"The future ain't what it used to be" -- Tom Petty

The cheery thought in the title of this post was going to be the basis for another rant about everything going to hell. Much of that rant-to-be was inspired by reports that the Washington mall shooter, a Turkish migrant who is not a US citizen, managed, nevertheless, to vote in three elections. Now, since he is a Democrat and a Hillary supporter we can't expect the media to make it much of an issue. Imagine, however, that he had been a white German or Canadian migrant who happened to vote three times and was a Trump supporter. Well, I think the reaction would have been different. I have written quite a bit about this issue of electoral fraud (here, for example) and won't go over it again except to say that our election system is increasingly a farce. Electoral fraud is rampant and getting worse. It is to the point where it can and will affect elections.

Instead of that rant, however, I will write about something else: cars, dogs, and guns. First let me start by saying that the Diplowife and two of the Diplokids are in Spain for a wedding. They went the other day to see a soccer match between Atlético de Madrid and Bayern München, which Atlético won 1-0. Thanks to modern communications, the kids sent me lots of video of them at the game just as a way to remind me that they were having more fun than I.

In an effort to prove that I, too, could have fun, I loaded a couple of my guns into my 1966 Oldsmobile 442 and . . . nothing. Not even a Hillary cough when I turned the key. I had allowed the Diplowife to drive the Olds into the garage a week ago and, yes, she did a Jesse Pinkman (a "Breaking Bad" reference for the enlightened insider) and left the ignition in the ACC position rather than in the OFF position. Needless to say, but I will say, the battery was dead, dead as dead can be. Not even my usually reliable FAT MAX battery jumper could bring life to the beast. I had to buy a trickle charger and the poor innocent senior is now hooked up. With luck, tomorrow I will be able to fire her up, head down to Poway, and burn off some 45s: I want to get proficient with my two Kimbers. Instead, therefore, of going to the gun range, and in anticipation of coming holidays which promise to deliver child creatures to the main Diploresidence, I went over to Turner's and bought a very nice Made in USA Winchester gun safe--they have moved production from China back to the US--which will be delivered some time next week. The safe is fully compliant with California's increasingly bizarre gun laws, and can withstand the latest Iranian and Nork nuclear weapons . . . well, maybe that's an exaggeration.

My dogs are fairly large brutes, both in the 100lb-plus category. One is a very handsome but grumpy Akita/Shepard mix and the other is also handsome but a very high-strung Dane/Shepard mix. They are inseparable. It looks as if it is one dog with two heads, some weird Soviet experiment of the 1950s. They are always tightly together, and always staring at me. They have a rather unnerving and unblinking stare of great seriousness which conveys more clearly than words the question, "Well, what are we doing next?" I have this two-thirds Cerberus following me around the house almost 24 hours a day, with that question broadcasting from its four hazel eyes. Since the Diplowife is gone, the mini-Cerberus has access to the master bedroom. At around 0530, the beast sits next to my bed, four eyes about 12 inches from my face staring at me with laser-like intensity, letting me know that the beast is wondering when I will get up and direct the day's activities. It is an awesome responsibility.

Running for President is nothing compared to dealing with this pressure:

Well?

I will rant the next time. Sorry for this apolitical break.

The First Debate

Background and disclaimers:

1)  I am a Trump supporter and will vote for him in November;
2) I am writing this without listening to any of the pundits, so I might miss some stuff they get;
3) I am home alone with my two dogs as the Diplowife, who always has lots of views, is in Spain with two of our kids to attend a wedding;
4) I have been texting her for the past 90 minutes giving her a running account of the debate as she sits on an overnight bus from Donosti (San Sebastian) to Madrid;
5) I have not requested the views of my dogs.

General impression: no KO punches by either Trump or Clinton; both will have survived the night relatively unscathed, and both camps will claim victory. I, however, think that the pundits will score it as a win for Hillary. I, myself, score it as a narrow win on points for her when scoring purely as a debate performance. That doesn't mean, as I note below, that Trump lost in the real world.

She came prepared, spoke well, did not get flustered, went on the offense on several occasions, and managed to get Trump off message and look defensive. Clinton spewed lies and a lot of Democrat/progressive nonsense but did it well, without too much effective challenge from Trump. Clinton also got an assist from the moderator, Lester Holt, who let her go on and on, while he repeatedly interrupted Trump to remind him of time limits; he also engaged Trump in debate re his "birther" stance, on the history of his opposition to the war in Iraq, and on "stop and frisk." In addition, Trump stumbled on the whole issue of "no fly" and "terror watch" lists, lamely agreeing with Clinton that an unconstitutional denial of second amendment rights could and should result from  these extrajudicial lists (see what I wrote about this here.) Trump let her slide on cyber security, not hammering Clinton on her private server and "reckless" disregard for national security information, only mentioning in passing her 33,000 deleted emails; he, furthermore, never brought up the Clinton Foundation, "pay for play," Benghazi, and her own great wealth stealthily acquired over the past several years. He was too defensive on his tax returns, on the birther issue, and his bankruptcies. He did not hit her on the immigration and refugee vetting issue. Trump never mentioned the words "deplorable" or "irredeemable." He let Clinton off the hook--too much a gentleman?--on "bimbo eruptions," while she did not hesitate to blast him about a Latina beauty contestant who has some beef against Trump.

Trump did get off a few good shots about Clinton's disastrous political record, nil accomplishments as SecState, support for bad trade deals, and lack of realism in her tax-and-spend proposals. I thought Trump did very well on "law and order," and in demonstrating empathy for people stuck in the inner cities and suffering under Democrat rule for the last 60 to 100 years. He might have picked up some African-American votes without losing white ones. Hillary, on the other hand, was atrocious on the race issue and, I think, that will cost her some white votes. She basically said all of us are racially biased. She appeared to trash all the cops; Trump successfully contrasted that with the widespread support he has from police organizations.

In sum, Trump missed an opportunity to put the election away. I have no idea how this will play in the polls outside of the beltway, in the real America, over the next few days, but can't imagine they will move much either way. Trump, however, might pick up some support from those who like his "blue collar" manner of speaking. I don't know.

There are two more debates. My two-cents of advice for Trump? Go after her on the topics mentioned above. He also, frankly, needs to look better prepared. He can't just recycle campaign speeches. Hillary Clinton is a clever, tough old reptile who desperately wants power. She will say and do anything to achieve it. Do not underestimate her.

OK, off to listen to the great and wise ones.

Charlotte Riots & the Corrosive Effects of Toxic Progressivism

Here we go again.

Our television screens, newspapers, and social media are full of images and reports of "protestors" in Charlotte protesting "racism" in the wake of the shooting death of an unarmed  armed black man by a white black policeman who works for a white black police chief and a male Republican  female Democrat mayor. You don't need me to tell you that the "protestors," a mix of mostly black and some white thugs out for a big party, many from out of state, who "demonstrated" by throwing rocks at cops, threatening motorists, trashing hotels, and looting stores in beautiful Charlotte are products of the decades of toxic and corrosive progressive sludge that has poured into and out of our core institutions.

Do most of these "protestors" really give a damn about "justice"? "Racism"? "Inequality"? Or, even, about the dead man in this still unresolved incident? No. In fact, one of these partying "demonstrators" has now been arrested for murdering another partying "demonstrator." The riots and marches are hoaxes that the media and the other progressive forces in the country insist we take seriously as expressions of anger over all that is wrong in America. But look at the faces on most of these "protestors." They're having fun! They're laughing at everyone.

Now, of course, many of us do take this all seriously but not exactly in the way our progressive overlords meant. Gun sales have shot upward, yet again, with stores in the Charlotte area sold out. I, myself, sit in California, some 3,000 miles away, and have just put a hold deposit on a new S&W 44 Mag for pick up once the mandated thirty-day wait between gun purchases has lapsed. I am buying lots of ammo and practicing regularly.

Progressivism has condemned millions of poor black and hispanic citizens in America to crumbling and violent hellish inner cities. The progressive political machine makes them dependent on the welfare crumbs and the slogans thrown their way. To point this out, results in the unleashing of the progressive insult machine which demands politically correct speech and thought. The progressives need and use the poor; under progressivist rule, there is no hope for the poor to stop being poor. Just as planned.

In addition, of course, progressivism requires a constant effort to undermine joy and happiness. Nothing is safe from redefinition and manipulation in the pursuit of the always elusive "social justice." Progressives demand that everything be politicized 24/7. There are no safe spaces from politics. We see pampered, multimillionaire athletes, largely illiterate products of progressive educational institutions, "taking a knee" when the national anthem plays, and the fad spreads. The universities pour out a stream of essentially uneducated, self-entitled, joyless cry babies, so stupid that they have mortgaged their future in pursuit of worthless degrees that testify only to their worthless educations. Our universities are joyless places of no thought and of stifling intellectual repression. The attack on core values and institutions is ceaseless. We are to have no borders, no flag, no sports, no unifying ethos that makes us a nation. Our nation is not legitimate, apparently, because it is not perfect per, of course, those ever-elusive and flexible social justice standards.

As noted, the progressive assault on our traditions and institutions is ceaseless. Not only are major ones such as marriage and the military under assault, but even minor ones such as Boy Scouts and gender-differentiated restrooms. The language, itself, is being reshaped as thought and expression are censored. There is a push to do away with traditional "maleness," the "Band of Brothers" kind one saw on the beaches of Normandy, and replace it with pajama boys who seek to pee in the ladies restroom. Progressive Hollywood insists on filling our screens with "bad ass" women who can use both brains and fists to take on any obnoxious (white) man. In real life, of course, the progressives demand endless legislation, orders, regulations, and procedures to protect women. Even the most intimate interactions between male and female are now the province of lawyers and bureaucrats. Woe to the man who doesn't follow the rule book, especially on a campus . . .

Criminally inept or maybe better said just criminal policies by our "leaders" in the West, have eroded Western power and influence throughout the world. They have destroyed the already turbulent Middle East, unleashing unprecedented instability and violence, and loosing upon us an invasion of "refugees" that threatens to undermine our culture and rape and murder us in our own streets and homes. There is, as I have stated many times, a Molotov-Von Ribbentrop alliance between progressives and jihadis, united in their hatred of Western civilization and its values.

Our progressive leaders lecture us on past misdeeds by the West for which we must pay penance, and tell us, as has the idiotic mayor of New York, that we need more Muslims. The equally as idiotic mayor of London, himself a Muslim, tells us to get used to terror, that it's the "new normal." Great European cities are now blighted with violent "no go" zones; rape, murder, assault are spiking all over Europe.

Obama and Clinton want to replicate the German, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavian migration disasters here in America. According to Hillary, everybody has the right to immigrate to the USA. We have no right, apparently, to say "No" to anybody. Only the West has no right to preserve itself, all else can defend their culture against "appropriation" and invasion. We must accept those who adhere to a creed that threatens us with destruction in order to make us stronger, safer, and, above all, "better." Bland word salads about "tough" vetting of these migrants are meant to assure us that all will be right. Move along. Nothing to see here.

That no such vetting is possible, is no secret. The migrants come bearing a totalitarian creed, Islam, that hates our civilization and vows to destroy it. Whether they currently belong to AQ or ISIS is irrelevant as we saw in the New York/New Jersey bombings. The shadow of "radicalization" looms over them all.

I am voting for Trump, in case you forgot. In fact, I suspect, that these "protests" will drive voters to the Trump camp. Will that make a difference? I hope it will, but I don't know. What I know is we face a genuinely dire situation in our country and throughout what's left of Western civilization. Perhaps November 8 in the voting booth is the last time and place we will have some sort of a chance for a peaceful counter-attack. I don't know. What I do know is that if we continue on the current path, my children and their children will live in a much changed, much poorer, much more dangerous and intellectually stifled world than the one we knew.

Internet "Radicalization" & Other Dangerous Progressive Fantasies

Muslim-executed bombings in New York and New Jersey. Muslim-executed stabbing sprees in New York and Minnesota.

Another round of Muslim terror, and yet another round of our "leaders" trying to define it away: "an intentional act but not necessarily terrorism," "no evidence of a wider conspiracy," and my favorite, "lone wolf." Right. I also love our Beloved Dear Leader giving one of his copyrighted "press conferences" in which he puts on the "I am so bored" attitude and lectures us on not jumping to conclusions about any of this. He never utters the words "Islam" or "terror."

Hillary, roused herself, maybe she got some vitamin injections, and gave a little "presser" in which she babbled about getting the cooperation of "Silicon Valley" to help fight "online radicalization." Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Get ourselves an anti-jihadi app, or a new techno gizmo that will stop "hate speech" on the internet. OK. Sure thing.

The internet.

Yes, the internet is being blamed for "radicalization."

Sorry, folks, but the source of Muslim radicalization pre-dates the internet by almost fourteen centuries.

Muslim radicalization comes from a website book called the Koran. That's where you find the source material.

Sure, the jihadis use the internet to push their crap, and justify their attacks, but the radicalization does not come from emails, text messages, chat rooms, or Twitter. It comes from the Koran primarily via a local mosque running with the playbook laid out in, you guessed it, the Koran. These mosques, which the foolish West has allowed to pop up in every major and minor city, serve as centers for this "radicalization." Remember the Blind Sheik and his crimes in New York in the 1990s? He wasn't a product of the internet, nor were his followers who tried to blow up the World Trade Center well before 9/11/2001. Hell, how about the Mahdi in 19th century Sudan? Never mind that, how about the Moorish invasion of Iberia? How about . . . well, you get it. Hillary doesn't, but most of the rest of us do.

Nope, can't blame Muslim radicalization on Al Gore's invention.

The yammering about the internet is just another progressive ploy to destroy yet another portion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The same people who will tell us what is and is not terror, will tell us what is and is not permitted opinion on the internet. Just as the progressive darlings come up with all sorts of ploys to do away with our second amendment rights, now they want to use "radicalization" as an excuse to clamp down on the internet. Just as they want Star Chamber-drafted "lists" to determine if we can own guns, without any due process, of course, they want an alliance between big tech and big government to control expression on the wild and free internet.

The progs are having another one of their periodic head-exploding episodes because Donald Trump has said we need to start profiling as done, effectively, in Israel. To try to sabotage Trump, they inserted the word "racial" in front of "profiling," something Trump did not do, and went berserk--including Fox News which, except for "Hannity," is becoming increasingly anti-Trump. Next, of course, we see a deliberate effort to erase the history of successful uses of profiling in law enforcement and intelligence. When the FBI went after the Italian mafia, for example, they profiled a lot of Italians. When going after Jewish, Jamaican, Albanian, Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Irish, etc, criminals, well, you look at a lot of people from those ethnic groups. Not rocket science.

Instead of fiddling with internet apps, let's get the FBI and local police to infiltrate and monitor mosques. We used to it. We need to do it, again.

One last comment, and I will go off to play with my new Kimber--yes, bought another one. Please note that the stabbing spree in Minnesota was stopped by a citizen with a concealed carry permit. He is only a part-time cop and spends most of his time as a firearms instructor. That jihadi picked the wrong mall. The media is trying to suppress the story and increasingly I see media accounts which refer to the jihadi as shot by police.

Yep. Must maintain that narrative: In response to Muslim stabbings and bombings, we must import more Muslim migrants and take guns away from American citizens.

Kimber time . . .

Birth Panic: The Left Goes into Crisis Mode

For a political junkie such as I, this proved an amazing day. I was going to write about my day at the gun range as I continue my brave struggle to stop shooting high and left (10 o'clock) but the events of  September 16, which saw the left shooting right and low, crowded out that boring saga.

Once again, my hat is off to Trump.

As he did with his trips to Mexico, Louisiana, and Flint where he caught the Clinton machine in mid oil change, he did it again with the press. He announced that he would hold a press conference to deal with the "birther" issue (Note: For those two readers from Mars, this is the issue of  whether Obama was born in the USA and, even if he were, should he be considered a "natural born citizen" given that his father was not a US citizen.) Trump, clever on the "birther" issue, did his signature ploy of "Hey, many people are saying" without ever actually saying that Obama was not US born. For years, he kept up a drumbeat of demands for an oddly reluctant Obama to release his birth certificate. Once Obama issued a (sort of) birth certificate showing his place of birth as Hawaii, Trump claimed credit for forcing the president to do so.

Well, as the Clinton campaign sputters and the poll numbers circle the drain, Queen Hillary and her media drones decided to resurrect this issue and cast it as a racial insult to Obama: Trump began again to be asked whether he thought Obama was born in the US. While some of his surrogates tried answering for him in the affirmative, Trump took the risky move of refusing to answer, saying that he would speak at the aforementioned press conference held, purely coincidentally, at his beautiful new hotel in Washington DC.

The conference was supposed to start at 10 am EST, but did not do so until around 1045. He had the press there, absorbing their attention while Clinton held an almost ignored event elsewhere in DC. The stage filled up with what turned out to be "deplorable" veterans, many of them with purple hearts, two bearing the Medal of Honor, some with silver and bronze stars, and others holding flag rank. They were, as one vet said, "the deplorable deployables." Eventually Trump spoke, saying that Hillary's 2008 campaign had started the birther controversy and that he, Trump, had finished it: Obama is born in the USA, time to focus on making America safe and great again. Applause! Exit stage left.

The media, including FOX News, exploded. They had been conned! No press conference! Fact-checkers went into overdrive, claiming that Trump lied about Hillary's campaign kicking off the birther controversy. Since I started writing this, the irreplaceable and irrepressible Drudge has linked to stories from 2008 showing how the story did, indeed, come from the Hillary campaign. I was living in DC at the time, and remember those stories, the outrage from the Obama camp, as well as hearing a work colleague, a strong supporter of Hillary, arguing that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible to run as president since his citizenship was in doubt. Ah, 1984, once again serves as the progressive instruction manual . . . rewrite, rewrite, rewrite . . . Did Trump seize on the birther controversy and milk it for his own ends? Sure, but the Clinton campaign served as the biological parents of the issue. Was it racist? I don't know; I mean Cruz had a similar issue, and was that racist? I guess everything is racist when convenient . . .

Will Hillary continue to push this issue? I don't know, but probably; she ain't got much else. Interestingly Obama himself did not get the memo; at a TPP photo op in the White House (with dopey Gov. Kasich present!) Obama told journalists that he was "surprised" people were raising this issue, again. He might want to have a word with the Clintons, but they apparently are at a massive Clinton Foundation birthday bash for Bill where the rich and famous attend if they fork over tens-of-thousands of dollars.  The Clinton crime family just doesn't stop . .  .

The Year of the Hack

Hack. What a wonderful word. One that's both a noun and a verb--I love transgender words--and one which can mean such disparate things.

Google "hack" and you will see what I mean about meanings: cut; cough; chop; manage; enter somebody's computer; a dull writer; a terrible politician; a drudge; a horse; a taxicab; lower half of a divided door; able to do a job; and something or other to do with bricks, falconry, and cheese. What a word!

Anyhow, this is the year of the hack, and almost all of the definitions apply. We have a hack politician, with a hacking cough, supported by hack journalists, hacking away at our institutional credibility and national security, dogged by hacked emails, showing that she can't hack the job . . . and for all I know involved with falconry, bricks, and cheese-making.

OK, now let's get to the point.

I am very uncomfortable with all this email hacking. But first: I think that Snowden is a treasonous SOB who has done great damage to our national security and that of our closest allies. He is not a hero campaigning for your civil rights. He was a spy for Russia and perhaps China, and was willing to give away the baby with the bathwater. He should get the Rosenberg chair treatment as far as I am concerned. Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly.

This breaking into the DNC's and Powell's emails makes me very uneasy. It's a violation of all rules of privacy and has a very powerful chilling effect on frank discussion.

OK, the hacking into the DNC showed what we all know: the DNC was rigging the process for Hillary and selling ambassadorships and other key positions for contributions. Powell had some choice words to say about both Trump and Clinton, which he would have certainly preferred remain private. But, no. While those of us who want Hillary to lose and Donald to win might enjoy this go-round of "hacks," the great wheel will turn, my friends, and those who laugh now, well, they might not be laughing tomorrow. The hacker cometh for us all . . .

I have said before (here, for example) that were I an election observer I could not certify US elections as free and fair. I have written a lot about this and won't repeat it except to say that our system is ripe for abuse. Illegal and legal aliens vote, lots of people vote more than once and often in different locations, etc. Now we have the prospect of Russian or other hackers getting into the electronic machines that count our votes and monkeying with the results. Just great.

We need common sense in our voting process. Voter ids that establish voters as citizens and paper ballots with number 2 pencils would be great starts to re-establishing confidence in that voting process. Too much to ask?

Until then, I will be reading up on and chortling over the latest hacker leaks from the DNC . . .

Hill's Ill

A slightly incoherent rant . . .

By now I am sure all five readers have seen the video of Hillary staggering her way into her Scooby van at the 9/11 ceremony in New York. It is cringe-worthy to watch. Look, I am no doctor, and I don't play one on the internet, but something is seriously wrong with this woman and her campaign.

Understatement of the year?

Yes, I know I deserve the Captain Obvious Award for that remark, but the fact remains that this health issue is yet another example of how Hillary Clinton and her staff find it impossible to tell the truth. Given the choice of "truth" or "lie," they will go for "lie." One cannot believe anything coming out of that campaign.

I see the internet is rife with speculation that, in fact, Hillary is using a "body double," that the person we saw come out of Chelsea's apartment was not the "real" Hillary. Normally I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, or to speculation about Illuminati plots, but the behavior of the HRC campaign makes such theories and speculation more and more respectable. It is yet another example of how this toxic Clinton crime family has corroded and undermined our faith in our most basic institutions and our way of politics. No law applies to her, her husband and cronies; no accepted standards of behavior apply to her, her husband and cronies; no accountability, nothing that the rest of us must abide applies.

In true 1984, neo-Stalinist fashion, they make up the narrative as they go along and rely on the echo chamber media to make us forget the previous now inoperative narrative.

I have no idea about the true state of her health, and whether she has something more serious than pneumonia. I suspect she does, but that's just me speculating. But why must we put up with this sort of cover-up and falsehoods? I guess maybe the answer is that this is nothing new; that this is in line with the cover-up of Woodrow Wilson's stroke, of FDR's polio, of JFK's addiction to pain killers and to sex, of Obama's background, and well, fill in the blanks. But, but, in this age where everything gets leaked and put out for public discussion, it's difficult to understand how the Clintons continue to defy that age.

Anyhow, I hope she gets well, and she loses the election.

Don't Forget

9/11/2001

9/11 Plus 15; Proud to be a "Deplorable"

On the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I wrote that the terrorists are winning because the West is defeating itself,

[T]he ground for the defeat was prepared over many years especially with the progressive take-over of the universities, the education business, in general, the law profession, ever-growing government bureaucracies, and, of course, the media, to include Hollywood. I would note, in particular, that the pernicious doctrine of "cultural relativism" did much to sap the West's will to defend itself: We have, the Wise Ones tell us, no basis for judging whether one culture is better than another. 

Under the current calamity we have in the White House, the process of defeat was greatly accelerated and even celebrated. In fairness, however, we must note that even under Bush, whom I generally admired as a competent war leader, actions were taken to undermine the effectiveness of our efforts. While I think Bush--and certainly Cheney--understood the battle that commenced on 9/11 as part of the long war, the administration let itself get mau-maued by the purveyors of political correctness. One of the tragic errors made early in this latest battle was the promotion of the nonsense that we all should go about our lives as normal. Shopping, it was proclaimed, was a patriotic duty! If you don't shop the terrorists have won! This helped undermine, in my view, the seriousness of the message delivered by 9/11. 

An even greater mistake, a colossal one, in fact, was the administration's line that this was not a war against Islam, because "Islam means peace," apparently a confusion generated by the word "Islam" sounding similar to Salam (Peace).

Things have not improved since that anniversary. In fact, they have gotten worse. We are seeing a collapse of European civilization at a speed that just years ago would have been impossible to imagine. Here in the US, we have our government busily importing tens-of-thousands of "refugees" who adhere to a "religion" that openly advocates our conversion, enslavement, or death.

As I have said, way too many times, we are not at war, we are under attack. Islam continues its 1400-year assault on the West, and the assault has increased its OPTEMPO. Despite what our foolish President and SecState say, our enemies are not on the run. NATO is on life-support, and our enemies have outflanked us and are delivering increasingly lethal blows within our societies. They take advantage of our immigration and refugee laws, our tolerance and financial generosity, and our technology against us. They have learned to confuse our doltish leaders with concerns about an "anti-Muslim backlash," about avoiding "a war on Islam," and on and on. They have us questioning the words "Islamic terrorists" on monuments built to honor those killed by "Islamic terrorists." They have us apologizing for our beliefs and culture, and have made surrender a plausible if not the most preferable option open to us.

The Islamic war continues unabated aided by the progressives. We all must, for example, praise Obama as he makes Iran a nuclear power and passes billions of dollars to the Ayatollahs so they can continue their war or terror and provocation. There is, as I have said before, a Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact between Islam and progressivism aimed at destroying the West. All sorts of weapons are being used to do that besides truck bombs. We can deal with truck bombs; we have a harder time dealing with the systemic corrosion of our institutions and, above, of our will to resist.

And, now top of it all we get this: yesterday, Hillary Clinton referred to "half of Trump supporters" as belonging in a "basket of deplorables." She made this unifying remark while speaking to an elite group of Hollywood and Wall Street types who had paid about $60,000 each to hear these words of wisdom. (Note: I guess this is why she won't release the texts of her Goldman-Sachs' speeches?)

So "Deplorable" gets affixed to the lapels of ordinary people who want to see their country and our friends safe, secure, and prosperous? Well, Mrs Clinton, then just as I am proud to wear the title of Cold War Warrior, I am doubly honored to be awarded the "Deplorable" badge by the likes of you.

I wonder how many of the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, CIA, and State officials killed in the battle with Islam since 9/11 you would consider "Deplorable"?

Hillary Clinton's Friday CINC Forum Redo

Just got through listening to Hillary Clinton give a statement to reporters following her meeting with a panel of foreign policy and national security experts. First, a disclaimer of sorts: I have worked for and with some of these experts, and they are legit, well, legit in an inside-the-beltway sort of way.  Let me leave it at that: they are people genuinely concerned about US national security, I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are good people.

Clinton, clearly, was trying to recover from her weak September 7 CINC Forum performance. She has adopted a new, calm, mellifluous speaking manner: no Janis Joplin-like screeching, no wild Joe Cocker-like hand gestures, no Mussolini-like chin in the air. What she said was fine--I couldn't find a link to the text, but am sure it will be out soon. She focussed on North Korea, China, protecting our allies, and dealing with the "growing challenges" in an "arc of instability." OK, fine. Some of her prescriptions were good, e.g., help ROK and Japan establish credible missile defense systems regardless of China's opposition to those. She talked about protecting the homeland from the growing terror threat. OK, fine. She got in a shot at Trump over Putin, saying that Trump is praising a guy who has annexed Crimea. OK, fine.

Some pesky questions keep coming up, however, and they're questions the pet journalists around her do not ask. Are you saying that what Obama and Kerry are doing is inadequate? Why aren't they pursuing a build up of ROK and Japanese defenses? How come the Obama-Clinton reset of relations with Russia didn't prevent Putin from acting in a nasty way? On NORK nukes, didn't the previous Clinton administration assure us that a deal had been reached with Pyongyang ending the NORK nuke threat? What about the deal with Iran? Why will that be any more successful? What about rebuilding the military?

Bottom line: the ONE question she must be asked every time is, when YOU had the power what did YOU do?

She's got nothing.

I am still voting Trump.

The Commander-in-Chief Forum . . . Meh . . .

We haven't yet seen the full spin that will be put on the September 7 CINC Forum held at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York. (BTW: A great museum to visit when you're in Manhattan.) I am sure every word will be parsed, every gesture analyzed, lots of video contrasting what a candidate said last night with what that candidate said a year or two ago, etc. I am sure we will all wait for that . . .

My quick and dirty impression of the impact of the CINC Forum?

If you were a Trump supporter, you remain one; if you were a Clinton supporter, you remain one.

Neither candidate put it away; neither candidate committed a fatal error. If you're genuinely undecided and not going for Stein or Johnson . . . well, don't know what to tell you except, maybe, it's time to make up your mind or decide to sit it out. I can't imagine the forthcoming debates being much different, except, of course, if one candidate commits an incredible gaffe.

Matt Lauer, the moderator, is not on my Christmas card list; I never liked him as either a journalist or as an entertainer or whatever it is he is on that morning show. That said, however, he did a credible job of pressing the candidates, including, yes, Hillary. He was pretty tough on Hillary re the email scandal although he let slide some obvious lies she told in response. I love the new lie she is now telling: classified material must have a header that says classified and none of her emails had that header. Rubbish. Classification is determined by the content of the information with or without a header and with or without any other classification designator--especially given that at least one email gives instructions to an aide to remove the header and send her the info on her private system. The SecState should know, regardless of "header," whether certain information is suitable for an unclassified system. You would think, at a minimum, that the SecState would know that discussions on drone strikes and a potential Iranian defector, for example, are not appropriate for an unclassified system, especially one she set up herself.

In addition, she has rewritten the whole Libya fiasco and is trying to paint it as some sort of success for her and the West: that somehow her policy averted a "massacre" in Libya and was achieved--cough!--without any Americans being killed (Note: Ambassador Stevens could not be reached for comment.) She did not deal with the Benghazi disaster nor with the chaotic and bloody state of affairs now reigning in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and throughout much of North and sub-Saharan Africa as a result of her policies. She put a lot of emphasis on destroying ISIS. Good, but the key question as always with Hillary is, "While you had the power, what did you do?" Lauer should have asked her whether she agrees with Obama's characterization of ISIS as the JV team, and whether she thinks Obama has handled Russia correctly.

Trump did fine overall. He came off as knowledgable and engaged. I have some criticism, however, when it comes to Putin. I am all for, as I have said before, engaging with Russia and getting Russia to work with us against ISIS and other Islamic terrorists. That doesn't mean implying that Putin is a great man. I know what Trump was trying to do which is to contrast Putin's strong leadership with Obama's weak leadership, but he has to find another way to make that point. He should note that under Obama/Clinton/Kerry the Russians show no respect for or fear of the United States, and that whatever the Obama policy is towards Russia it has not dissuaded Putin from taking Crimea and continuing to threaten Ukraine. He also has to find another way of saying re Iraq that we should have taken the oil. He can talk about how we should have struck deals with those who control the oil--mostly Kurds--and so on, without implying that we invaded Iraq to take the oil.

I am voting for Trump and nothing I saw or heard last night will change my mind. My two cents of advice to Trump, however, is to turn almost every question around and ask, "What has Hillary done about that?" She was SecState and a Senator, so what has she done?

Trump: He Does It, Again

Again. Yes, again. Donald Trump has caught Hillary Clinton's campaign either napping or so busy chasing money that they have forgotten to chase votes.

Trump made a terrific appearance at the Great Faith Ministries Church in Detroit. Yes, Detroit. Perhaps the most blighted city in America, Detroit is a city devastated by over five decades of Democratic/Progressive rule which turned an industrial jewel into a mound of crumbling concrete, rusting girders, overgrown lots, and destroyed lives. He did what Republicans should have been doing for years, to wit, go after black votes and not take for granted that the Democrats could take those votes for granted.

I watched his presentation to the overwhelmingly African-American audience.

He seemed genuine, humble, and to be thoroughly enjoying himself. It was a superb performance. His speech struck the right notes without being condescending or adopting a Hillary-type faux "black" accent. He also clobbered the Democratic narrative that he's a white supremacist, KKK supporter: Would the leaders of a black church invite the KKK into their midsts? Doubt it.

He made no effort to appear as somebody he's not.

His basic message was, hey, you know I am not black. You know that I am running as a Republican and that you vote almost exclusively Democratic. I am asking you to come back to the Republican party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, and to reject decades of failed Democratic policies. Let's turn things around for your community together. Give me a try.

Will it work?

I don't know.

I don't know how many black voters will switch party in November. Trump, however, might have just created a problem for Hillary anyhow by, perhaps, depressing the black turn-out for her. There might well be a significant number of black voters who while unable to bring themselves to vote Trump, will not vote Clinton, either. Maybe. It's worth a shot, and Trump took the shot.

He seems to be the only candidate trying to save the Republican party from itself.

Go Trump!

Hillary and Other Oddities

We truly live in a marvelous time. Nothing is as it seems; everything can seem to be as we want; everything we want can seem to be; we can believe what we see; we can see what we believe. Lewis Carroll, you got nothing on us, buddy! 

We have a person, Hillary Clinton, nominee of arguably the world's oldest political party for the most important single office in the world, the US presidency, apparently leading in the polls, who is a long-time crook worthy of Bernie Madoff and a liar worthy of Baron Munchhausen.

Makes no objective sense.  Every day it seems we learn more and more about her crookedness and her "congenital" inability to tell the truth. The media says almost nothing, exempt to heap abuse on her opponent.

The late and great Bill Safire's magnificent 1996 piece, "A Blizzard of Lies," nailed her:

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit. <...> 

Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

Read his twenty-year-old essay on Hillary, and you can see how she and her cohorts continue to execute the strategy of deception and rewriting of history to this very day. We could use a Safire at the NY Times today.

This is a candidate who has been almost invisible to the public for several weeks. She refuses to take part in press conferences (well over eight months since the last one) and speaks to us only in very tightly controlled venues. She relies on huge armies of surrogates to fill internet comment boards, the Twitterverse, and the talk shows with angry denunciations of anybody who dares point to the facts about Hillary. She has laid out virtually no policies, and failed to make clear how she would in any way be different than the current calamity we now have in the White House. She snipes at Trump for going to Louisiana to see the devastation caused by the floods; she snipes at Trump for going to Mexico at the Mexican President's invitation; she snipes at him for his policy prescriptions; she issues weird vague tweets about nothing; and struggles to find new ways to cover-up and lie about the growing revelations of her incompetence and corruption while she was SecState. Yet the polls, apparently, show her out front.

Odd times.