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...

Friday, February 21, 2020

Nope. Not Gonna Mention the Dem Debate. Nope. Not all. Not at All . . .

I watched IT.

This IT was not the Ray Bradbury IT, a film about aliens from outer space which had the great Barbara Rush. No. This IT was the Democratic debate of Wednesday night. This new one did not have Barbara Rush or Richard Carlson, had much worse production values, and, of course, inferior acting and writing. IT did, however, have on stage beings from outer space . . . I hope, in any case, that is so . . .

No. I am not going to write about this IT; much too embarrassing. But . . .

How can the world's oldest political party find these people as standard bearers? The cast of characters consists of:

A chronic liar, and fake "Indian" champion of women's rights who had her female staff of color in Nevada walk out on her;

a fake as fake can be failed mayor of a small midwestern town;

a virtually unheard of Senator from Minnesota who whines and cries about being mocked and called names by the fake mayor;

a corrupt and ailing former Vice President with a resplendent and freshly bottoxed forehead;

an ailing, more than slightly deranged, aged Communist throw-back to the USSR;

and a wooden billionaire, ashamed of his record as mayor of NYC, trying to buy his way into the White House, and paying off the "MeTooers" in his past.

Who wrote this screenplay? Is it based on an original story by Jerry Seinfeld? It was a debate about nothing. Empty Gaia worship. Zingers flying. Voices raised. And then, as the fake mayor would say in his bad Spanish, "Nada."

Keep at IT, Dems. Your spacecraft will eventually arrive and take you back to your home planet.

Meanwhile, I am not going to write about it . . . Nope. Not one word . . .

Monday, February 17, 2020

Reflections on This and That, and can "Mike get it done?"

Well, we have begun the long process of preparing our new house in Wilmington for human habitation. With the legal and financial stuff out of the way, we initiate the horrid process of moving furniture and other goodies into the place. We already have had one little Diploventure involving Diplodog and Diplowife. The new property has a very nice salt water pool and Hartza, our 100 lb. Akita/Shepherd, found it very intriguing. He became particularly obsessed with a floating plastic frog that has a thermometer serving as a keel. Hartza wanted to grab that thing, and would wait patiently at the edge of the pool for the frogometer to float by, and, of course, you guessed it: on one pass-by, he lunged for froggie, missed, slipped, and head first into the pool he went. I laughed mightily, but the Diplowife who considers Hartza beyond special jumped into the rather frigid pool, fully clothed, to "rescue" the canine. She did, dragging him to the stairs where he climbed out under his own power. The fun never stops.

Speaking of people jumping into frigid pools--watch this segue--ol' uber-rich Mike Bloomberg, the ex mayor of my birthplace, NYC, has jumped into the candidate pool, protecting himself from the frigid waters with a multi-billion dollar wetsuit of ceaseless TV, radio, and social media adverts telling us "Mike can get it done!"

What it is that he "can get done" is left vague, but with clear lefty overtones--e.g., gun "safety," lots of images of him with Obama (take that Joe!) It seems, there's that word, that this lavish spending, in fact, has pushed him up in the opinion polls against the Dems' other lackluster candidates; he has been sucking the oxygen out of the room, drawing lots of attention to himself and generating speculation about how he will save the Dems from impending disaster in November--even some talk of his picking Crooked Hillary as Veep. Yeah, yeah, we'll see. He, of course, has yet to take to the debate stage or test himself in an actual vote. Money does not always win the election; I refer Mike to 2016, wherein Crooked Hillary vastly outspent Donald Trump and still lost.

Even more important, the knives have begun to come out for Mike, and slash away at his plush wetsuit. We already have seen the beginnings of a "MeToo" problem for Mike, and, of course, in leaked comments, he has revealed his arrogant, elitist soul for all to see with his outrageous comments about farmers, implying that what they do requires minimal intelligence and has even less importance. I hope the folks in Iowa, Idaho, Wisconsin, Texas, Montana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ohio, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, and elsewhere all across this great country take in his view of people outside of the Blue bubbles where he lives and operates. See what he thinks of you? Think he would be your president? He also wants to shut down the coal and the oil industries, kill the unborn at will, take your guns, kill you if you're old, tell you what to eat and drink, if you're black or brown throw you up against a wall and frisk you, and, to top it off, he thinks that you're stupid.

Nice. Very nice.

Oh, and remember, he's the MODERATE Dem candidate . . .

BTW, I wonder how long Mike would survive as a farmer or fracker?

He's just another member of the Democrat Clown car, the only difference being that he owns his own limo.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Corruptocrat Joe Shuffles to the Door . . .

It seems that all those Ukrainian voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have exacted their revenge on Joe "Hunter did nothing wrong" Biden.

Boy, I never knew that the tentacles of Ukraine could reach into the bountiful heartland and into the craggy ol' granite state. Got to hand it to those Ukrainian organizers for getting all those folks to vote for Bernie "Honeymoon in the USSR" Sanders, and Pete "Did Nothing for South Bend" Buttigieg. Amazing.

Can't wait for Joe to realize he got outplayed by the "lying, dog-faced, pony soldier" oligarchs in Kyiv. Heirs of Tyrone Power, call your lawyer! Get those royalties before Joe runs out of dough!

This humble blog had long predicted the inevitable demise of Joe Biden. Almost a year ago, I wrote,
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. < . . . >
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 . . .
I wrote other postings expressing, to put it mildly, doubts about Ol' Joe (here and here, for example.) He, simply put, is a doddering, tottering fool who should never have been allowed back on the stage. He was a fool as a young man and remains so in his senior years. I find it highly painful to watch and hear him.

He should retire quietly to enjoy the millions he and his crooked family have made over the years from politics. I think, frankly, we will not have long to wait for Joe to shuffle away, muttering about his loyalty to Obama, about his confrontation with Corn Pop . . . and on and on.

That will leave the Democrats with an avowed Marxist, or what we Cold War veterans would call a Communist, a completely fake gay white version of the fake black Obama, a couple of lesser lights who have managed to keep their "accomplishments" well hidden from view, and a fabulously wealthy fraud who is financing his own campaign and repudiating his accomplishments as mayor of New York to gain the favor of the "woke" crowd.

To quote that famous Ukrainian, Oliver Hardy, "Another nice mess you have gotten us into!"

Thursday, February 6, 2020

The Impeachment Hoax: A Ripping Yarn

Some time back, March 29, 2018, to be exact, I wrote a piece on Trump's foreign policy titled, "The Dogs Bark, but the Caravan . . ." Well, the caravan, of course, despite the braying and barking of the "experts,"the overpaid pundits, and the snickering bien pensants moves on.

That title could just as appropriately be rebooted as a description not only of the Trumpian approach to foreign policy, but to the Trumpian approach to policy, period. 

Trump's caravan's moves on.

For three long years, Trump and his supporters have been subjected to investigations, accusations, and outright slander and libel. The RUSSIA! story, of course, turned out to be an elaborate fantasy bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, and abetted by the Obama/Biden White House and the corrupt Deep State of career bureaucrats. It sought to undo the 2016 election. It was, plain and simple, a coup attempt

It's sequel, UKRAINE!, was nothing more than a pale and lifeless photocopy of RUSSIA! The big difference being that this time the Democrat overlords in the Congress, the bureaucracy, and the media decided to execute the scheme hands-on. It would not be turned over to some senescent, barely aware former FBI man, and a gang of spies; this time the Democrat Congressional leadership would lead the charge openly, and go with the ultimate nuclear option described in our Constitution, the impeachment and removal of a sitting President. 

The frustrated golpistas fished around for a "reason," a cover, really, to sail off on an impeachment process and settled on the weak and leaky "Trump-Zelensky phone call." Crewed by a fake "whistleblower," cooperative and lying House staffers and media acolytes, and captained by one of the most pronounced liars, Adam Schiff, in the Congress, the SS Ukraine sailed off to impeachment land. It ended up as we all could have predicted: smashed upon the rocks of reality.

Trump has emerged stronger and more full of fight than he was at the start. His State of the Union speech was a masterpiece of optimistic defiance. His opponents were relegated to childish stunts of "resistance." The most childish of all being, of course, Speaker Pelosi, standing at the Speaker's podium in the House, slowly, deliberately, and ostentatiously tearing up a government document, Trump's speech, on national television. The look of concentration on the face of the old bat as she was doing the tearing will provide endless numbers of memes and political ads for Trump in the upcoming election. Nance The Ripper. Why not just hold your breath until you turn blue?

Keep barking, keep barking. Eventually the dog catcher will get you . . . 

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Democrats' Marxist Civil War: Karl vs Groucho

The 2020 Iowa caucuses have proven an endless source of entertainment, mirth, and just pure amazement.

In the long history of these weird political events, the one just held this week had to be the weirdest of them all.

First, of course, the cast of characters we saw which range from an avowed Communist and Soviet-admirer to a burnt out corruptocrat ex-VP, and all sorts of other oddities in-between. These candidates are nuts.

Second, literally for years, everybody in the Iowa Democrat party knew the caucuses were to be held this month. The World's Oldest Political Party still managed to put together the most shambolic political event I have ever witnessed since, well, perhaps at least since the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago. Nothing went right! Was it the fault of the vote-counting "App"? Do Democrats need to learn to code? Do they need to learn how to count? Was it just a general level of incompetence? A malicious intent to prevent Bernie from gloating about his "victory"?  

Whatever it was, it was a true Seinfeld event: a tale about nothing brought to you by Marxism.

Yep, we saw a duel between the two principal Marxist wings of the Democrat Party: the Karl Marxists and the Groucho Marxists. It was all, I don't know, a sort of a matter runs into anti-matter, or unstoppable force meets immovable object collision. If train K leaves the station going West at one pm at fifty mph, and train G leaves a station 100 miles down the line going East at 2 pm . .  . when will they collide?

The only thing that saves our Republic from the Democrats, it seems, is that the Karl and the Groucho wings cancel each other out.

More popcorn! Keep at it, Democrats!

Trump 2020.

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves . . .

Congratulations to my British friends on their independence day. I genuinely hope that in the coming months and years Britain takes full advantage of its escape from the lethal embrace of the EU.

As the six or seven regular readers of this inconsequential blog know, I have been a long time supporter of Brexit.

My support for Britsh independence began years ago when I worked with British diplomatic, military, and intel personnel in various countries. I was appalled by how their freedom of action was constrained by the need to consult with their European “partners.” Those so-called “partners,” by the way, detested Britain and the British relationship with us. I remember a terrific Australian diplomat in Indonesia telling me, after I had expressed frustration with how difficult it had become to work with the British, “Forget the Brits. They want to be European not British.” For years I feared that to be true. Every visit I made to the UK over the years confirmed that this was a country intent on eradicating its amazing culture, history, and identity. London, one of the greatest cities on earth, had become increasingly a Third World bazaar governed by a mix of self-hating “woke” morons and hate-filled new arrivals. London was no longer English. If I wanted to see an anti-Western city I could have stayed in my old home town of Los Angeles.

But, perhaps, just perhaps, I was wrong. Is that possible?

Beneath the surface decay and the forced public obedience to the New World Order, the Ol’ Lion’s heart still beat. I commented before (Here for example) re the Brexit referendum. I was delighted when it passed and, once again appalled, by how the deceptive and treacherous PM May deliberately threw away the victory in the polls, and undertook some bizarre negotiations with the EU clearly designed to make sure that Britain never left the EU. I was again delighted when Britain’s equivalent of Donald Trump walked into Number 10; Boris “The Dude” Johnson vowed to execute the will of the people, and get Britain out of the EU. All the regular crowd of “annoited ones” threw everything they had at The Dude, but, in the famous words of the Original Dude, “The Dude abides.” And he certainly did that and more: he won a stunning parliamentary mandate, sent the horrid anti-American, anti-semite, and anti-British Labour clowns running, and began to fulfill his promise to make Britain Great and Independent Again.

As I said at the outset, I hope that the PM can begin the process of undoing decades of progressive damage to Britain. Britain has a wonderful opportunity as an independent country to establish relations with Europe and the rest of the world that benefit Britain. I hope that Britain gets its immigration issues under control and that the layers and layers of regulations that hold back British innovation and restrain the economy are drastically reduced. I want to see the UK and the US as full partners once again.

And, of course, we must extend a special thanks to Nigel Farage who has fought with intelligence, courage, and great wit to achieve this new beginning.

Monday, January 27, 2020

China Virus: The World is Going to End . . . Again . . .

Lots of stuff going on in the world, and it's hard to focus on one or two items, not to mention I have my own life to conduct and wreck . . . Much of what passes for news, however, is of a dubious nature. What has been driven home in the last several years is how once venerable institutions have fallen to the progressive onslaught and become purveyors of hysterical, politically motivated rubbish. The schools, universities, the media, Hollywood, the legal profession, the law enforcement  and intel agencies, the political parties, even the military all have degenerated to varying degrees in the face of that onslaught. We are awash by and adrift on a sea of fake news all designed to cow us into giving ever more power to the permanent bureaucratic elites.

We have, of course, as much discussed here, the most fabulous hoax of them all, the "man-made global climate change" nonsense. We also have the hysteria over "internet neutrality," Brexit, and, of course, the American elite's two favorite hoaxes, RUSSIAN COLLUSION (!) and the ongoing impeachment farce which seeks to overturn the 2016 election and invalidate the 2020 election.

There are many more of these hoaxes out there; I am sure you can turn naming them into a party drinking game.

Among other things, this destruction of our institutions means it is harder and harder to discern what is really happening.

One of the more recent examples of something happening which is hard to decipher is the Coronavirus scare. Is it real? Is it yet another existential threat to mankind? Is it overblown? Is it, instead, worse than the rising oceans, Spanish flu, the plague, Y2K, SARS, delayed aid to Ukraine, Alex Jones, the Babylon Bee, mercury in seafood, a Rebel Wilson movie, etc? Who knows? Nobody does, that's who. Nobody.

Is this a real threat? We are dealing with an authoritarian and highly corrupt government in China which is incapable of telling the truth. We really have no idea what is going on in China. How many are infected? We don't know. How many have died? We don't know. Is it underreported in China? If so, does that lead to exaggeration in the outside world? We don't know. If it's that serious why isn't travel to and from China cut-off? Immigration from China? Business in China? I have been to China, and, frankly, it's an authoritarian Third World country with large foreign currency reserves, abysmal living and public health conditions, and a very corrupt governing elite determined to become Masters of the Universe. Don't look for the truth to come from China . . . or from our Chimerica business clan.

The Truth is out there, we just don't know where.

Monday, January 20, 2020

On Martin Luther King, Jr.

Below I have reposted something I wrote in 2014, on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day. I think it holds up ok and I am not going to add or subtract from it. The only thing I would note is that we have come a long way away from his vision of a color-blind America in which we judge on the basis of character and not skin tone. The guilty ones in that regard are the left and the "woke ones" who have an obsession with race and anything else that promotes division and sabotage of the great American Experiment.  Very sad.

January 21, 2014

The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day in the US; the TV and other media were full of stories about King and his times, and what it all means today. He has been compared to Gandhi and Mandela, become an icon for American "progressives," and, of course, a historical symbol of the nonviolent civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, almost every major American city has a thoroughfare named for him, and, as noted, we have a national holiday in his honor--making him and Columbus the only ones to have such holidays. Gunned down in 1968, at the age of thirty-nine, he left the civil rights movement to less capable and less visionary successors who undermined his legacy and his goal of a color-blind nation.

Was he a great man? He showed great courage, commitment to his cause, insistence on nonviolence, strong political and leadership skills, patriotism, and became a highly eloquent spokesman for civil rights. "I Have a Dream" is one of the great speeches in the English language. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" more than equals any Thoreau or Gandhi writings, and is not something that today's civil rights leaders, such as they are, could match, nor could the typical graduate of almost any university in the world today. (The letter's pacing, erudition, and, above all, the surgical preciseness with which it takes down opposing arguments bring to mind General Sherman's letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.) King's life made a difference to millions of people. The answer, therefore, to this paragraph's question is yes, he was a great man.

That said, serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died--we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their "progressive" media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assume a Republican killed King--today's college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family--his father, a prominent leader in his own right--openly endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election. The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on.

Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limitations on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats--let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer--along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Before I get back to King, let me address another issue that has been badly distorted and become something of a meme among the quasi-literate left. I refer to the idea that the parties have "switched places." This is something I have heard from some lefties who, knowing the true history of the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to race and civil rights, try to argue that that was then, and this is now. Since FDR or so, they argue the Democratic and the Republican Parties "switched" places on the race issue, with Republicans taking the role of protecting white privilege and keeping minorities, especially blacks, down. The truth is quite different. What happened was that the old party of slavers, segregationists, lynch mobs, and secessionists figured out that government programs and intervention were the means to deprive Republicans of a significant voter bloc. The aim was to keep black Americans dependent on the largesse of government and Democrat-run urban political machines. Anyone who doubts that should read the crude comment in which President Johnson revealed the real purpose underlying his massive social program expansion, i.e., to keep black Americans voting Democratic. The Democrats have succeeded admirably at this objective.

Back to King and the civil rights movement. By the time of his death, King was losing control of the movement. It was fragmenting. King's vision of a nonviolent effort was under assault by radical elements. The message of non-violence and concentration on individual liberty was losing attraction. The thirty-nine-year-old King seemed old, thundering out a message from another time. A new generation of black activists, inspired by the increasingly confrontational and violent atmosphere in the country challenged King for the spotlight, and found allies in violence in the largely white anti-Vietnam War movement. The civil rights struggle was becoming part of the noise of the very bad closing years of the 1960s, which saw bloody race riots shake nearly every major American city, and numerous incidents of domestic terrorism. In addition, what had been a largely grass-roots, private sector movement was being sabotaged by growing government involvement. Many black leaders were being syphoned off by government programs to "fight poverty." Activists increasingly focused on getting handouts to their followers rather than, as noted above, on King's more lofty, ancient-sounding focus on liberty, and the goal of having people judged not by their color but by the "content of their character." This new generation of government-oriented and dependent leaders did not fit in with King's conservative, Southern, church-based movement. They wanted racial turmoil, not racial harmony. We need also remember that Attorney General Robert Kennedy had put King under FBI surveillance, including the making of compromising tapes of King having extra-marital liaisons, providing the government excellent blackmail material against him.

All these factors, in my view, had begun to take a toll on King; he aged dramatically in appearance, and had begun talking about issues not directly related to the civil rights struggle, e.g., the Middle East, Vietnam. Had he lived longer, we likely would have seen King becoming radicalized, pushed leftward as he sought to retain control of the movement--but, as noted before, we will never know.

In sum, he was a great man with a great vision. His successors, many of them frauds of the first rank, largely have not been faithful to that vision of liberty and color-blindness, and we all have suffered for it.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

A Diplomad Movie Review: 1917

A few days ago I went with the eldest Diplosons to see Sam Mendes' film, 1917.

We went to one of those fancy theaters in Raleigh with the reclining seats, BIG screen, surround sound, waiters, etc., you know the drill. Nice time, only made foul by my receiving a traffic ticket outside of Wilmington when I fell into a known speed trap just as the I-40 enters town. I knew it was there, but it was nearly midnight, traffic was light, and I had my Jeep's Bose speakers booming out Louis Armstrong. In sum, I wasn't paying attention when the speed limit suddenly dropped from 70 to 45--and it drops for no good reason, I might add. The cops were having a field day as they had three or four other miserable miscreants lined up at the side of the road, plus this humble blogger, all awash in the flashing blue lights of shame. A good day for the coffers of North Carolina.

OK, as to the movie.

It is definitely worth seeing. Go see it. The British soldiers, for the most part, look like British soldiers of the era--no, they are not bad ass lesbians--and the sets are extraordinary, with an amazing attention to detail. The no man's land that plays a central part in the film is, to say the least, a harrowing muddy landscape of blasted and twisted machines, abandoned guns, barbed wire, partially filled craters, and rotting human and animal bodies: a remarkable depiction of hell.

A lot has been written about the "one take" technique used in the film. It is a terrific technical achievement, but, and here is my but, my sons and I found it unnecessary, and even distracting. After a bit you get almost nauseous as the camera weaves its way around and becomes--unfortunately--a hindrance to good story telling. You want some edits, some close ups, but no, it's all presented as one continuous shot. In some cases it's fine, for example, when the soldiers are walking through the trenches with the camera leading the way in a scene highly reminiscent of that in Paths of Glory  when senior officers are inspecting the trenches, and, again, when the lead character is running through an impressively orchestrated artillery barrage. There were a couple of scenes lifted almost entirely from Saving Private Ryan--you'll see what I mean when you see it. That's fine, of course, as movies borrow from each other all the time. The obsession with the one shot technique, however, robbed those scenes of the emotional impact they had in Spielberg's still superior Ryan.

Never mind all that nitpicking. Go see it. It's a tribute to brave men who saw and did their duty. You don't get much of that in contemporary movie making.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Soleimani and the "Imminent Threat" Furor: Usual Nonsense from the Anti-Trumpers

OK. Qasim Soleimani is dead as dead can be--and that is a very good thing. As noted here and many other places, ol' QS was both a serial and a mass murderer on an international scale. He took particular "joy" in plotting and executing the death and maiming of Americans. He was a brutal fanatic who did not hesitate to murder his own countrymen, as well. He had risen to the near top of the Iranian gangster state and was the architect behind that state's campaign of international terror. Shed no tears for QS.

Well, shed no tears for QS unless, it seems, you're a member of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Squad (TDSS) and just can't see that President Trump was absolutely within his rights as President, absolutely right as a matter of principle, and absolutely required by his oath of office to protect and defend the United States in ordering the lethal attack on QS. He violated no laws; he acted in the best interests of the United States and the civilized world.

In fact, Trump likely did Iran a favor by removing the malignant QS tumor from the Iranian body politic, thus allowing the other gangsters in Tehran the opportunity to reassess their current path to total destruction. We see some preliminary reports--unverified, so far--of a mini-purge within the ranks of QS's old outfit, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. I hope that's true, and results from the Tehran Dons trying to make some course adjustments. The belated admission by the Tehran gangsters that, yes, indeed, they accidentally shot down the Ukrainian civilian jet over Tehran would seem an indication of possibly some change underway. Perhaps. Let's not be too optimistic, but . . . well, we'll see.

I don't understand the furor coming mostly from the TDSS over the "imminent threat" piece of the rationale to hit QS. That comprises a minor factor, an almost irrelevant one. "Imminent," of course, is a judgment call. Did we have to know with 99.99% certainty that QS and his band of merry thugs planned to hit US targets within a day, a week, a month, a year? Who cares? Why had QS gone to Baghdad to meet the leadership of the proxy Iranian militia that had just assaulted the US Embassy and previously killed a US civilian? They had future attacks in mind, and of that we can have no doubt.

The police do not have to show that a known murderer presents an "imminent" threat to others to take that murderer off the streets. They can remove him for actions already committed. Reasonable people could see a murderer who has killed multiple times over many years, bragged about it, and vowed to continue, as posing an "imminent" threat to the community--however you define "imminent."

I have worked a great deal with the product of US and other intelligence agencies. Some of it proves good; some not so good, to say the least. In this case, however, and again, there can exist no doubt--for reasonable people--that given QS's track record over the past nearly thirty years, that, at a minimum, he continued to pose a threat to Americans and others. Did Bin Laden or Al Baghdadi pose an "imminent" threat? I don't know, you don't know, none of us knows, and it's not relevant. What they already had done put them outside the boundaries of civilization. They deserved to die. Period.

Soleimani presented a proven, clear, and continuing lethal threat to American citizens. Period.

Soleimani deserved to die. Period.

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Just Speculating: Did Iran Hand Us Soleimani?

OK. Don't hold me to anything I am going to write here. This is just me speculating. I am not an expert on Iran, but then neither is any one of the dozens and dozens of pundits who has suddenly  appeared on television and in print offering views on what's going on with and within Iran. None of those folks knows. So you and I can be as "expert" as any of them.

After some spirited discussions with my clever number two Diploson, I am coming to the conclusion--I can be talked out of it--that General Qasim Soleimani got handed to us by a faction or factions within Iran's ruling circle. Let me 'splain.

The late unlamented QS was a "terror mastermind," designing and heading terror operations carried out by the Iranians for the past thirty or so years. Those ops included, among many others, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires, attacks on our troops in Iraq, perhaps Benghazi, and, of course, the recent attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad. He set up and maintained a network of proxy organizations around the world to carry out terror operations against Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, and on and on. In recent months, he had been brought in to help suppress dissent inside Iran; his Revolutionary Guard thugs shot, detained, and tortured thousands of anti-regime Iranian protestors.

What do we know about the internal workings of the Iranian regime? Not much--and I don't think those talking heads on TV do, either.

We safely can assume, however, that the Tehran regime is beset with all the "normal" rivalries and schisms present in such gangster regimes. The rise to prominence of QS, and his increasingly dangerous behavior, had to raise concerns among many within that regime. I can see some concluding that QS and his policies would lead Iran into a war with the United States, especially under Trump, that Iran could not win, and that could result in the destruction of the Tehran regime. Don't forget, under Trump the regime has faced increasing and very harmful economic sanctions. Life is not very pleasant in Iran.

Don't, therefore, be surprised if it turns out that people within the regime, through any number of channels and proxies, could have slipped us the info on where QS was, where he was going to be, and what he was doing. They might have helped paint the target on him. The speed with which the US acted against QS in Iraq was quite remarkable, and would seem to indicate we were ready and waiting for him.

Thus far, it seems, it seems, it seems, that Iran's much threatened retaliation for our pulverizing QS and his cohorts has consisted of firing off some ballistic missiles into the Iraqi desert and claiming "revenge." The Iranians, reportedly, tipped off the Iraqis and the neutral Finns that they were going to launch these missiles presumably so that US forces got tipped off and moved out of danger. It would seem, there's that word, that the Iranians want to put an end to the current confrontation in a face-saving manner.

We, of course, will have to see what the President says this morning, and whether Iran or the US has any further actions it will undertake.

If I am full of nonsense, please don't hesitate to let me know. I know you will. Just remember what I said at the top.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Good News: Qasim Soleimani, Dead as Dead can be

I was delighted to hear that Iranian scumbag and General Qasim Soleimani met his end in a ball of fire thanks to a missile from a US Reaper drone. This is good news; this is very good news. We should all be very grateful that we have a President with the courage and patriotism to order the death of QS. I have long bemoaned the fact, and I stress fact, that we in the West have not been at war with the Islamist crazies--be they Shia or Sunni--but we have been under attack. In other words, they have been at war with us, while we have allowed ourselves--as a rule--to suffer attacks and outrages; we have crippled our ability to respond thanks to the goodness of our societies, our kindness towards strangers, our tendency to paralysis through analysis, by trying to anticipate every outcome, every consequence of what we might do--a hopeless task.

There at times when you must just act.

Before we get ourselves into a Bastiat-style discussion of the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of killing QS, let's remind ourselves of some basics. Soleimani deserved to die for the terrorist horrors he has inflicted on the world for the past 25 or so years. He was a prolific mass and serial murderer. There are times when such people just have to be removed, damn the consequences. Would we have desisted from killing Hitler out of concern for the power vacuum his death might leave at the top of the Reich? For fear that his death might energize the Nazi war machine even further? No, no way. Hitler deserved to die, and in a horrible manner. Soleimani, and his evil companions, deserved to become ropa vieja on that Baghdad highway.

Now, some "niceties."

I have been angered, though not surprised, by some of the idiotic negative commentary on Trump's order to shoot. Trump did not need to consult with the Congress or anybody else before giving that order. Soleimani was a uniformed enemy combatant active on a foreign battlefield, directing and implementing operations against US personnel and institutions, e.g., the Embassy. QS had a LONG, LONG history of conducting lethal operations against US and other Western targets, using largely proxy forces. At the time of death, he was in Iraq meeting the leader of one of those proxy militias, the one which had just attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad, and preparing further actions against us. He was not some random civilian Iranian government official whom we assassinated in his home in Tehran. He was a military man, conducting a covert military mission against us outside of Iran's territory. His killing is no more an illegitimate act than say that of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto or of US General Simon Bolivar Bruckner, Jr.

Now, the consequences.

Sure, the Iranians are angry and humiliated. They were convinced that we would not do anything directly to them and that we would be content with killing a few lowly proxy militiamen. They were wrong. Trump is not Obama; he is not going to ship them $1.5 billion in cash and gold in the dead of night in the vain hope of appeasing the Persian Moloch, getting a worthless piece of paper promising that Tehran will cease and desist with (fill in the blank). He is not the sort to put up with another Benghazi massacre. So, yes, the Iranians have a problem on their hands. They have to decide what to do, knowing that it will in all likelihood provoke another terrifying US response. The whole proxy thing is now a bit threadbare, but they could, out of habit, go back to that and have a proxy conduct some sort of operation against US forces, civilians, diplomats, etc. They could launch an attack in London, or Paris, or New York using the "sleeper cells" made possible by idiotic Western immigration policies. They could try some sort of cyber attack. They could launch ship-killing missiles in the Gulf aimed at shutting down marine transit through Hormuz. There are lots of things they might do, many of those were ones they were already doing.

All that, well, is for them to decide: weigh the pros and the cons of an action.

As far as we are concerned, however, we should not wait. We need to be preemptive, and I don't mean just issuing warnings or stepping up security at Embassies and airports. I would hope that the President is being handed a list of options for further action as needed. Now is the time for the President or the Secretary of State to go on the air and tell the Iranians the sorts of things we are considering. Sometimes being secretive is not useful.

Now is the time openly to tell the Iranians that we do not want war, but they should want it much less. We should openly tell them that we will dismantle their oil production, their ability to generate electricity, to distribute water, to conduct financial operations, etc. We should tell them that their navy and air force are forfeit in the case of an action against us, and that we will degrade their ability to conduct all types of military operations. We will smash their proxy forces without mercy. On the other hand, we are open to talks with Tehran and stand ready to discuss all topics without preconditions. Meet us.

We also should quietly, once the current cloud of dust settles, tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving. They are not worth the life a single American.

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Blue Dog Joe Sacrifices Blue Collar Americans: Maybe Hunter Can Help?

Just a quick one as I write something else on 2020.

I see that Uncle Joe Biden, the "lunch-pail" Democrat, the man who is a blue collar wearing worker at heart, the man who grew up around coal miners, the man who is the Democrats' "moderate" island in a sea of leftist lunacy, etc., has been at it again.

In a recent "debate," Blue Collar Joe said he would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs in pursuit of the Green New Deal. Generous of him. What a great "sacrifice" for him. Now he has advice for the coal miners he would put out of work, which is, I kid you not, "learn to code." Maybe he should "learn to code" given how his political fortunes are shaping up . . . but I digress.

It seems to me that these coal miners know a lot about the energy industry, and that perhaps Joe and Hunter could help them get jobs with a Ukrainian energy company . . .  the miners seem more qualified than Hunter . . . just saying. "Burisma here they come!" Good campaign slogan for Joe . .  .

I would love for some "journalist" or just some average American to ask Joe about that . . . just a suggestion.