Venezuela: Socialism's Poster Boy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck to the people of Venezuela.

Trump Strikes Again: Dumping the UN Arms Treaty

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

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

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

Trump has canceled that signature.

Delightful news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popcorn is available in the lobby. 

Free for everybody!

Sri Lanka Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seinfeld did "nothing" better.

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

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

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

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

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

The authors of the report desperately wanted the coup to succeed; that desire oozes out of the entire report but especially so in the second half on "obstruction." That half fulfills another one of this humble blog's predictions (March 23), that the Muellerites likely would slip a poison pill into the report to keep the coup plot alive,

[N]one of us has seen the report, or knows how Mueller will phrase his conclusions/recommendations. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing? I doubt that very much. He might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, but maybe Congress should consider impeachment, or any number of variations on that theme

Mueller, indeed, went full reptile. He explicitly stated that he couldn't indict the President on collusion or obstruction but also refused to "exonerate" the President on obstruction--as though a prosecutor exonerates--and then did a smear job on the President to encourage the crazies in Congress to impeach him or, at least, keep him tied up with investigations, subpoenas, and a daily barrage of "news" stories on obstruction. This is what blind rage and hate do even to "professional" prosecutors.

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

The coup plot continues, have no doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

The Mueller Report . . . Not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, now back to the depressing world . . .