I love black people! I don't want them back in chains!" He thought, I guess, that he could gain an exemption from the identity politics mantra.

To prove himself worthy of such an exemption, Joe proceeded to do what Joe does best: give bad speeches. He berated "white male culture"; he made fun of English jurisprudence; and, in a bid for feminist votes, even fell for that nonsensical story about the origins of "rule of thumb." He apologized for being a white guy on the Senate committee that dealt with black Anita Hill's nonsensical accusations against black Clarence Thomas. Joe, really, really wants to be with it . . .

Joe, however, has a touching problem, literally. He likes to touch people; likes it a lot. The internet is full of pictures of Uncle Joe hugging, kissing, holding, squeezing people, uh, especially young women and even girls. Whatever the innocent explanations, he looks creepy, very much so; shall we say, he looks like a tactile reptile? Now the prog media largely had ignored Joe's habit, until, that is, he implied he would run for President, yet again. Suddenly, and predictably, "victims," nay, "survivors" of Joe's jostling began to appear.

Joe is in a fix. He doesn't know how to respond; his statements on his history of "affection" appear hollow, from another less "woke" time. Ain't gonna work. We must believe all women! The fact that these "survivors" are ardent backers of other Dem candidates, is not something the media has given much attention. As usual with these progs, they wait years, almost like old KGB sleeper cells, before they get activated and pour forth their accusations. They, we should note, stayed pretty quiet while Biden served as a loyal Obama soldier, even when he lived up to the VICE in his title.

But now, burn the old white sorcerer! I definitely saw him flying over the house!

Is Joe burnt toast?  I am not a betting man, but . . . we'll see.

Monday, April 1, 2019

FBI Interviews: A Little Reminisce

All this misuse of the FBI and Russian Collusion Delusion madness has provoked recollections in my aged brain of when I got interviewed by the FBI.

While at State, I worked with the FBI on overseas and domestic assignments on a number of issues. I found the agents, overwhelmingly, to be terrific, patriotic, and very dedicated to catching the bad guys.

In the course of my 33-plus years at State, I got interviewed twice by the FBI: once at my request, once at theirs. Keep doing what you are doing, don't expect anything too exciting.

The first time took place during the Reagan administration. After serving in Pakistan, I worked on the Pakistan desk in the early 1980s. I have to leave out some details, but I became somewhat suspicious of a mid-level political appointee who seemed to ask a lot of questions and get involved in all sorts of things not that person's business. This person had many contacts with Pakistani officials but rarely wrote up those meetings. I knew because people at the Pakistani Embassy would let slip that this person had seen so-and-so. Anyhow, after a bit, I got tired of muttering to myself about this, wrote up a long memo with what I had observed and thought, and passed it to the FBI liaison at State. A couple of days later, an agent came by. He thanked me for the memo, called it very useful, asked for clarification on a couple of points, and said he'd get back in touch. Never heard back. In time, I moved to another assignment. A couple of years later, this person ran afoul of the Department IG for using diplomatic privileges to get parents living overseas duty-free furniture and appliances. Spy?Crook? Crooked spy? I never found out.

The second time I was at my desk writing a boring speech for an address I would make at the OAS that afternoon. The office manager entered and said two FBI agents wanted to see me. This was a very short time after Obama's inauguration, and I thought maybe they were doing an update on security clearances. I wasn't worried.

The two agents, one man and one woman, young and polite, sat down and started by saying that they could not tell me the purpose of this visit, but had questions about people I knew. I, unwisely, said, "OK." The female agent reached into her briefcase and pulled out a large manila folder from which she took a glossy black-and-white picture. She put it on my desk. "Do you know this person?" "Yes," I said, "I worked with him in Guatemala." She nodded, and drew out another picture. Again, I acknowledged that I had worked with this person. Then a third picture, also of somebody with whom I had worked recently. Her male colleague took notes.

Then she asked whether I knew a person called something or another. "No," I said, "never heard of him." I remember her saying, "Really? You've never met him?" That set my "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!" alarm pinging. I slowly repeated, "That's right. Never heard of him." She pulled out a picture of me shaking hands with somebody at a big reception in DC. She said, "A picture from a few days ago. This is the person you say you never met." I stared at the photo, and suddenly recalled meeting him at a national day event but, "That wasn't the name he gave. In fact, he gave me his card." I furiously rummaged around in my desk drawer, found the card, and passed it to her. "That's the name he used."

She took the card, showed it to her colleague, but before she could speak, I finally wised up, and did what I should have from the start. I stood up and said, "Wait a minute." I walked next door to the office of a Bush political appointee who had still not been replaced. We were friends, and, more important, he was a DC lawyer. I told him about the FBI visit. He said, "Why are you talking to them? I am coming with you." We went to my office; my friend told the agents, "I am his attorney. Unless you tell us exactly what this is about, this interview is over. In the future, you talk to me first." He handed them his card, and glared at them for a few seconds; the agents looked at each other, gathered their stuff, rose, and left. We never heard anything more.

Who knows what that was about? I still got my pension and my house has not been raided at five in the morning . . . yet.

Not very exciting, I know, but that's all I got on this cold Monday morning. I'll have something more interesting later . . . I think.


Sunday, March 31, 2019

Sunday Thoughts: Some Fun with a Ruger, Some Not Fun with Progs

Back in Durham after an extended stay in Wilmington. Had some electrical problems in the house, with one circuit breaker continually tripping and plunging me into an eerie internet-free world. Salvation came in the form of a very clever, cheap, and resourceful local electrician who figured it all out, and tracked down the evil device that threatened to convert my house into a socialist wonderland of darkness. For $25--yes, you read that correctly--he came out on a Saturday morning, did all sorts of magical tests with some yellow gizmo--I believe that is the correct term--found and replaced the bad piece of gear, i.e., an outside electrical socket.

Existing without internet for a couple of days led me into mischief, as you would expect. While the Diplowife went off with her little friends to the local gym, I Jeeped to my favorite local gun store, Backwater Guns, and bought a very nice Liberty gun safe, which they promptly delivered. Sitting in my basement, the safe, however, looked cavernous, sad, and (sorta) empty--and we all know that violates the Constitution's right to bear arms, and the Declaration of Independence's pursuit of happiness. Can't have that.

I, therefore, returned to Backwater and bought a Ruger PC 9 carbine. As its name reveals, it comes chambered in 9 mm. It uses ordinary Glock or Ruger pistol mags, and it can shoot! I am not a huge fan of the 9 mm--just a little fan--but the Euro slug has certain virtues: fast, accurate, light, and, of course, relatively cheap when compared to God's caliber, the tank-stopping, All-American .45 cal--"Stand up and take your hat off when I mention the .45, son!" 

After running some Bore Bright through the barrel, I took this little gem to the local range in Wilmington. Put 200 rounds of 115 grain and 124 grain through it very quickly without a single jam or misfire. At 20 yards, I was Annie Oakley. The Ruger would not let me leave the X ring: I tried, but no, some sort of Elon Musk self-aiming mechanism must have taken over and forced me to become a good shot, for that day, at least. Anyhow, a lot of fun, and seems it would serve as a pretty good home defense weapon. With the sling I will put on it, this little carbine definitely also has the cool factor--an essential feature in any gun, naturally.

On the not so fun side of life, I see that the crazy progs continue their efforts to destroy the country. The situation at the border has become insane; it is an invasion, no other word fits. I long ago recommended (February 17, 2017, for example) the need to build the wall, of course, and shut down the border and start closing at least some of Mexico's fifty-two consular and diplomatic offices in the US as a way to pressure Mexico's rulers into doing what they must do. I have heard progs say shutting down the border won't do anything, because the migrants will still cross. Yes, but it will put huge financial pressure on powerful Mexican exporters--and the US companies who make stuff in Mexico--to get their government to start putting an end to this madness.

The Russian Collusion stuff should be dead and gone, but some progs just can't let it go. They continue with their efforts to pull a coup. They cooked up the Collusion story, and, as FBI officials have admitted under oath, without the salacious nonsense of the DNC-bought Steele Dossier, they would not have gotten the FISA warrants. That doesn't stop inveterate liars such as Adam Schiff from prattling on and on. This is a man who should be forced off the Intel Committee, if not Congress; at a minimum he should lose his security clearances. He is a liar and a dangerous national security loon. Be gone!

OK, off to help my son buy a BBQ.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Russian Collusion Delusion as Plan B? What were They Thinking?

Forgive me some random thoughts. I ask your help in formulating a coherent argument here.

The Putin-Trump collusion hoax has ended exactly as any reasonable observer would have predicted. With the end of the turtle-paced Mueller inquiry, we found out what most sane people already knew, that, to steal from Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there." This collusion story almost certainly constitutes the second biggest hoax in American political history; second only to the Climate Change hoax. Charles Dawson, father of the Piltdown Man hoax, would doff his cap to the creators of the Putin-Trump tale.

I don't want (again) to go into all the facets of this incredible lie. More details will emerge in coming weeks, as the Republicans begin to probe its origins and, I hope, hold accountable the many Charles Dawsons who participated in it. And, yes, Barack Obama, I am looking at you.

Today's little post comprises a thinking aloud piece. As noted, please help me flesh out the ideas and get more clarity on this disaster.

The first thoughts that come to mind: What were they thinking? How did the promoters of this lie think it would end? What exit plan did they have?

The collusion lie originated, it seems, in the run-up to the 2016 election, and formed a key part of the Clinton strategy to ensure Trump's defeat--please note, the word ensure. That strategy, of course, depended on the support of Obama and his key staff, e.g., Rice, Power, Kerry, Brennan, Comey, Lynch, Clapper, McCabe, and so on. Obama, in effect, offered the intelligence and law enforcement agencies and capabilities of the United States to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign cooked up the collusion lie as a way not only to smear Trump, but to provide cover for the use of those agencies and capabilities to spy upon and tamper with the Trump campaign. Watergate on steroids? Much, much worse.

Let's run over this very quickly and with broad brush strokes--I am leaving out a lot of details: the Hillary campaign, through its lawyers, bought some shoddy and salacious oppo research from a shoddy and shady firm, Fusion GPS, that contracted a hack former British spy, Christopher Steele, to write it up. The material, put together in a "dossier," proved absurd, poorly sourced and researched, and laughable on its face. That, however, was irrelevant. This flimsy dossier, apparently at CIA Director John Brennan's urging, circulated within the top echelons of the US government and to select Congressmen--including John McCain--and then circled back to the FBI. The FBI then used it as primary "evidence" in seeking FISA warrants to conduct surveillance operations on the Trump campaign. The FBI, it seems, did not tell the FISA judges from whence came the "intel," to wit, from an unverified piece of opposition "research" paid for by Trump's political rivals. Certain details of the dossier got leaked to friendly journalists by Brennan, Comey, and others, and given the imprimatur of official intel.

The Dems assumed all along, clearly, that Hillary would beat the Donald like a rented mule. Nearly all the polls and pundits had declared this a scientific certainty. This dossier and the Russian collusion story served, in the words of a disgraced FBI attorney to her lover, as "an insurance policy." Once Hillary won, of course, the story would, I assume, just become some sort of vague political lore that would permanently stain Trump, and prove the source of endless Hollywood movies.

The cooked up collusion story encountered a big problem on November 8, 2016: Clinton lost. The unthinkable happened: Trump won. The Dems, US government agencies, and, yes, Obama, went into high gear to develop a plan, some kind of "Hail Mary Pass" to keep Trump from taking office and cover up the grotesque malfeasance involved in the Collusion story. They attempted a number of strategies, e.g., pressing the electoral college not to recognize Trump's victory, talking impeachment, hinting at a military coup, demanding recounts, unleashing street thugs, etc. The collusion story was modified to place heavy emphasis on Russian "hacking of the election," trying to give the impression that the Russians had tampered with the voting machines themselves. Progs, who never cared about American security when the USSR strode the stage or our sovereignty or about the meddling in our elections by hundreds-of-thousands if not millions of illegal aliens, now wrapped themselves in the flag, proclaiming themselves great patriots fighting a foreign power seeking to take over our White House.

Trump, President! What to do with the Great Collusion lie? Just as ordinary criminals and congenital liars do, the Obama folks, the DNC, and the prog echo chamber in the media and Hollywood, doubled down on their criminal activities and lies. The story would, must survive. The Russia collusion story, a campaign stunt, gained a life of its own; Frankenstein's monster lived! In order to terrorize the deplorable villagers, the mad political scientists insisted on and got themselves a Special Counsel to "investigate" the non-existing crimes of Trump. They even managed to man-mau Trump's new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, into recusing himself, and turning over the whole investigatory process to the pro-Obama prog swamp creatures that controlled the DOJ and the FBI. James Comey's buddy, Robert Mueller, got the assignment as Special Counsel, with almost unfettered power to pick staff and even define the extent of his mission; he, furthermore, had no apparent budgetary or time restrictions. All the money and the time in the world, dear Robbie. Do your thing! Get us a scalp!

Mueller would keep the story alive! And that he did! His investigation not only would create a huge cloud for the Trump people, but plunged many of them into legal and financial jeopardy as they faced interrogation and prosecution/persecution for alleged sins and "crimes" having nothing to do with Collusion. Investigators used slimy Beria-type tactics against innocent people, threatening them with crippling legal costs and long prison terms for unspecified crimes and errors, to force them to confess and name others. As the story had no substance, of course, they sought to push people, including President Trump, into committing procedural transgressions, into falling into perjury traps, into "obstructing." (Please note: The fake FBI investigation into Hillary, of course, did none of those: she was not even put under oath.) Accompanying the investigation, we had an almost daily supply of leaks from "anonymous" sources relating, in breathless terms, that the "noose was tightening," "the walls were closing in on Trump," that soon "another bombshell" would drop, that Mueller and the intel services had verified key "portions of the Dossier," that evil Trump was about to fire Mueller--Save Mueller! Soon, they told us, soon, yes, soon, we would see a "hard, hard rain" (h/t Bob Dylan) of indictments fall on the White House: Trump and his whole family would exit 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in hand-cuffs! In addition, lest we forget, former bosses of the intel services got lucrative gigs on mainstream media outlets assuring us that Collusion was real, and proven beyond a doubt. Hollywood stars, late-night comics, and once-minor prog TV personalities rode the story to fame and fortune hyping daily "revelations." Journalists won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting fantasy.

Stand by! Impeachment is Imminent! Stand by! Stand by!

The prog machine strung out this absurd story for over two years; it ran prominently during the 2018 midterm elections, and, possibly, could have contributed to GOP losses in the House. As with anything, however, there comes a time when even the mightiest machine can no longer block an outcome. The Mueller report went to the new AG. Mueller's vast team had spent two years investigating, and produced not one indictment for "collusion". . . fizzle, fizzle, fizzle. "There is no there there," as Mueller and the creators of this scam knew all along.

Now, of course, the cry is to release the whole report. There must be something in those hundreds of pages that we can use to impeach or smear Trump and the deplorables! The fat lady hasn't REALLY sung yet, right? Right? Please! Warm up the band, she still has some air in her lungs!

OK. Like I said, these are thoughts. We are still left with one big question about all this. What were THEY thinking? What were they thinking would happen at the end? There are lots of possible scenarios but they all depend on one basic assumption.

What were they thinking? Simple, it was that the rest us were not.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Collusion Hoax, Part Three Billion: Head Chopped Off, the Reptile Still Slithers & Squirms

OK. We're starting to get a glimpse into the Mueller report, turned over to AG Barr last Friday. The AG put out a tight, well-written summary of said report in a letter to Congressional leadership. Barr's missive, though not quite four pages long, contains a lot of information. Read it. Don't be a journalist, read it. Now, of course, only a handful of people have seen the full report, well, aside from the 13,567 Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Iranian, and Israeli hackers--and Julian Assange--who have it . . .

Let's start with the least interesting stuff and move our way up the scale.

According to Barr, Mueller found that Russian intelligence services mounted an effort to meddle in our 2016 elections. This meddling, in its mildest version, took various forms, such as fake Twitter accounts, other internet postings by "Russian bots," and some purchases of ads in social media. The object was "to sow social discord" with the hope of impacting the election in some unstated way. (Note: We know from other reports that the Russian effort seemed to work for and against both candidates.) The Russian intel effort also included a more severe version which involved hacking into computers and getting emails from Clinton staff and the DNC.

Obstruction of justice. Per Barr's summary, the Special Counsel looked into actions by the President--most of them public--"as potentially raising obstruction of justice concerns." The Special Counsel, however, declined to make a judgement one way or the other and left it up to the AG. In other words, Mueller didn't have the goods but decided to smear Trump anyhow, even though he acknowledges no underlying crime existed. My last post sorta predicted he would do this,
[Mueller] might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, but maybe Congress should consider impeachment, or any number of variations on that theme.
He, inserted in other words, a poison pill into the report in the hopes of causing the President political damage by giving Dems a justification to continue their insane investigation/impeachment effort. Mueller, in highly technical legal jargon, went full reptile, and led to headlines that the report "does not exonerate Trump!" What rubbish. A prosecutor does not convict or exonerate. He indicts and lets the courts do the rest. If he doesn't have the goods to indict, he shuts up. Totally outrageous for a prosecutor to smear an innocent person in this manner, not unlike what Comey did to Clinton in July 2016, and which this blog criticized (also here and here) (Note: One big difference between what Comey did and what Mueller did: AG Lynch already had told the FBI and Bill Clinton that she would not prosecute Hillary Clinton before the investigation had run its course.) The AG, rightly, in the Trump case has declined to pursue the matter.

Now to the key portion: collusion.

Per Barr, Mueller directly states, "the Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election." Bam! Game. Over. Rug. Pulled. Out. From. Under. Dems. Adam Schiff please turn in your resignation letter.

Trump wins. America wins. The progs and their insane enablers and followers lose another one. The Russia Collusion story joins the Fake Narrative Club of Christine Blakely Ford, Jussie Smollet, Fast and Furious, Mattress Girl, UVA Rape Victim, Hands up Don't Shoot, Racist Covington High School kids, etc.

Let's have some fun:

Russian espionage and political meddling.

OK, anybody surprised? This humble blog wrote a long time ago (for example, here and here) about Russian interference in our political processes. This has been a long, long, long standing effort by Moscow, both as the capital of Russia and of the late-USSR. Moscow, please note, was doing it when Bernie Sanders went there on his honeymoon. The Soviets/Russians did and do this a lot, and not just in the USA. They have ample espionage, influence, and sabotage operations throughout the West. Did it prove effective in altering the election results? Please. Russia did not make Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania go for Trump. Russia did not make Clinton take a three day break in the final phase of the election, and so on. All of that you can assign to Hillary Clinton's very bad campaign and to Donald Trump's very good campaign.

Let us also never cease to remind the Demo/Progos that the 2016 Russian interference took place on Obama's watch. What did he do about it? Not much. In fact, as it turns out, Obama and Clinton used the excuse of Russian interference to justify spying on Trump's campaign and to have the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.--not to mention the media--serve as extensions of the Democrat Party.

I have written before about another country's meddling in our politics, a meddling which far outweighs any by Russia. One guess. Yes, Mexico! See posts here and here. Not only do Mexican senior officials, all the way up to the Mexican presidency, openly encourage their citizens to vote in the US and tell them how, but our own President Obama made clear he would not prosecute foreigners voting; the Dems continue that policy by encouraging aliens to vote and making it easier and easier for them to do so. Time to build the wall and to shut down some of Mexico's fifty-two diplomatic and consular offices in the US.

Another observation I have made before: If Putin wanted and worked to get Trump elected, he got conned. Putin got a bad deal. What did Putin receive for his supposed efforts? He got more sanctions; a reborn US military budget; a reborn US energy sector killing his number one export; and a resurgent US economy. He also got a couple of hundred of his prized Wagner Group mercs pounded into the sand by US artillery and airpower. A bad deal, Vlad. Real bad.

Don't make Putin your stock broker.

The whole Russia collusion investigation hoax formed a major component of the ongoing Demo/Progo effort to undo the 2016 elections, in other words, to engineer an American coup (here and here). This attempt involved getting foreigners to vote (noted above), insisting on no voter id requirements, use of vote harvesting, calling on electors of the Electoral College not to vote for Trump, incessant recount demands, a faked up dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, calling for a military coup, misuse of the FISA process, the weaponizing of the IRS, EPA, and our law enforcement/intel agencies for use against American citizens, trying to fill the streets with violent ANTIFA thugs, and more. The progos sought and seek to destroy our core institutions in order to gain and keep power.

Back in October 2017, I wrote,
When all the spinning, talking points, and bad/fake news reporting ends, one is left with the irrefutable fact that the Democrats lied about Trump's links to Russia. They lied BECAUSE, in fact, they were the ones in cahoots with the Russians. Bill and Hillary aided Vlad's effort to corner the world's uranium market in exchange for, (drumroll, shocked face) money! Lots of it. Some (around $145 million or so) funneled to the odious criminal organization known as the Clinton Foundation, and other large amounts handed directly to Bill as "speaking fees." 
The Clintons and Obama were dead certain Hillary would win the election, and all this grotesque corruption and selling out of the nation's interests would be buried and ignored. Hillary's campaign and the Democratic Party leadership paid millions to a shady outfit (Fusion GPS) to develop a narrative about Trump being the Ruskies' Pet Poodle. In violation of US election laws, the Dems paid millions to foreigners, including Russians, to cook up the salacious but very fake "dossier" on Trump and help ensure the election would go Hillary's way. 
It's all coming apart now, a massive train wreck.
That analysis holds up, and there you have the real scandal.

While everybody has grown sick of investigations, for our country's sake, however, we need to investigate and hold accountable those who ginned up and perpetuated this colossal hoax. Heads must roll: Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strozk, Page, and others of that ilk must face justice. The list goes on: Rice, Power, Yates, Lynch, Clinton, Podesta, and, yes, Obama need to appear before investigators to explain their reptilian actions, their effort to do nothing less than rip up and flush away the Constitution. The fake news journalists and those "experts," including former officials, who appeared day after day pushing this bogus story, citing non-existent evidence need to be shamed and fired. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, to name just two in Congress, who almost daily told us of the "mountain of stone cold evidence" of Trump-Putin collusion, need to be reprimanded and forced out. We need justice for the people falsely accused and smeared, some of whom have gone bankrupt with legal fees trying to defend themselves against the Lord High Inquisitor.

Not in the mood for mercy or for moving on. Get'em all! Dig out, expose, and punish the snakes in our system who sought to pull off this coup.

MAGA!

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Russia Hoax: Coming to an End

At long last, Mueller has submitted his report to the AG on his 22-month investigation into the nonsensical Trump-Putin collusion story--a story the DNC and the Clinton campaign invented with the support of senior Obama officials, as this little blog said oh so long ago, e.g., here and here.

In the second of those referenced ancient posts (March 17, 2017) I noted,
The Dems claim that Trump is in bed with the Russians; Trump denies it and countercharges that the Dems had him under surveillance. We have here a problem. If the Dems have official intel on Trump's connections with Russia, how did they get it? Presumably from the official intel services which then it would appear were monitoring Russian contacts with Trump's people. If there was no surveillance order given to US intel, from where did the intel on Russian contacts come? The British is apparently the Trump answer. I have a more plausible one. I think there was surveillance of Russian activity, probably by the NSA, and it found nothing to show that Trump had contacts with the Russians; the Obamistas and the Clintonistas then made up the accounts of Russian interference. In other words, they lied. That's the most charitable explanation I can develop. There, of course, are harsher ones which I hope are not accurate, ones that would show, once again, Obama's misuse of the nation's intel and enforcement capabilities.
That pretty much covered it.

Other Diploposts noted that the nonsensical Trump-Putin story would and did prevent us from cooperating with Russia where we could, e.g., here and here, making our fight against Islamic terror and countering the rise of the PRC all that more difficult.

It appears that Mueller has recommended no further indictments. Many on the right have taken that to mean Trump's vindicated, that the left must throw in the towel. Victory!

I urge a little more caution. The left seeks to undermine this presidency, destroy Trump and his family, and completely discredit anybody who has supported him, regardless of what that does to the country. That determination remains a constant.

Furthermore, none of us has seen the report, or knows how Mueller will phrase his conclusions/recommendations. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing? I doubt that very much. He might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, but maybe Congress should consider impeachment, or any number of variations on that theme.

I don't see the effort at destruction, of canceling the 2016 election results, coming to an end.

Let's wait before we do the touchdown victory dance.

Monday, March 18, 2019

Lazy & Malicious: Journalists on Christchurch Massacre

We, the great unwashed public, do not yet have all the facts in the horrific Christchurch massacre of worshippers in two mosques. All we really know (I think) is that an Australian citizen shot up the mosques killing at least fifty people and, apparently, injuring another equivalent number. We also know that the cops reacted quickly and bravely, and captured the alleged shooter (I will not state his name), who now faces, most likely, two or three decades in the slammer. We know those facts, or think we do, oh, and that he "issued" a "manifesto" seeking to explain/justify his act of mass murder.

I usually do not pay attention to drivel from mass shooters or other criminals, e.g, the Unabomber, but in this case, I read his "manifesto." Why? My BS detector pinged loudly as I took in media accounts of the shootings, and their description of the shooter and his motives. I found striking the overt attempt by much American media, and some foreign, e.g., the Daily Mail, to blame President Trump for the action of a disturbed Australian in New Zealand, and label him a "right-wing Trump supporter." That, of course, proves the sort of typical lefty nonsense we see as progs seek to shape a narrative to support their socio-political goals.

Before turning to the "manifesto," let's briefly raise a few other matters that the press has not covered well, if at all, or insists on misreporting in that special way that they do.

First, do the words of the President of the USA have such power that people all over the world do his alleged bidding? If the answer is, "Yes," then "Wow!" Have we got power or what? Seems odd, however, that this power only appears when a Republican, especially Trump, holds office. I heard no journalists blame Obama's words or actions for the Norway mass shooting in 2011, or for the multiple massacres carried out by ISIS and other Jihadis in the USA and around the world during the Obama presidency. Do the words of CAIR, or Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, or those of renowned anti-semite  Linda Sarsour, provoke Jihadis into a murderous frenzy? Just a thought. Might be worth a "national conversation."

Second, guns in New Zealand. Turns out our Kiwi cousins have a lot of them. Almost 300, 000 people (out of an age-eligible population of under 3.9 million) legally own firearms. An estimated 1.1 to 1.5 million firearms, legal and illegal, rest in private hands; getting a gun license seems relatively easy with over 99% of applications approved by the police. Must be a murderous hell, no? Well, no. NZ has a homicide rate of not quite 1 per 100, 000, about the same as Australia with its much tighter gun laws. Not clear, therefore, that restricting gun rights really does much. Despite their fearsome military and rugby reputations, Kiwis don't kill each other much, either with guns or anything else, and crime remains low compared to most other countries in the world. A pretty safe place, even with/because of those guns. Oh, and let us not forget that this alleged mass killer was a foreigner.

Third, the guns used in this case. What weapons did the unmentioned one use? Some journalists have written about a "lever action" rifle, various shotguns, and "military-style semi-auto rifles." In the wake of the murders, we hear the usual cacophony of outraged voices demanding tighter gun laws, and lots of garbled accounts of the weapons purchased by killer-boy. I went to the website of the gun store in NZ that, per the press, sold guns to this alleged shooter, whether the ones used in the massacre or others is not clear; I don't see any exotic or modern military-style weapons for sale--certainly nothing automatic. They seem to have a nice selection of standard hunting rifles and a pretty good choice of European and American handguns--not bad prices, actually.  My advice, totally worth the price paid, to Kiwi gun grabbers: figure out the issues before you start seizing guns from law-abiding citizens and writing new laws. No? Guess not. Facts don't matter when it comes to gun hysteria, here or there.

Fourth, while, of course, we should condemn and discuss the NZ horror, we should not forget the ongoing massacre of thousands of Christians in Nigeria by Muslim Jihadis--a story about which we hear little from the MSM. Will the Muslim world condemn that atrocity in the same way that all of us condemn the one in Christchurch? I kinda doubt it . . . in addition, I notice that the same media so unable to find the motives for Jihadi murderers have no trouble attributing them to this guy.

Fifth, the name of the city where this massacre at the mosques happened: Christchurch. Yes, Christchurch. Does that tell you anything about the sort of demographic changes we see even in remote New Zealand? A possible tip-off about social stresses? Ask Aussie Senator Anning what happens when you state this obvious truth: the outrage mob comes after you. He wrote a perfectly valid letter on the issue--a letter now hard to find--and, wham, the lynch mob comes for him. His note reads like some past Diplomad post (and here).




The manifesto? Well, best read it yourselves. I doubt that most of the journalists writing about this matter have gone through it. You will find it hardly "right-wing." It comes off as a solidly leftist document by an intelligent, half-educated, sociopath. The writing style is, at times, disjointed and definitely narcissistic. He clearly thinks this action will gain him fame, just like that of his idol the Norwegian mass killer of 2011. All or most of his knowledge (will discuss further below) seems to come from the internet and some limited traveling, much of it, it apparently, to Muslim countries using money from some bit coin scam/transaction. He, overwhelmingly, uses ludicrous fascist/communist language with a heavy dose of classic authoritarian "ecofascism" of the sort promoted by the US Democrat party in the "Green New Deal."

Yes, killer-boy is an environmentalist.

He declares himself an "ecofascist," and hankers back to a mythical time of green pastures; he hates corporations and urban sprawl. He's all yours, Greenies and Reds. You broke him; you bought him; you own him! As stated in the manifesto, he is,
Eco-fascist by nature. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.
Oh, so RIGHT WING, eh? A white supremacist environmentalist who loves non-white Red China, eh?

He also goes on to express administration for long-dead, and pretty much forgotten, British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, who held hardly right-wing views on the economy and social structure.

What does manifesto-boy say about President Trump?
a supporter of Donald Trump? As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.
That's it. That's all he says about Trump. Nice ringing endorsement, eh?

It's absurd to claim he is a supporter of Trump or inspired by anything Trump said--BTW, Trump supports large-scale legal migration, hardly a "racist" stance, and hardly in line with manifesto-boy's main concern (see below).

He can't hide his hatred for America, except for a weird fascination with the US Marine Corps. He wants the United States destroyed and "balkanized" into racially warring components. He hopes that his actions will provoke a destruction of Second Amendment rights in the USA, and an effort by the government to seize arms from the citizens, hence, provoking a cataclysmic civil war.
The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states. This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent, but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream. Furthermore this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability to project power globally, and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again(where US/NATO forces fought beside muslims and slaughtered Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe).
Thanks for the good wishes, jackass.

His main issue, of course, is immigration into the West from non-European lands. With the attack on the mosques, he vows to
show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people. To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history. To take revenge for the enslavement of millions of Europeans taken from their lands by the Islamic slavers. To take revenge for the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands. To take revenge for Ebba Akerlund. To directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves. To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.

To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil. To avenge those European men and women lost in the constant and never ending wars of European history who died for their lands, died for their people only to have their lands given away to any foreign scum that bother to show up. To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to over extend their own hand and experience the eventual backlash. To show the effect of direct action, lighting a path forward for those that wish to follow.A path for those that wish to free their ancestors lands from the invaders grasp and to be a beacon for those that wish to create a lasting culture, to tell them they are not alone. To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic,powerful and revolutionary action can occur. To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought. To drive a wedge between the nations of NATO that are European and the Turks that also make a part of the NATO forces, thereby turning NATO once more into a united European army . . .
OK. I think you got it.

Unlike the false prog media nonsense re Muslim radicalization on the internet, in this case radicalization did take place on the internet. Throughout his manifesto, we see Martel-boy citing Wikipedia and other stuff he picked up online. He obviously spent a lot of time playing video games, and cruising the political and social commentary on the net. I have run into a fair number of young men similar to this fellow. In their mid-to-late twenties or even thirties, frustrated and despairing of ever achieving much, they see no future other than living with their parents or room mates, and, at best, working dead-end jobs. As white males, they feel alienated, insulted, and basically spat upon by the bien pensants. Academia, the media, politics, much of the modern work force, even popular entertainment is increasingly anti-white male--the malignant "toxic white male." 

Don't believe me?

Read the stuff on diversity and inclusiveness put out by major corporations. Read the stuff by the Democrat party or any other leftist party in the Western world. Watch just about any TV show or movie and see the depiction of the white male. The good jobs, these white guys feel, are lost to women and favored ethnic groups, to the politically and socially well-connected, and to the unceasing waves of immigrants who get preferences and public support unlike what they get, to wit, lectures on white male privilege. They retreat to a delusional overwhelmingly male world of video games--and even there the feminazis make inroads and give them no respite--and to secretive and conspiratorial chat rooms where all sorts of fact and fiction get blended into a dangerous mix.

We will see more of these drifting manifesto-boys if the relentless war on men and on traditional Western culture and values does not cease.