Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Merry Christmas and the Gift of Sanity

As a fat, rumpled, and crumpled old Jew, I want to wish a genuinely Merry Christmas to one and all.

For me the greatest thing we could do for all of us in the coming year is to restore sanity in our beloved and beleaguered Republic. Let's all work on giving the nation the gift of practical and common sense for which the USA was once well known.

All the best.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

On Cuba: Do You Trust Obama?

As readers of this blog know, I have little to no regard for the current occupant of the White House. I see him as the most ignorant, uncultured in every sense of the word, and destructive President in the long history of our now much beleagured Republic. As far as I can tell, what thoughts he has are shaped by some superficial reading and understanding of Marxist-tinged tracts and slogans, the classic progressive disdain for America and its achievements, and a strong sense of entitlement, all glued together with a mighty dollop of Chicago-style race and class politics. He has little to no understanding of America or of the world.  His speeches are loosely linked bumper sticker slogans, progressive fantasies, and, frankly, just lies. He has no concept of leadership or management, having never had a real job in the real world. He relies on a political base made up of an elite of America-haters, and a mass of low-information dolts who also think in bumper sticker terms--many of these dolts products of our decrepit "higher" educational system. He, however, is what we've got as President: a sad, sad day for America and those around the world who believe in and struggle for freedom.

I wrote before some preliminary thoughts on Obama's announcement on relations with Cuba. I noted then that his speech showed the typical ignorance of what passes for elite thought in America these days: the speech-writers are either woefully ignorant of the history of Cuba, Castro, and our foreign policy of the past sixty years, or just decided to lie and rewrite it. Either or both are possible in this misadministration.

Let's review some basics. Fidel Castro was an enemy of the US and of freedom well before the Bay of Pigs. A Communist whose firing squads killed thousands of opponents at home, he tried to export his brand of violence throughout the Americas well BEFORE the Bay of Pigs took place, much less the establishment of the so-called "embargo." In other words, his hostility to the USA and freedom did not result from our actions against his regime--this despite Obama's attempt at establishing some sort of "equivalency." His brother, Raul, now President of Cuba, likely was a KGB asset since at least the mid-1950's. Raul, by the way, was the hit man for the brothers, having personally killed several people. He, however, was willing to live in the shadow of his narcissistic, charismatic, flamboyant, and articulate sibling; whether Raul believed or believes in anything in particular other than power is an unknown. It seems unlikely, for example, that he has a mastery of Karl Marx's obtuse mumbo-jumbo, or that he takes seriously his brother's pretensions of being a great intellectual. Raul was Frank Nitti to Fidel's Al Capone, with apologies to Nitti and Capone. That Raul is now stepping out from his brother's shadow has to mean that Fidel is no longer a major player in decision-making.

For nearly six decades it has been the foreign policy of the United States to oppose the Castro regime, with varying degrees of success which one can debate for hours on end. The one constant throughout the years was our insistence that for a "normalization" of relations, the Castro regime had to give up support for terrorism, stop "exporting" the revolution, and respect basic human rights at home, including allowing the development of a democratic process. Has that happened? You decide, but I vote "no."

Let us not forget that we had a major "breakthrough" in US-Cuban relations previously. Obama, of course, did not bother to acknowledge Carter in this respect and that whole effort seems to have been wished away into the cornfield. We established an interest section in Cuba in 1977, and Cuba one in the USA. Did things get appreciably better between the US and Cuba, or for the Cuban people? Ask the murdered Brothers to the Rescue for their view on that . . . In other words, despite all the prattling on about how great it is to establish diplomatic relations, there is no guarantee--as we saw in the case of recognizing Soviet Moscow back in the 1930s--that with setting up formal embassies bilateral relations will get any better than now, or that, somehow, our values will creep in and turn Communists into capitalists and Jeffersonian democrats. What I can assure you is that Cuba will have a much better espionage base than it now does. Guaranteed.

Ah, but China, you say, what about the China model? Nixon's rapprochement with China came at a particularly bad time for the US at home and abroad. It seemed that the Soviets were on the winning side of history. The Nixon-Kissinger move towards Beijing was a brilliant--albeit cynical--move to outflank the USSR, our main enemy and the only enemy we have faced in modern times who could have destroyed our homeland. It let the Soviets know that we no longer believed--at last!--in the unity of the Communist bloc. In retrospect it was the beginning of the end for the Soviet empire, something most did not fully recognize at the time. We, of course, can debate whether in the long-run our relations with China have proven a net plus, but that we can do another day.

What do we get from "normalizing" relations with Cuba? Not clear. Why did Obama put us in the position of being the ones asking and willing to give things up? Who needs "normalization" more, the Castros or us? I understand what Raul thinks he will get, e.g., access to credit, easier trade terms, less reliance on Venezuela and its preposterous Chavista revolutionary preening, entry into the OAS and international financial organizations and programs, and an easier flow of remittances and tourist dollars at a very rough moment for the regime. We and the Cuba people get . . . what? What was the rush? Why could not the President have waited for the new Congress, laid out his arguments and created a bipartisan approach if he thought a normalization with Cuba was due. No. That would require leadership and a genuine concern for American interests. Both of those traits are sorely lacking in the current White House. Instead, as with immigration, he creates a complicated mess, at home and abroad, which requires the Oracle of Delphi to decipher. He turns the issue into a bipartisan conflict. It seems unlikely that the GOP-controlled Congress will accede to the demand for a complete lifting of the embargo in exchange for nothing. I suspect that at least some Democrats, already gun-shy from the pounding they received in the last midterms, will be reluctant to be in the front rank of Obama's latest version of Pickett's Charge.

Bottom line: I don't trust this President (see opening paragraph).

If we had a George Bush, a Mitt Romney, a Richard Nixon, a Harry Truman, oh hell, just about anybody else short of Henry Wallace in the White House, I might be willing to go along with a "normalization" in the understanding that we had a plan of action to pursue after "normalization." Does anybody genuinely believe that the Obama/Kerry/Jarrett/Rice misadministration has a plan to further US interests and to do something concrete about the deplorable state of human rights in Cuba? The Congress better grab hold of this fast and have a reasonable discussion of pros, cons, and in-betweens.

More in the days ahead.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Castros Pull It Off, Again? Some Preliminary Thoughts

I broke my vow never to listen to an Obama speech; I listened to the one he gave on Cuba. I also listened to the matching speech given by Raul Castro. I am going to write about Cuba here, but I ask readers to pardon a bit more than usual incoherence on my part. I am still conflicted and uncertain about the effects of what was announced today, so I will be thinking aloud. I reserve the right to change my mind, or better said, to make up my mind.

Part of my problem is that I have been very close to the Cuba issue for years. I dealt with Cuban issues directly at the UN, at the OAS, at Southern Command, and had dealings with many Cubans, both Castroites and the victims of Castro. I have lots of Cuban friends. I have seen the DGI--Cuba's very good intel service--up close and I abhor it and the thugs it employs. I have written a great deal about my experiences and views on Cuba and don't want to repeat all that. I certainly don't want to be Obamesque and make this about me; I am just laying out for you that I have issues when dealing with Cuba, ones that make it hard for me to be dispassionate.

My biggest issue is that I see the Castro brothers as evil monsters who have subjugated and brought ruin to a wonderful country, and done it with the tacit approval of the bien pensants around the world. Prior to 1959, Cuba was not some dirt-poor plantation as it has been portrayed by the Castros, Hollywood, and their many other apologists. It was a country with a remarkable cultural and economic level. Remember that before 1959, Cuba had an IMMIGRATION problem, that is to say, it was having a hard time coping with all the people from Europe and elsewhere who wanted to come to Cuba. My own in-laws in Spain made considerable money exporting high-end baby clothes to the Cuban middle class. Cuba had world-class doctors, engineers, poets, businessmen, and thinkers. It had a standard of living that was by some measures second only to that of the USA in the Western Hemisphere--it had a standard of living considerably higher than that in most of Europe and all of Asia.

Cuba, however, failed in the political sphere, suffering through a succession of corrupt and inefficient governments since independence in 1898--that is why so many members of the quite ample Cuban middle class initially supported the Castros, getting taken in by their anti-corruption and Jeffersonian rhetoric. The Castro brothers, of course, had another agenda. They wanted total power, to bring violent revolution to the Americas, and to develop a model socialist state of "New Men" in Cuba. They certainly achieved the first, failed at the second, and brought only poverty, imprisonment, and misery to Cuba's men and women, "new" and old. From being one of the richest countries in America, that island is now one of the poorest countries in America; it has gone from an importer of people to an exporter of people. ¡Con la Revolución todo es posible!

The brothers proved lucky and brilliant at staying in power and pulling victory, or at least survival, from the jaws of impending destruction. They were masters of the Hail Mary. They dodged the first big bullet in 1961, when the feckless JFK abandoned La Brigada on the beach. They survived the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when after Castro threatened the destruction of the United States with Russian Missiles, in exchange for Nikita Khrushchev's agreeing to remove those missiles, the JFK administration agreed not to topple the Castro regime. In the 1990's, they even survived the collapse of the Soviet bloc and found in Chavez's Venezuela a fawning benefactor who helped make up the loss of Soviet aid. The brothers were masters at eliminating those in their inner circle who seemed to step outside their assigned roles as cheerleaders for the brothers: Che, Ochoa, dozens of others met fates including exile, firing squads, and long prison terms. All the while the United States could not make up its mind what to do about the Castros and their revolutionary pretensions. The rest of the West, and eventually all of the Latin America, decided to do nothing and went along with the regime in Havana out of fear, cowardice, indifference or as a cheap way to defy the gringos. The much ballyhooed American "embargo" was always a half-baked affair, never fully enforced, and riddled with loopholes, and often defied.  The rest of the world had no intention of imposing an embargo, so while it was true, for example, the regime could not buy Fords and Chevrolets, it had no difficulty buying Toyotas and VWs, using dollars often sent by the Cuban exile community. The "boycott" served primarily to give the Castro brothers an excuse for the grotesque failings of socialism in Cuba. When Senator Helms tried to give the boycott some teeth, his efforts were sabotaged by the White House and the State Department. Within little time, the US was actually Cuba's third or fourth largest (depending on the year) trading partner. Some boycott.

Now to the speech by Obama. It was a clever speech designed for people who don't know the full history of Cuba since 1959 or the nature of US-Cuban relations. The speech gave away the leftist bias of its drafters with the nonsense equating "colonialism" and "Communism." What colonialism was Castro Communism fighting? Cuba had been independent for sixty years when the brothers took over; one of their first acts was to turn the country into a colony of the Soviets. Communism and colonialism went hand-in-hand, no opposition, no clash. Obama's speech sought "balance" by blaming both Cuba and the US for the state of relations. Nonsense. The Castros were and are murdering thugs who have never hesitated to kill anybody in their way whether at home or abroad. Castroite firing squads were operating at full speed even during the honeymoon period with the USA, when the NY Times was writing fawning pieces about Fidel Castro.

My first thought on hearing Obama talk about the need to get past colonialism and Communism was that he was channeling his father's anti-British obsessions. Cuba as Kenya. Much like Obama's immigration speech, it is not at all clear what we are getting. Alan Gross, who should never have been detained, has been released as has a long-imprisioned intel asset. In exchange, we freed the Cuban agents who helped set up the murder of American citizens. There is a further loosening of currency and travel restrictions. The speech, of course, will upend years of established American positions and lead, for example, to the entry of Cuba into the OAS without meeting any of the requirements laboriously worked out, e.g., a functioning democracy with full respect for human rights.

Raul Castro's speech was very short and to the point. None of the flowery phrases that his older brother would have used. Very business-like. No discussions of colonialism and Communism, and, above all, no promises to do anything in particular except to keep talking to the US. The impression I got was that he felt he had just pulled off another Hail Mary. Just as Chavez/Maduro Venezuela collapses along comes Obama . . .

This is getting a bit long and I will end it here with the observation that it is now up to Congress to decide what to do with this jumble dropped on its doorstep by Obama. The "embargo," what's left of it, is now in the hands of Congress, and Obama can go back to leading from behind.

I will have more to say in the coming days as my thinking clarifies.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Imagine . . .

Not along the lines of John Lennon's silly song, but just imagine a morning where you wake up and do not have to hear or read about another atrocity carried out in the name of Islam . . .

With its savage attack on school children in Peshawar, the Taliban has done what Muslim groups all over the world do every day, to wit, prove that Western civilization is superior to the alternatives.

Now, of course, we all know that the real threat to humanity is a couple of Israeli apartment buildings being put up on the outskirts of Jerusalem and the CIA's water boarding of a handful of top terrorists.

We must keep our priorities in order, of course, lest our progressive overlords get angry with us . . .

Monday, December 15, 2014

Sydney Siege, Muslim Immigrants and Male Privilege

As I write this the news is coming through that the Australian services have put an end to the hostage taking in a Sydney cafe. It seems, from press reports (caution), that the hostage-taker is dead as are at least two of the hostages. Seen from here, the Australian authorities played it right. When it became obvious the hostage-taker was not going to be talked out, they sent in the special units who handled the matter as Aussies generally do, i.e., with skill and courage.

A few thoughts come to mind.

Again, we must note that the hostage-taker was a Muslim, an Iranian Sunni refugee. He benefitted from the generosity of Australia, and proved himself--according to the press--a perennial and serious trouble-maker during his 15 or so years in Australia. He finally paid back his adopted country with violence and murder. He undertook his actions in Sydney in response to the political dictates of his totalitarian and intolerant creed.

I thought it odd to hear journalists wondering about the gunman's motivations when he was forcing hostages to hold up a banner that read, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet," and demanding that the cops deliver to him a proper ISIS flag. Wonder what was his inspiration? Only a journalist or some other member of the progressive clan could and would pretend not to know.

It gets worse. The situation had not yet been resolved, we did not know if any hostages would get out alive, and the progressives began their mau-mauing with stories about how this situation made Muslims in Australia feel uneasy: they worried about how they would be treated--you know the always present "blacklash." I guess they feel "uneasy" because, well, you know there was that famous anti-Muslim pogrom that took place in Australia back in, uh, well, uh . . . what utter nonsense.

Some more thoughts, and any reader, especially Australian, who thinks I am off my meds, please chime in and let me know.

A general observation. As I noted before, a couple of months back, the Australians announced that their intel and law enforcement agencies had broken up a plot to attack Parliament in Canberra. The usual experts chimed in, pooh-poohing the whole thing, doubting that ISIS or AQ could carry out such operations around the world. As we saw, however, a few days after the break-up of the Australian-based plot, there was one with eerie similarities that took place in Canada, where a Muslim gunman did attack the Canadian Parliament. I have noted before that groups such as ISIS or AQ or whatever they call themselves on any given day, do not need a vast logistical network slipping supplies and instructions to agents. They have something much better. They have the globalized media--both traditional and "social"--that transmit messages and images, and a bunch of Western countries with insane immigration policies that allow these murdering terrorists to live and thrive in the midst of tolerance. How does Australia--or Canada, or the UK, or the USA--benefit from taking in thousands and thousands of Muslim immigrants? Would we have knowingly taken in thousands and thousands of Nazis into our countries in the midst of WWII, or Communists during the Cold War? Is the war against the jihadis less lethal?

Speculation. I have never been--alas!--to Sydney. Judging, however, from the photos and video of the hostage situation, it seems that the Lindt cafe sits in a pretty nice part of town as would befit a Swiss chocalatier. The cleintele appear to be upper-middle class, primarily female, many non-white, and apparently all very professional. I am pretty sure that these are folk of a progressive bent, who probably find much of the popular culture of Australia or America embarrassing, are, nevertheless, remarkably tolerant of other cultures, are strong supporters of immigration, and are probably not the kind who voted for Tony Abbott. If the Lindt cafe is anything like Starbucks or some of the other upscale cafes we have in the USA near universities or other centers of progressive "thought," I am sure you could overhear conversations about "white male privilege," or the "patriarchy," etc.

Just want to note that the folks who had to risk their lives by breaking into the cafe and killing the gunman were white working class males exercising the privilege to protect their fellow citizens.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Awash in a Sea of Progressive Lies

These past few days have been incredible, literally incredible. We have been subjected to a concentrated barrage, nay, a flood, a tsunami, hell, an ocean of progressive lies. Really quite remarkable.

So many lies, so hard to know where to start (Note: I am having trouble with the LINK function, so this will be a no-footnote rant--but the material on which it is based is not hard to find).

Let me start with Michael Brown. The evidence presented the grand jury has been released. How can any rational human being read that stuff and not conclude that the policeman, Darren Wilson, was plainly within his rights to use lethal force against the rampaging giant thug Brown? The whole story of "hands up" was as false as false can be. Made up. It, however, fit the endless movie loop running in the heads of the progressive mountebanks who dominate our media and entertainment industries, and fit in nicely with the narrative of the race hustlers and corruptocrats who comprise this misadministration in Washington. The truth doesn't matter. It could have been true, and besides, we all know this happens all the time and is not reported, so what if it didn't happen this time? The innocent citizens brutalized and ruined by rampaging Democrat incited lynch mobs? Well, they are the collateral damage produced by an unjust society. Next time, officer Wilson should let himself be killed for the greater good. The lie serves the truth, don't you know?

Then we go to the University of Virginia gang rape case. Rolling Stone ran a lurid and detailed account of a gang rape on the UVa campus carried out by a gaggle of good ol' frat boys in keeping with a long-established initiation ritual which had been kept secret for decades. Right. Unfortunately for the progressives, the new media is not in the grips of those progressives, not yet, and a thousand beams of light were cast on this horrid little tale, and guess what? The story is not true. In the meanwhile, however, the politically correct authorities at UVa had shut down the fraternities and a hunt was on for the horrid frat boys who had committed this horrid crime. The story is not true? Oh, but that doesn't matter, you see, because rape is rampant on US campuses, and greatly under-reported, so the truth in this instance does not matter, because it could have happened, and it provides a teaching moment for reflexion. (How do we know rape is rampant and under-reported? Well, uh . . . You hate the victims!)  The suspension of due process, the smearing of dozens of innocent men, and whole organizations? Well, that is just the collateral damage produced by an unjust society, you see. It is all for the greater good. The lie serves the truth, don't you know?

Onward we go to the absurd actress Lena Dunham who has long been held up as a role model for progressive girls and women: This age's Amelia Earhardt, Marie Curie, Mary Shelly! Ok, so she's an admitted pedophile and practitioner of incest, but isn't she so daring in revealing her innermost thoughts and dark secrets? OK, she, too, claimed to have been raped, this time by a Republican (nice touch, that) named Barry while she was at Oberlin. How brave of her to come forward! I am woman, I am strong! Oops . . . the story is not true? The Barry who was at Oberlin is putting together a lawsuit? Well, the story could have been true. So what if it didn't happen this time? Suspension of due process? The smearing of an innocent man? Collateral damage produced by an unjust society. All for the greater good. The lie serves the truth, don't you know?

It goes on and on.

We see the outgoing Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, the absurd Diane Feinstein, release an wildly inaccurate report on CIA "torture." Blame Bush! Can't get enough of that! A report drafted exclusively by left-wing Democratic staffers, who never bothered to interview anybody, or acknowledge that the Democratic Congress was briefed on all of this years ago, is hailed as a "bomb shell"! It rehashes old and discredited stories of the suffering by the poor AQ terrorists at the hands of the CIA and friendly services. My heart bleeds for them, I tell you. The same Senate that seems eager to denigrate those who did the tough job of protecting our country, is not at all interested in investigating the outrageous Fast and Furious scandal which saw hundreds of Mexicans and at least two US federal agents killed by guns deliberately supplied by the Obama DOJ to the drug cartels in furtherance of the anti-second amendment narrative. Mexican lives matter! Well,  only if they are on this side of the border and voting Democrat. The lie serves the truth . . .

The Feinstein report, of course, got released at the same time that the Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was getting grilled by the House, especially by the remarkable Trey Gowdy. Gruber is a liar who participated in one of the great lies of our time, Obamacare, which is bringing economic devastation to millions all in the name of helping millions. So what if the premises of Obamacare weren't true? They could have been. The lie serves the truth . . . you can fill in the rest. I am going outside to sit with my dogs and watch them tear apart some new and expensive "indestructible" plush toys I just bought them.

So many lies . . .

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Extrajudicial Execution of a Capitalist in New York

I was planning on taking a break from blogging for a couple of weeks, but things happen on which I want to comment. Lately those things have been mostly of a domestic nature, which was not the original intent of this humble blog. But, that's the way it is.

My thoughts on the Ferguson case are quite clear. I think Michael Brown was a giant thug--who happened to be black--who had robbed a convenience store, assaulted the Asian owner of that store, and then went on to assault a cop--who happened to be white--and try to take his gun. Brown paid for his arrogant and brutal stupidity with his life. The grand jury acted correctly in refusing to indict police officer Wilson despite the enormous pressure brought to bear by extrajudicial actors such as the Democrat-led lynch mob in the streets, the ever-more disgraceful Attorney General, our completely hopeless President, and the echo-chamber mass media. The system worked.

I now turn to the Eric Garner case in New York. I am not sure that the system worked in that case. According to the press--and that's all the info I have--we have a man by the name of Eric Garner, who happened to be black, killed in the process of being arrested by a gaggle of NYPD reenacting Swift's Lilliputians tying down Gulliver.

You can see in the video that Garner, a very large man, is being wrestled to the sidewalk by several much smaller cops, one of whom has a hold on his neck. I don't know if it was technically a "chokehold," but it did consist of the cop's arm across Garner's neck. He falls and you can hear him gasp, "I can't breathe!" Apparently his last words or close to them. It is also not clear that Garner was resisting arrest. I acknowledge that different people can look at the video and reach different conclusions; I, however, am not convinced that he was resisting.  To me, he looked confused and uncertain as to what the cops wanted him to do.

What bothers me a great deal is that Garner had not robbed or assaulted anybody, much less an armed cop. He was neither Michael Brown nor that other thug, Trayvon Martin. His crime? Selling loose cigarettes to passers-by, thereby, depriving the city of a few cents of tax revenue. He died for selling loose cigarettes; he died for not paying a few cents in taxes to the Progressive New York City Leviathan cum Tony Soprano.

Garner was a victim of progressivism's lethality, and shared that fate with millions of other persons around the world. That NYC, my old home town, can afford to send at least eight or nine vastly overpaid and over-equipped cops to bust and kill a guy for selling cigarettes tells us all we need to know about the state of progressive governance in our horribly misled, once great, and former Republic.

Saturday, November 29, 2014


If anybody ever doubts there are wonderful things in this world . . . .

Behold! Need say no more.

Ready to Roll!

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Happy Thanksgiving

We will going off just like the Pilgrims to have dinner with the Indians . . . at the local Indian casino, that is. Some of the kids will be joining, not sure how many.  As I have mentioned before, the casino buffet gives my wife a chance to avoid turkey and other things with feathers. So that is what we will do.

I am sure we will have a much better time than the poor folks in Ferguson who are watching their town destroyed by "protestors" doing their bit for the progressive agenda.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Democrats Doing What They Do Best: Lynch Mobs

A quick note on Ferguson.

The Grand Jury has refused (rightly so) to indict police officer Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. This normally would be a little story. Not much new, unfortunately: stoned street thug who happens to be black robs convenience store and then assaults police officer who happens to be white and who shoots him dead.

Our Imperial President, his Attorney General, and the liberal/progressive media spin machine, however, couldn't leave it alone. Instead of reporting something along the lines of how unfortunate it was for a young man to die because of his stupid actions, they turned it into a race war. We now see the consequences of what that means on the streets of Ferguson, and, I suspect, soon in other cities. Frustrated in their attempts to generate racial war with the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman incident in Florida, the progressives returned to the battle in Ferguson. They have succeeded this time. People will die for nothing except to further the progressive narrative.

We shouldn't be surprised. The Democrats have been organizing and leading lynch mobs for 150 years.

Lynch mobs were originally led by white Democrats; now they are led by black Democrats.

In the progressive mind, that is progress!

Sunday, November 23, 2014

The Emperor Tells A Joke?

Well, the Anointed One, the Healer of the Planet, the Master of Hope and Change, Barack Caesar Obama, Emperor of the USA, has issued his "edict" on immigration "reform." While, of course, we all want to bow down and obey -- for such is the state of affairs in our former Republic -- the Emperor, in fact, is having a little fun with us all. To quote Gertrude Stein, "there is no there there."

A few words on context.

With HM Barack, context is the most important issue. Over the past six years, he has built an Empire of Lies. He is a calculating teller of tall tales. These whoppers have a major purpose, actually a couple. The lies, of course, hide the real agenda behind whatever Obama is up to at that particular moment, and they serve to distract from his previous lies when the prior lies are coming to the end of their lifecycle. It is a never-ending cycle of lies to cover lies to cover lies. It exhausts his opponents. He wears them down. The fog of bore.

Think back over the years of Obama lies. It's hard to remember them all. His upbringing? Solyndra? Fast and Furious? Definition of marriage? Unemployment and deficit figures? IRS scandal? Benghazi? Obamacare? There are lots of others which you can fill in. Now we have immigration.

For years HM Barack told us that he did not have the power to alter our immigration system because he is not "emperor." Such a kidder our Supreme Ruler is! He strung along the Latino lobby for years, until just right after the disastrous midterm elections. Then--Suddenly!--it was imperative, urgent, not a moment to be lost in "reforming" the broken immigration system! The drubbing in the midterms coincided in the news cycle with the Gruber videos and the Obamacare architect's smug gloating over how he and HM Barack had fooled the stupid voters. Obamacare was built on a mountain of lies and even the "stupid ones" had begun to figure it out. So now we urgently must stop discussing the Obamacare fraud and turn to discussing immigration. It is imperative!

So what did our Beloved Leader say about immigration? What is his reform of our creaky system? In two words, "generate confusion." The speech really says nothing. Look at it carefully. He offers lots of platitudes and "little" lies--e.g., our border is secure--but no reform proposals. There is no reform in his reform; no there there. After making the obligatory bow in the direction of those immigrants who played by the rules, and blathering on about accountability and the need to respect the law, he offers up a half-baked proposal to reward those who have broken the law. Even there, however, there is no there there.
We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.
The deal is no deal, to paraphrase the great Canadian philosopher Howie Mandel. Does anybody sane think that the horribly managed and thoroughly politicized Department of Homeland Security can run such background checks? I can assure you if this "proposal" takes root, there will be a booming business--as happened back in the 1980s with the ill-conceived "one-time, never-again" amnesty--in fraudulent documents, e.g., rental receipts, water bills, to prove that an applicant has been in country for over five years. Criminal background checks? That alone gives the lie to Obama's earlier boasting about his misadministration's deporting of criminal aliens. If an illegal alien has a criminal record why is that person still in country? If one has a criminal record, why would he or she come forward to "apply" for . . . what exactly? What is being offered? A temporary stay free of deportation? The illegal aliens already have that. State that you're willing to pay taxes? What? Most of these people I am willing to wager do not reach the income level of having to pay taxes. They collect public dole, but they do not and will not pay income taxes.

And then we have the lachrymose story of how,
Astrid was brought to America when she was 4 years old. Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn’t speak any English. She caught up to other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS. And then she became a good student. Her father worked in landscaping. Her mom cleaned other people’s homes. They wouldn’t let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school, not because they didn’t love her, but because they were afraid the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant. So she applied behind their back and got in.
Who believes that? Her parents did not want her to apply to an elite school for fear of what would happen and she secretly applied and--HORRORS!-- she got in. Nothing happened. Nobody got arrested at 3 am and deported. By the way, I think growing up watching PBS to gain knowledge of the world is justification for deportation, but that's just me . . .

The activists will eventually figure out that they have been conned. The ones to watch, however, are the little bureaucrats, the Lois Lerner types who will be interpreting the Great Oracle's pronouncements, as the fine folks at Legal Insurrection have noted with the fate of "secure communities."

Obama has positioned himself so that no matter what happens on immigration he can claim credit for it or disavow it. The speech is a Seinfeld-like masterpiece of nothing, with the spaces left to be filled in by the observer.

Defund DHS.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Barack Caesar Obama Crosses the Rubicon: The End of the Republic Draws Nigh

We all wait with bated breath for the announcement tonight by our New Emperor defying the laws of Congress on immigration and putting paid to the creaky 238 year-old Republic.

Our new Imperial Master shall let us stupid ones know which laws we must obey and which we can ignore in pursuit of new wards of the state and voters for the ruling Democrat party.

Stay tuned for further announcements from the Palace.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Little Bit of This, Little Bit of That: Landrieu and Gruber

Keystone Pipeline Cooks Some Louisiana Fried Chicken

Well, . . . or should I say oil well, or oil's well that ends well? The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed the Keystone XL Pipeline. Good. Let the Republicans do it next January.

Anyhow, I can't help gloating over the Democrats slicing, dicing, grating, AND throwing their colleague, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, under the hybrid bus and doing so on high environmental principle as the New York Times scolds us to remember,
Throughout her Senate career, Ms. Landrieu, a moderate who was known as the oil industry’s best friend in the Democratic Party, has clashed with the liberal environmental wing of her party. 
She has for years pressed for votes on measures that infuriate them, such as expanding offshore drilling, while voting against measures to tackle climate change.
Those lawmakers took to the floor Tuesday to express their opposition to the Keystone pipeline, even as they acknowledged the importance of those votes to Ms. Landrieu’s political fate.
Environmental advocates had spent the week lobbying Democrats to ensure they would oppose Ms. Landrieu’s bill.

NextGen Climate, the advocacy group founded by the California billionaire Thomas Steyer, who spent over $50 million of his own money to back pro-environment Democrats in 2014, also hit supporters with emails asking them to urge senators to vote against the pipeline measure. 
“Today the U.S. Senate decided to stand on the right side of history,” Mr. Steyer said in a statement after the vote. “This is a legacy-defining issue where one’s position signifies whether they are standing up for or against the next generation on the issue of climate.”
I guess in Demo world some billionaires are good and some are bad, even though, of course, Steyer made a big chunk of money from Australia's Maules Creek coal mine. Some carbon is good, some carbon is bad? I can't keep up. I need guidance from the Dear Leader.

Landrieu's chickens have come home to roost and roast. This was her payback for slavishly supporting Reid and Pelosi and Obama. Love it when the sharks eat each other.

I assume this means she will lose the run-off next month, and the GOP will pick up yet another seat. Change You Can Believe In!

More Gruber 

Don't you love how the Dems are squirming under the Gruber magnifying glass? I really love how they're denying he was a big player in the Obamacare disaster. Just for fun, before it gets erased, go to  and enter the words "Jonathan Gruber" in the SEARCH box. Go ahead. Read all the stuff put out by Gruber which the White House used over and over while pushing Obamacare. Amazing for a guy they now have never heard of . . .

Friday, November 14, 2014

On Stupidity: The Obamacare "Architect" Lets Us in on the Joke

OK. By now we all have heard the "off the cuff" comments by Obamacare "architect" MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber boasting about how he and a cabal of progressives, such as then Senator John Kerry,  fooled the American people into buying Obamacare. The video recordings of him bragging about how the "economic illiteracy" of the American people helped get Obamacare through have gone viral. Even the Washington Post, yes, THAT newspaper, is now reporting on the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars that Gruber made as a "consultant" on Obamacare, and that the media and others accepted his numbers and statements on Obamacare as objective.

But did he "fool" anybody? Hearing him talk reminded me so very much of staff meetings at State where the nation's "best and brightest" were devising ways to package a policy so that it would, in essence, fool everybody into thinking it was one thing when, in fact, it was another. Progressives end up fooling only themselves when they think that they are so clever and that the "great unwashed" will never catch on.

Nobody I know was fooled by the arguments in favor of Obamacare. Polls consistently showed a supermajority of the American people against Obamacare. The only ones for it were those who thought--maybe correctly--that they would get something for free for which "others" would pay.

The progressives arguing in favor of Obamacare, in fact, were either stupid or dishonest. That is the choice they have. The rest of us know and knew it as a scam. Had the American people been allowed to vote on Obamacare, and not just a cabal of dishonest and stupid politicians under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi, is there any doubt what would have happened to it?

It is imperative that the new Republican Congress keep quoting Gruber and launch a relentless effort to dismantle the Obamacare abomination.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

And these People Will Confront Putin, Lavrov, etc.?

Just got back from my brief visit to DC. Found this wonderful piece sitting in my in-box thanks to an agent of the vast Diplomad underground which exists at State. This, folks, is real. This is not some satire or faked-up notice. This is a real unclassified State Department memo.

And so it has come to this . .  .

Office of Origin:   MED/EX
Announcement Number:   2014_11_048
Date of Announcement:   November 6, 2014

Workplace Bullying Supervisor’s Support Group

The Office of Medical Services
Employee Consultation Services Presents

WHEN:          1st group January 6, 2015
                        (1st Tuesday of the month thereafter)
WHERE:       HST Ralph Bunche Library, 3rd Floor Conference Rm 3239
TIME:            12-1pm 
The purpose of this self-help group is to offer support to supervisor’s who believe they have been bullied in their work environment. The focus of this group is to provide resources and information sharing in a confidential setting.  Please join us in sharing experiences, ideas, support and resource information; or just listening.
Benefits of a support group:
·         realizing that you are not alone and others may be experiencing the same issues
·         members support each other and may suggest new ways of dealing with a particular problem
·         feeling less lonely or isolated
·         emotional support
·         problem solving support
The group will be facilitated by Ms. Jacqueline Pouncy-Smith, LCSW Clinical Social Worker– MED/ECS/EAP.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Ms. Pouncy-Smith at 703-516-1582 or email
These sessions are open to all federal employees at the Department of State.  Registration is not necessary; however, space is limited to 15.
To request a sign language interpreter, please contact  

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Going Dark for a Few Days

Off to DC to see my son sworn in to the DC bar.

Yes, yes, just what Washington DC needs, another lawyer . . . I know, I know.

I will take my creaky ol' IPAD with me, but you know how that goes.

I can't wait to see all the morose and depressed Dems.

I might even play a little Wagner outside the White House: Götterdämmerung!

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

GOPsmacked: Obama Loses Big

As of this writing, it seems the GOP will pick up 8 Senate seats, with the very real possibility of one more next month in the Louisiana run-off, plus another 10 to 12 seats in the House, including for the terrific Mia Love in Utah. In addition, the Republicans won governorships in traditionally "progressive" states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and--surprise!--Maryland where the Democrat candidate had Obama campaign for him. That means the GOP will have comfortable majorities in both chambers, and a solid grip on most state governments.

It was a bad night for Obama and the Democrats. It was a big night for the GOP.

That's good.

Was it, however, a good night for conservatives and the desperate fight to defend individual liberty? I hope so, but don't know.

So we must ask, now, what?

The medium- and long-term trend lines remain negative for those who hold to the founding principles of this country. The continuing expansion of government at all levels; the deliberate promotion of mass immigration from very poor countries; and the dumbing down of education, all form part of the progressive plan to keep power. Progressives need an ill-informed and dependent rabble of poor and young people, a docile echo-chamber media, and an elite cadre of cynical well-off bureaucrats, lobbyists, and crony capitalists. The Dems have that and their numbers grow.

While we celebrate last night's victory over the progressives, let's also not forget that the Dems do better at getting their people out to vote in presidential election years than in mid-terms. That's one cost of having lots of really dumb voters: they are hard to motivate in "boring" mid-term elections.  In addition, of course, as noted before--here, here, and here--progressives prove quite adept at using outright fraud in voting; the big plan to have hundreds-of-thousands of illegal and legal aliens voting will be firmly in place well before 2016.

At best, we have a two-year window to begin to roll back the most egregious aspects of the past six years of Obamismo. Completely revamping our absurd energy policy must lodge at the top--including freeing up fracking and drilling, getting the Keystone pipeline going, and resurrecting coal. In addition, we can begin taking apart Obamacare piece by piece, starting with the individual and corporate mandates, and freeing up the insurance market to make it compete on a national and even international basis, e.g., why can't I buy health insurance from a Canadian, British, or Australian company? I would advocate, at a minimum, a temporary freeze on all immigration while we figure out what to do with our insane tangle of immigration laws, procedures, and bureaucracies. We need to cut funding for absurdities such as the Departments of Labor, Commerce, Energy, Education, and the obnoxious and toxic EPA; and, at last and at least, get to the bottom of the hideous IRS, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious scandals.

It's a tall order, but the GOP wanted power. They now have it. They better know how to use it, and use it quickly. They and "we the people" confront one of the most arrogant, inflexible, dishonest, and, yes, totalitarian Presidents in our history, a man with a profound disdain for Western values and a deep resentment against the very country that elected him president. It won't be easy to take on him and his claque, but it can and must be done.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

The Vote Next Tuesday

I have written a lot of harsh things about the GOP (here, here, and here, for example). I remain troubled by the party's weakness when confronting the ever expanding size and reach of federal, state, and municipal government. Republicans too easily let themselves get Mau-Maued by the progressive insult and spin machine, and try to appease it by turning against some of the more gutsy members of the GOP, e.g., Senator Cruz, Governor Palin. All that said, almost any Republican politician is better than almost any Democrat politician when it comes to genuine concern for the country and the future we are creating for our kids and grandkids.

As noted before, I am a libertarian with an asterisk. My default setting on nearly every issue is let the people and the free market handle it. I want our number of laws and regulations radically slashed; whole departments of government eliminated; huge tax cuts; an end to the phony "war on drugs," and so on. I don't get too worked up over some social issues that get Republicans tied up in knots. I, however, want government to do what it is supposed to do: keep the country safe from the multiple threats that exist in what is an increasingly insane planet. I want our military and international alliance structure so powerful that no whacky totalitarian or crazed jihadi would think of attacking us or our friends.

I vote Republican because, whatever the flaws of that party, it is overall a far better choice than its principal alternative. The Democratic party has become destructively insane, and gets crazier by the year. It is a threat to liberty. It believes only in government and in a weird view of America as a place that is endlessly in need of more government.

At a bare minimum, we need to get control of Congress and hold the Republicans we elect accountable for stopping Obama in the remaining two years of his reign of error and terror. Obamacare must be killed off; the IRS seriously overhauled and reduced; the Department of Justice needs a radical redo; illegal immigration must be dealt with as the threat to our future which it is; the misadministration's anti-energy policies must be eradicated, etc. Can a Republican Congress do all that? Probably not, but we will never even get started on saving our country if we don't have a Republican Congress.

Elections have consequences. Yes, I would like to see libertarians elected. That's not going to happen. If we squander our vote on libertarians and other well-meaning folks, we end up with Obama and Reid. For all their flaws, I would much prefer Romney and McConnell.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Now for Something (Mostly) Free of Politics

Woke up yesterday with a burning urge to buy a car. So I did. That's what you do when you're retired. I went down to the local Ford dealer and (curse me, if you must) traded my Vette for a just-arrived-that-day brand new black 2015 Mustang GT Premium with the GT performance package, Recaro seats, and a six-speed manual transmission. Precisely the combo I wanted. I refused to consider the 50th Edition "Appearance" Package which consists of a couple of fancy floor mats, a decal, and the Mustang logo on the gas cap all for an extra $1600!

I had to endure some idiocy at the dealer involving a--literally--last minute attempt to slip a $10,000 premium into the price, and some nonsense about my Vette having been in an accident (it has not) and, therefore, having lost much of its trade-in value. I didn't put up with either, and threatened to leave.

In addition, I unleashed my wife--World Champion Haggler--on the obnoxious sales manager, and he soon relented on the premium, the basic price and the attempt to devalue my Corvette trade-in.

I have been enjoying driving the new beast around town. It's probably not as fast as my ol' Vette--few cars are--but it handles very well, has great acceleration, steering, braking, and suspension, and looks and sounds very aggressive--love that V-8 rumble. It gets lots of attention and I end up in long conversations with folks about the car. It is also about $40,000 cheaper than the 2014 Stingray I had been considering.

I said this wasn't about politics (mostly) but there're politics involved.

Buying the car you want is an example of freedom. This car is now much more affordable thanks to fracking--opposed by the Obamistas--which has helped (along with some other factors) drive down the price of gasoline considerably. It is a slap in the face to the global warming and nanny-state advocates, and all the progressives who want to destroy fun and individual choice.

Off to cruise the freeways . . .

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Big Election Fraud, Part II

I have written before (herehere, and here, for example) about the Democrats' practice of widespread electoral fraud, including the use of of non-US citizens. I am glad to see that many others are raising the same alarm, e.g., see the always excellent Legal Insurrection.  And, friends, I swear Hell Hath Frozen Over Thrice: even the Washington Post, yes, THAT NEWSPAPER, has "discovered" that non-citizens are voting and might just be the edge the Dems need in certain localities, and that--IT CAN'T BE!--the imbecilic Senator Franken of Minnesota probably owes his seat to the votes of non-citizens.

None of this can come as a surprise to anybody with an IQ greater than Willie Shoemaker's boot size. I have written before that I have served as an election monitor in elections all over the world. Using the standards we employed in that monitoring there is no way that I could certify US elections as free, fair, and open. Electoral fraud is rampant, most notably wherever Democrats are in control. With my own eyes I have seen people casting votes who clearly were not US citizens. The identification process in many if not most of our electoral districts is ludicrous; it comes from a different era, a largely rural era, one in which neighbors all knew each other, and there was a public ethos which labeled electoral fraud as a bad thing.

The ongoing dumping of illegal aliens by the Obama misadministration forms a part of the ongoing Democrat effort to alter permanently the demographic and electoral map of the United States, much as has been done by Labour in the UK. I noted back in January that,
The plot underway is nothing less than to make US citizenship meaningless . . .. 
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security tells us that the eleven million or so illegal aliens in the US have earned the right to be citizens. <...> 
The good Secretary cannot tell us what exactly these people who have broken our laws have done to earn citizenship except to demonstrate an ability to defeat the half-baked efforts of our Keystone Kop immigration services to apprehend and deport them . . . {B}eing a successful outlaw did not form part of the citizenship test when my parents and my wife took it. 
We see calls for amnesty and "pathways" to citizenship coming not only from the usual Democrats and their crony capitalist allies and lobbyists, but from the RINOs who populate the ranks of the GOP. We hear lachrymose speeches about how an illegal alien who fought for our country in the military should have the right to become a citizen--these speakers "forget," of course, that, for now, it is illegal for an undocumented or a nonresident alien to enlist in the US militaryWe do not have Gurkhas. This is a variation on "if they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to vote," and is equally as bogus. 
It gets worse. 
If it were "just" an effort to get citizenship and the benefits and obligations that go with it, it might earn a little more respect from me. It is nothing of the sort. It is a smokescreen for electoral fraud. Citizenship is under assault from another direction, as well. Voting I.D. Yes, that is the main weapon being used and the one which reveals what is really going on. Our Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder tells us that his agency will be very vigilant re attempts by states to use voter identification requirements to "suppress" turn-out. The DOJ has been filing lawsuits against states with voter I.D. requirements (here and here, for example.) The justification? The progs conjure up an imaginary poor rural black too stupid, too poor, and living in such a remote place that he or she just cannot afford or otherwise get valid state identification. Nonsense. Many states offer free identification cards, and, more important, poor, middle class, and rich black people have valid identification documents for driving, buying property, getting bank loans, voting, etc., just like everybody else. Progs have a Hollywood version of race in America which they sell to the willing media, and seek to turn into public policy.
As further evidence of the plot underway, I turn to no less an authority than the California Department of Motor Vehicles. For a variety of personal reasons, I have to establish residence in California (the hit to my State Department pension is considerable!) One of the things I must do is obtain a California drivers' license. In the old days, one could merely swap the out-of-state license for a California one, pay a fee to an unpleasant bureaucrat and be on one's way. Not any more. I must retake the written portion of the driving exam. I, therefore, dutifully picked up a copy of the "California Drivers' Handbook," and like some sixteen-year-old have been poring over this fascinating volume in preparation for the exam --which I can take in some 16 languages. 

Buried in the bureaucratic verbiage was the following (my bolding),
Application Requirements For A Basic Class C Driver License
To apply for a Class C driver license, you must: 
  • Submit a completed and signed Driver License or Identification Card Application (DL 44) form. Signing this form means you agree to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol or drug content of your blood when requested by a peace officer. If you refuse to sign this statement, the DMV will not issue a permit or driver license.
  • Present an acceptable birth date/legal presence document.
  • Provide your true full name.
  • Provide your SSN, if eligible, which will be electronically verified with the Social Security Administration.
NOTE: Pursuant to AB 60 (Ch. 524, Stats. 2013), DMV will begin issuing driver licenses to applicants who are unable to provide evidence of their status in the U.S. As such, requirements for driver licensing will be modified in accordance with the effective date of January 1, 2015.
So basically, my friends, all the identification requirements for a driver license go out the window next January 1. Dear readers, please guess what document one uses in California to register to vote? Anybody? Anybody?

The whole argument about voter ID is now moot. The Dems are going to hand them out right along with the welfare checks to anybody who shows up. Not even Boss Tweed could beat that . . . At one time I had naively thought that a national identification card would be the way to eliminate voting fraud. How foolish of me. The Dems would in no time control the issuing of those cards and then . . . . well, you know the rest.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Murder in Canada: "Experts" Wrong, Again

As I write this, we have not yet heard all the details of the assault on Parliament in Ottawa and the murder of two Canadian soldiers, one by an automobile hit-and-run in Quebec Province and the other in front of the War Memorial in Ottawa. As is usual, one should always take with a grain or two or three or four of salt initial press reports. They almost always have a high inaccuracy quotient brought about by a combination of factors such as, the natural confusion surrounding violent events; media outlets desire to scoop each other which leads to reporting gossip, rumor, and hyperbole as facts; and, of course, the demands of political correctness which force journalists and officials to censor certain and often obvious facts.

What do we know as of this moment?

Islam. That is what we know.

Recent converts to Islam carried out both brutal murders.

As this humble blog has noted re the horrid Lee Rigby beheading in England (here and here), the Kenya Westgate mall massacre (here and here), the Boston Marathon bombings (here and here) the shootings at Ft. Hood, the DC Beltway Sniper (What was his name? Oh, yes, John Allen Mohammed), the Oklahoma beheading and so many more incidents in the US and elsewhere, media, "experts," and officials prove so reluctant to place the blame where it belongs that it is almost comical, well, comical in a horrible sort of perverse manner.

We have the inevitable statements about there not existing a "link" between the particular incident under discussion and international--code for Muslim--terrorists. We have the desperate search for a culprit who is not Muslim: e.g., in the Ottawa shooting we had initial press reports of a Native American gunman. The press gleefully jumps on the fact that many of these crimes were by people born in the countries where they carried out their crimes: e.g., lots of coverage of the Ottawa shooter being Canadian-born.

When some gutsy Western country, such as Australia, pre-empts the killers and breaks up their plot--one strikingly similar to what happened in Canada--well, the "experts" immediately "raise questions" about the ability of ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or some other group to carry out such long-range activities.

Increasingly I am coming to the conclusion that "expert" is just another word for "naive fool."

In addition, we see what I previously called the "rush to exonerate."  Writing about the disappearance of a Malaysian B-777, I noted that,
It would seem that at a minimum police and media would want to shut up about whether this aircraft disappeared because of terrorism. I also wish media and others would stop citing Interpol as some sort of great investigative agency. It is just a collector of data sent on a voluntary basis by police and intel organizations around the world. It is hardly a complete data base. I love the phrase, "there's no evidence to suggest either [passenger] was connected to any terrorist organization."<...> Would terrorists generally use people "known" to be connected to terrorism to board aircraft? The murderous Clown Posse that flew the planes into the Pentagon, the Twin Towers, and the Pennsylvania countryside had no "known" connection to terror groups, or they would not have gotten their visas in the first place.
Whether these killers were born in England, Canada, Australia, Russia, the USA, or elsewhere, they all had one thing in common. Guess. Can you? Try. Yes, they were all "radicalized" to use the oh-so delicate PC phrase in vogue among the progressive bien pensant. In other words these thugs were Muslim, many of them social losers and recent converts to that totalitarian creed.

There is no need for an ISIS indoctrination, logistics line, training, or other support. The Quran and the local mosque provide all that is needed.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Progressive Putrefaction

The ice caps are not melting; the snow in the Himalayas is not melting. The only thing melting is the Obama misadministration.

The Ebola mess provides the latest sign of many that this misadministration is dying right before our eyes. Like a dead Ebola victim, however, the body still presents serious dangers.

Glad to see others catching up with the ol' Diplomad on Obama and ebola (here and here, for example) and on the whole bureaucratic, corrupt, politicized government health industry and lobby.

I see lots of commentators finally realizing--Shock!--that the CDC is not full of dedicated doctors in white lab coats working for humanity. Most are politicized bureaucrats who respond to the dictates of their masters in Washington and to popular fads, e.g., global warming, and are perpetually seeking more money.

I have made the point before that liberalism/progressivism kills,
"Liberals love humanity and hate people." Oh, and by the way, liberals will get you killed. Yes, killed. Modern liberalism kills people, and does so by the millions, all in the name of humanity, of course. It should have a warning label that asks you not to practice liberalism at home, or something along the lines of "I am a trained professional, do not attempt liberalism on your own." 
The current ebola fiasco is a natural outgrowth from the ideology of progressivism and the beliefs of the one-worlders now in control in the White House and the Senate.

The Obamistas hate borders, hate the idea of national defense and national interests, and, let's face it, hate America and the West. They have done everything possible to undermine the West in its struggle with jihadism; they have done everything possible to undermine our ability to defend our borders from a tsunami of people seeking free stuff; and they now have great difficulty defending us from a disease from West Africa. The only thing we know for sure about ebola is that it comes from West Africa--everything else is open for debate. The one thing the government could do right away is a ban on flights, ships, and people from West Africa. That, however, would lead to politically awkward questions about why we can't also defend our southern border from massive illegal immigration; do something about jihadis coming to our shores; and do something about our dysfunctional immigration "system" that serves no purpose except to funnel into America new and poor wards of the state and voters for the Democratic party.

In keeping with the murderous destructiveness of progressivism we now have the ebola "Czar," Ronald Klain.

He is a joke; a second-rate political hack known as the "brains" behind Joe Biden (PLEASE INSERT MERCILESS COMMENTS HERE). He will report to two bosses: the always truthful and oh-so politically tuned-in National Security Advisor Susan "Blame it on a video!" Rice and the hapless political hack Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell. If you are going to appoint an ebola Czar--and this administration has nearly forty Czars on various topics--you don't need a doctor, but you do need somebody who knows how to knock heads, make tough decisions, and transmit a sense of authority, responsibility, urgency, and competence. Can and will Klain do that? No. Lieutenant General Leslie Groves, the man who headed up the incredible Manhattan Project, was not a nuclear physicist, but he certainly knew how to get things done. Klain is no Groves.

Remember: Progressive fantasies will kill you.

Eric Holder and his fantasies about getting rid of the second amendment ended up killing hundreds of Mexicans and two US federal agents with "Fast and Furious." Obama and Clinton with their fantasies about the the Middle East and the nature of Islam killed thousands of people in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have put the West at risk. You can come up with dozens more examples of how deadly progressivism is and always has been. Proceed doing so.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Back from Progressive Land . . .

Made it back.

Avoided infection of the deadly brain-killing progressovirus. Had a few close encounters, but I think I am safe.

Will take up the keyboard shortly.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

On the Road . . .

Heading off on a road trip to the very heart of the liberal virus's "hot zone." Yes, we are heading for northern California. Visit some family.

I will wear my HAZMAT suit the entire trip, and shall avoid bodily fluids from progressives . . .

I am taking my creaky IPAD and might be able to offer a few thoughts in the new few days, but if not, I will be back online next week.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Civil War in the Land of the Pajama Boys: Carter Calls Obama Weak

You know you're in trouble when Carter calls you a weak foreign policy president.

According to an interview given to the Star-Telegram, America's second worst President,
[S]aid it was hard to figure out exactly what President Obama’s policy is in the Middle East. 
“It changes from time to time,” Carter said. “I noticed that two of his secretaries of defense, after they got out of office, were very critical of the lack of positive action on the part of the president.” 
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was the most recent to criticize Obama, in remarks he made to USA Today while promoting his new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace.
Carter acknowledged that the ISIS situation is complicated and he thinks the U.S. waited too long to respond. 
“First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said. “Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.” 
Let us remember that Carter convinced the Soviet Union that we were on the way out, allowed the Soviets and their Castroite stooges to establish themselves in Nicaragua, and helped produce the ongoing disaster in Iran. He lost his own presidency largely because of his foreign policy blunders. Up until now, he routinely has gotten labelled America's Worst President.

We have a new champion!

It is worth noting that Carter has a better grasp of the current situation in Syria and Iraq than does the man who took away his title of America's Worst President.
NRead more here:

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Is Sharyl Attkisson the Only Real Journalist?

Every time I read a piece by Sharyl Attkisson or see her on some talk show or another, I keep wondering how different the world would be if we had another dozen or so like her. She seems to be just about the only journalist not interested in being part of the Obama spin machine, and in seeking the ever elusive Truth. She seems not to pull her punches or to favor one party or political flavor over another. Her pursuit of the truth on Benghazi and Fast and Furious, of course, cost Attkisson her job with CBS, the Clinton  Columbia Broadcasting Service. 

She has an eponymous and outstanding blog which everybody should read.

I mention this because I just read her piece on the enterovirus. She raises a point which I also raised in my much inferior piece of a couple of days ago on ebola. In my little posting, I noted that it is difficult to believe the healthocrats on ebola because of their ineptness in handling all the other "earth-ending" viruses of the past fifteen or so years. I noted, in addition, that political correctness prevents us from taking elementary steps to protect our nation if in fact the ebola virus outbreak is as serious as the healthocrats claim--that is, when they are not claiming that everything is under control. I wrote,
If this virus is, finally, the big one, the one we all have been expecting, then the government should do some simple things such as admit not knowing how it's transmitted, and shut down travel to and from the infected areas until it does. Enforce our immigration laws and put some security at the borders and other points of entry. These things, naturally, won't be done because they are not politically correct. The growing number of cases in the USA of TB and cysticercosis, for example, is just about entirely explained by massive illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America where these nasty diseases are rampant. Political correctness, of course, forbids us from mentioning that. (Emphasis added)

It seems the first casualty in these virus "outbreaks" is the truth. The truth is feared more than any virus and is allowed to die or at least go into remission.
When I wrote the bolded sentences I originally mentioned the enterovirus which is affecting hundreds of US-based children and noted that it is common in Central America. At the last minute, I pulled the reference, as I had no real evidence that there was a link between the enterovirus outbreak and the massive recent influx of Central American illegal children and their dispersal all over the United States by the Feds.

Well, Attkisson is less timorous and a better researcher than I, and stated the following re the enterovirus outbreak,
The CDC hasn’t suggested reasons for the current uptick or its origin. Without that answer, some question whether the disease is being spread by the presence of tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children from Central America admitted to the U.S. in the past year. 
The origin could be entirely unrelated. 
However, a study published in Virology Journal, found EV-D68 among some of the 3, 375 young, ill people tested in eight Latin American countries, including the Central American nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua, in 2013. (See Fig. 3) 
Though the U.S. government is keeping secret the locations of the illegal immigrant children, there are significant numbers of them in both cities in which the current outbreak was first identified, Kansas City, Missouri and Chicago, Illinois, according to local advocates and press reports.
I think she has hit on a big iceberg: Yet another potential and major Obama cover-up of a criminal disregard for the health and safety of the American people. I hope Congress and others begin to question whether there is a link between the massive influx of Central Americans and the sudden outbreak of hundreds of cases of enterovirus infection.

The fact that the Feds are keeping secret the locations of where they dumped these people speaks volumes. I hope Attkisson and others follow up, and remember the CDC is about as politically correct as you can get.

On China: A Re-Run

I wrote the following piece over two years ago. Given what we now see happening in Hong Kong, I think it remains a valid assessment of China's "century."

April 2, 2012

China's Century? Not if We Don't Give It Away

Years ago in Jakarta, I occasionally would meet, lunch, or dine with a husband-wife team of correspondents for two prominent American newspapers. They were very pleasant, had a sense of humor, and a great deal of experience overseas, mostly in Asia. They were well-educated, wrote well, and had the standard liberal biases of their class--e.g., they hated President Bush, hoped John Kerry would win the 2004 election, and viewed the United States as a seriously flawed country on the way to the dust-bin of history. They saw the 21st century "belonging" to China in the same way that the 20th "belonged" to us. They made the usual arguments about China's manufacturing prowess, well-coordinated and determined political class, social discipline, and education--which is the real kind, not the "women's studies" kind. Their writing reflected these views. This narrative continues today from other purveyors of conventional faux wisdom such as the annoying and boring Thomas Friedman, and the condescending and insufferable Fareed Zakaria.

Don't buy it. The 21st will prove "China's century" only if we destroy ourselves; but, if we do, odds are we're taking China with us--and the Chinese rulers know it (more to follow).

I love Chinese history; been to China several times; and like and respect the Chinese people--they work hard, they like Americans, and want to study and live in America. I have dealt with China's very slick, tough, and well-trained diplomats. That said, I have found it impressive over the years to see how China has transformed itself from a poor, brutal authoritarian police state into a poor, brutal, authoritarian police state with large foreign currency reserves. Sorry, but shoddily-built skyscrapers, and streets clogged with Fords, BMWs, Lexus, and Buicks, and lined with luxury stores and restaurants cannot hide the hard facts.

Confucius's 2500-year old Analects still provides an accurate account of China's philosophy of governance in which every person has an assigned role; failure to keep to it has dire consequences. I saw the repression at work in a visit to Tibet which escaped the control of our handlers. Even outside Tibet the legal system, to put it mildly, remains opaque, capricious, subject to political manipulation, and harsh. Avoid Chinese cops--who seem to be everywhere--and courts. For all the vaunted economic progress, control of the legal-political system remains with an unelected and corrupt Communist Party cadre. These rulers have agreed among themselves that not one will have the total power once wielded so disastrously by Mao. The top jobs rotate; major decisions are not made solo. Progress? I don't know. We saw a similar development in the USSR after Stalin: how is the USSR doing these days? The people remain cut out. The elite decide what's best, the people must comply--see Confucius. This secretive, stale, corrupt, aloof, and repressive system remains a major hindrance for China's development as a true power. Despite ham-handed attempts to block outside influence, word spreads of ways to live which do not involve fear and blind loyalty. We probably will not see a Chinese 21st century, but we will see a "Chinese Spring," and it could get nasty.

We hear a lot of heated nonsense about a GOP "war on women." To see a real war on women, go to China. Thanks to Chinese preference for sons, the one-child dictate means females in China are disappearing: they are being aborted, killed, and given for adoption overseas. This is gendercide, a human rights disaster of major proportions and one almost ignored. Moral issues aside, China is heading for demographic disaster. Marrying age men vastly outnumber women. Among those who can afford it, there is a hunt on for foreign brides. Large groups of young Chinese men charter planes to Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere, and hold "speed dating" sessions at local hotels in the hunt for brides, stoking the anti-Chinese hatred which lies just beneath the surface of many Asian societies.

In East Asia, China is deeply feared and resented. East Asian leaders would much rather deal with the United States, and are big proponents of an active US military and economic presence in the area. They do not want China (and previously Japan) as the undisputed big gorilla in the region. As a senior Vietnamese diplomat once told me, "Everybody wants to be American. Nobody wants to be Chinese. Even the Chinese want to be American." This from a man whose father, he said, died fighting the US Marines in Hue, and whose own son was studying in California. Unless you're wealthy and can isolate yourself from Chinese reality, China is an unpleasant place to live for a foreigner, especially one from another Asian country. It has little in the way of "soft power" or uplifting universal values; it does not welcome immigrants, and views foreigners with the same sort of suspicion and disdain that Chinese citizens themselves find in much of East Asia.

Even in the economic sphere there is less than meets the eye. Most Chinese, the overwhelming number of them, live in crushing rural and urban poverty, work under appalling conditions, and suffer levels of environmental pollution and food contamination that no Western society would tolerate. The mass education system is a disaster. Increasingly foreign firms, which, after all, have fueled China's economic growth, are encountering shortages of skilled and semi-skilled workers, and are no longer quite so eager to set up shop in China.

China's banks are a mystery. They are secretive, corrupt, and work closely with the Party and the government. China pursues a policy which will be coming to the end of its rope soon, that of keeping its currency artificially low to keep exports cheap, and try to keep the job creation machine churning. The central bank, which holds the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, must come up with ways ("sterilization") to sop up the currency generated in China by the influx of foreign currency to prevent inflation and prevent the Chinese currency from appreciating against other major currencies. This involves forcing the banks to keep an ever increasing reserve, and forcing them to buy low or no yield government bonds. I am no expert, but the ones whom I know wonder how long that can continue. The experts ignore another aspect to this: 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.

One of the greatest threats to China's future is President Obama. His administration's reckless spending and conjuring of dollars out of thin air is ruining us, and stretching the Chinese ability to "sterilize" the effects of all the dollars pouring in. It is no wonder that Chinese authorities have been lecturing Obama on the need for fiscal restraint and budgetary responsibility. China is tied to our mast. If we sink, they go with us--their billions and billions of dollars in US bonds, worthless. Let's view it as a backhanded compliment to our silly President.

As stated at the outset, China will have as much power and influence as we let them have. China's future as a superpower will be decided in Washington, not in Beijing. Under the Communists, China has not proven an inventive or innovative society; their technological progress is bought, borrowed, copied, or stolen. The USSR tried that, too. They offer no compelling alternative vision to the West's prosperity and freedom. They can try to become a military bully, but that will go only so far in their very complicated neighborhood and with the serious structural and resource weaknesses they suffer.

China should copy and try one thing from the West it has not so far: it works in Japan, in the Republic of Korea, and, ironically, in the "breakaway" Chinese province of Taiwan. I am talking about freedom, the real kind, not the Communist Party kind.

Friday, October 3, 2014

The World is Coming to an End, Again

Almost a year and half ago I wrote,
In the course of my long career with the State Department, I don't know how many times I had to deal with the impending end of the world as declared by the WHO, the CDC, the media, and a host of "experts" who inevitably demanded (and got) more money for their organizations. By now, of course, we all should be dead from AIDS, SARS, swine flu, global warming, depleted ozone layer, mercury in our fish, etc. It, however, would appear from anecdotal evidence that we're not. 
I guess one of these days we might have the real deal. Even the boy who cried wolf eventually got it right, but who (no pun intended) will believe the warnings?
Well, the healthocrats of the world are at it, again.

This time the world will end because of the Ebola virus. The only way to save us, apparently, is to give the healthocrats huge amounts of our money.

Look, I don't know anything about the Ebola virus, but the healthocrats at the WHO, the CDC and the myriad other alphabet health organizations around the world don't either. The virus is not airborne, the virus is airborne; the virus cannot live outside its host, the virus can live for several days outside its host; you can only get Ebola from contact with an infected person's bodily fluids, you might get it other ways, as well; it is not coming to America, it is here and poses a great threat to America, etc.

The healthocrats are talking until they think of something to say. They should do us all a simple favor: Shut up until they know that what they say is true.

If this virus is, finally, the big one, the one we all have been expecting, then the government should do some simple things such as admit not knowing how it's transmitted, and shut down travel to and from the infected areas until it does. Enforce our immigration laws and put some security at the borders and other points of entry. These things, naturally, won't be done because they are not politically correct. The growing number of cases in the USA of TB and cysticercosis, for example, is just about entirely explained by massive illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America where these nasty diseases are rampant. Political correctness, of course, forbids us from mentioning that.

It seems the first casualty in these virus "outbreaks" is the truth. The truth is feared more than any virus and is allowed to die or at least go into remission. The WHO, the CDC, and the other healthocrats have proven so inept and so wrong in the past that they have little to no credibility on Ebola.

What and whom to believe?