Is this "conspiracy theory", or actually possible? You decide. WHY CLINTON LOST THE ELECTION.

[This has been edited, as it was poorly written late at night, and needed to be corrected.]

The puppetmasters wanted someone they could control. Clinton has never been driven by ideology - at least not since Alinsky stopped popping her for convenience, whenever he happened to be in town and didn't have a phone number for someone easier on the eyes. She is driven by two things, only: money and the ability to screw with - or kill - the people who displease her in any fashion. It could be her hairdresser, one of her staffers, a random person wearing a MAGA hat, or a whole group - such as The Deplorables™. They couldn't trust her to accomplish the goals they would set for her.

The individuals who own and operate the Left - Soros is on the fringe, held out as a visible target, still working for his masters, as he did when he aided the Nazis in rounding up Jews for the camps and the killing - simply didn't want her to win.
The _real_ movers and shakers, who remain anonymous to us in the cheap seats, knew they could control Trump by surrounding him with true believers/Obama hold-overs like McMaster, Tillerson, and Cohn. The puppetmasters know they must allow Trump to win a round or two, to satisfy the people who think they voted him into office, to quiet the plebes. So he gets to appoint Gorsuch, or wins a Supreme Court case which will seem to give him the ability to stop some of the jihadis who have been sneaking into America with the "refugees" (who are merely jihadis who haven't come out of the closet, yet), while the majority of the muslim fifth column is openly assisted in immigrating thanks to our own government and the groups getting rich by "re-settling" muslims all over our country.

As a separate issue, many of us on the conservative (not necessarily Republican) Right have noticed something interesting about where these muslims are being placed. Many are being inserted not just into Red states, but into conservative counties where they are expected to return the favor by voting Democrat. There is the additional "benefit" of them being in good position to go full-jihadi on us when the time for playing "Moderate™ muslim" is over.

So, Hillary was allowed to play her games with the primaries, shutting Sanders out, since she (illegally) was able to arrange for complete control of all the money available to the DNC. However, I contend that it is possible the puppetmasters of the Left arranged for Trump to win, because he could be controlled. But even if they failed to control him, they could place so many stumbling blocks in his way that he would do far less harm to their agenda than Hillary might do with her greed and sociopathic personality.

How should America respond to North Korea?

Personally, IMHO, I believe we have to ask ourselves: how do you respond to a dictator, a tyrant who lives in luxury while so many of his people actually starve to death, who has exhibited mental issues but is in control of weapons of mass destruction and has threatened to use them against us?

If a man is holding a gun - not yet pointed directly at you - and threatens to shoot you, do you stand there and wait for him to actually shoot before you defend yourself? What if you know for a fact that he has had numerous people killed (or has allowed them to die by depriving them and their families of enough food to survive)? Knowing he has no respect for life, even of his own people?

Certainly in such a case you would be justified in defending yourself, in shooting at him in an attempt to stop him from possibly killing you. Some people would still wait for him to actually fire first, saying they could not know for certain that he would actually shoot. Some would refuse to shoot even then, as they refuse to take a life themselves, even at the cost of their own.

What if he is aiming the gun at your family? At your friends? At people you love and respect? At people you are responsible for protecting (as with a police officer, or a soldier)?

Here, just yesterday, a deranged man killed twenty-four innocent people while in church, in a small town in Texas. If you saw a man armed with a gun going toward a church - or a school, or any place where a large number of people were congregated - would you attempt to stop him, even shoot him if he wouldn't stop? You would certainly would be justified in such an incident.

So, let's get to the meat of this thing. If the mentally unbalanced dictator of a country who has no problem at all causing the deaths of large numbers of his own people threatens to kill millions - perhaps even 90% (288,000,000) of the people living in America, do you take him seriously? Since it _might_ be impossible to stop his weapons from killing Americans by the hundreds of millions, do you wait until he launches?

This creature did NOT say that he would launch his weapons if attacked. He threatened to launch them because he _claims_ we threatened to attack him first, which obviously isn't true. He then proved he is capable of doing so, by virtue of nuclear weapon tests he has already accomplished, and by publishing technical information (“The EMP Might Of Nuclear Weapons”) which indicates his scientists know exactly how to do what he is threatening to do - launch "Super-EMP" (Electro Magnetic Pulse) weapons at our country.

I'm not going to go into why such an attack would be so devastating, so deadly that it could end of killing up to 90% of us here in America. You can "google" information about these weapons and their effects, or - if you would rather read some excellent fiction, a story about what might happen, you can check out Matt Bracken's tale, "Alas, Brave New Babylon", in his book,  The Bracken Anthology, available for $2.99 at Kindle.

"It was procrastination, I know . . . "

Well, it has been more than a day or two. Anyone (thanks, Irish) who read my last post who checked back for a couple of days is probably saying, "Yeah, right. Wrote one post and it'll be another eleven months before we see anything else." Can't blame you - all two or three of you, if that.

Anyone who has been paying any attention to world events knows that Lil' Kimmie of North Korea has been threatening to use one or more of his nukes on us here in America. The feeling is that, if he is at all smart - or is willing to take good advice from his advisors - he would use one or two EMP or "Super-EMP" weapons instead of wasting ammo targeting cities.

Let me digress here for a moment. It has occurred to me, as it must have to others who are brighter than I, that so far, other than a plane into the Pentagon, no one has targeted Washington D.C. That's not to say that Russia doesn't have one or two MIRVs or Tsar bombs with D.C.'s name on it, but consider this: don't you think there are people in power, or their advisors, in other countries who have considered hitting D.C. with either a nuke or a dirty bomb, or terrorism on a massive scale, much bigger than Mumbai?

I believe that anyone who is the least bit intelligent would do their damnedest to see that D.C. remains intact. Think about it, folks. What would the result be to the rest of the country if D.C. was destroyed, and we were fortunate enough that Congress was in session, the President (no, I don't wish Trump or Melania were there, especially Melania - not because she is beautiful, but because I get the impression she is a truly nice and decent person), Vice-President, Speaker of the House (damn, could you imagine Ryan as President without throwing up?), President Pro-Tempore of the Senate (Orin Hatch), the Secretary of State (Tillerson, another vomit-inducer), Secretary of the Treasury (Mnuchin - I don't have a read on him), Secretary of Defense (Mattis - a possibly decent result), or the Attorney General (Sessions would have to recuse himself again ;-) were all there, and no one was left alive to take over?

If all of the states were spared, and only D.C. was destroyed, what would be the damage to the states? How would it interfere with normal, everyday business, life for the rest of us? Wiping out D.C. would be a blessing to the rest of the country - except the progressives, who love being able to force others to do what they want them to do.

D.C. doesn't make anything - other than laws and regulations, which _aren't_ useful, usually are damaging. They don't do anything useful to the rest of us. The EPA is no help. The FDA usually interferes with the production and availability of new meds - and yet has approved medications which have later been determined to be harmful. DOJ - nyet. DOE - nope. IRS - give me a break. Do you see where I am going with this?

Oh, I imagine someone will come up with an agency or section of government which would inconvenience us by its loss, but certainly not seriously impede our daily lives, or the businesses that we need to keep our economy going smoothly. Probably everything would run much _more_ smoothly without the roadblocks, the thousands of regulations, the controlling and damaging legislation that spews forth from D.C. like bloody pus from a lanced boil.

Even the loss of the Pentagon would likely be a plus for us, although I imagine there might still be one or two warriors (out of the thousands who "work" there) forced to "do time" there who we would miss, along with some innocent civilian staffers.

So, anyone wishing us harm _might_ be smart enough to avoid hurting D.C. in the slightest way.

BUT - since an EMP event over the East Coast would cause the shutting down of our financial centers, Wall Street, etc. and the entire eastern seaboard along with much of the Midwest (we won't miss Chicago or Detroit), it could throw the economy into a tailspin. The loss of D.C. along with the rest wouldn't help us. The - what, about 200 million? - people who would die if all commerce shut down, food stopped being delivered, EBT cards didn't work throughout the country (do states fund any of those, or are they all federal? I should know, but I don't) might impact the rest of the country, even if their electricity could be restored when the Eastern/Midwestern grid was destroyed.

There would certainly be a mass exodus of people from the cities and suburbs, hell everywhere there was no power. No way to exchange money for food - even with real currency, let alone digital sources  like banks/ATMs/etc. Folks who own physical silver and gold might be able to buy the necessities they desire, but not for long. Gangs, welfare families, even the otherwise normal and law-abiding would end up looting, stripping stores empty. Don't you think _you_ would, to feed your children? The moderately intelligent would hit the food stores first, then go on to the rest. Some might be smart enough to acquire enough fuel that they could get out of the affected areas (if any of the country remained intact, thanks to local coal/gas/hydroelectric power plants, etc.)

Can you imagine watching the usual suspects running into Best Buy and running out with huge flat screen TVs? TVs that won't work because there is no power? It would happen, I guarantee you. Some, because they are incapable of logic, but some in the expectation that their sugar-daddy, Uncle Sam, would be restoring power in a few days.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in the Northwest there are coal power stations that sit on their own coal mines, and enough coal mining elsewhere available to provide power to quite a few other power plants. Although there would probably be some disruption due to being connected to the national power grid, - if we were not also hit with an EMP device (high altitude burst from a missile, or from one of NKs satellites) - I believe that local power companies would be able to repair whatever damage might occur from that connection, and continue to power most of their current area of responsibility. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

Now, in the aftermath of such an event, with the East and possibly also the Midwest having lost all power, plus many vehicles including semi-trucks used for moving absolutely essential commodities such as food and fuel, put out of commission, the Southwest, West Coast, and the Northwest would face the issue of those who survived and fled from the affected areas. That would probably include inner-city gangs, MS-13, and other undesirables. It would require the National Guard, as well as state and local law enforcement to deal with that. They would also have to deal with the loss of necessary fuels that they might have normally acquired from the damaged zones. I'm sure there are many commodities that would become unavailable, or be in short supply.

However, there are a quite a few refineries that might still be able to operate. There are six in Wyoming, five in Washington State, five in Utah, four in Montana, two in New Mexico, and one each in North Dakota and in Colorado. There are a bunch in California, but they would likely refuse to assist any other states. They might even secede in such a scenario (good riddance). Texas probably would still be up and running if the western half of the country remained viable, and they have a _bunch_ of refineries (at least twenty three), with a huge capacity.

Bottom line? The dictatorship of "Democratic" North Korea might well be crazy enough to pop a Super-EMP over part - or all - of America. China is wily enough to consider doing so in a way that would implicate North Korea. So, as the man said in "Under Siege", "The threat is real. I repeat, the threat is real."

The full text of the paper on Unrestricted Warfare is available here: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw1.htm

The Prodigal Son returns

Forgive me, Father. It has been almost a year since my last confession. I confess that I have been too lazy to write for this blog, initially due to medical issues, but really because I see too many signs that America as we knew her is circling the drain. Being a cynic and a professional pessimist, I am constantly surprised by the fact that things haven't become quite as bad as I expected, but that isn't the same as saying they've turned out well, either.

Not the drain we hoped to see in action when we somehow succeeded in electing Trump, and saving ourselves from the absolute horror of even just four years of the most corrupt public figure this country has ever known - even exceeding Obama. The drain we circle is the one opened and put into operation by the Left. By the Fabians in England, in 1884, after having been fired up by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Marx moved to London shortly thereafter, and remained there for the rest of his life, content among the English, who might have gone full-Communist, if it weren't for that small stumbling block called a monarchy - another form of government that England had been trying to perfect for many, many years.

The Left - communists, socialists, fascists (but I repeat myself), nihilists, and tyrants - have been trying for almost 170 years to force people all over the world, in failed attempt after failed attempt, to form a collective version of society that would encourage and assist mankind in perfecting itself. In the image of the elite, our betters who look after us, in a paternalistic "we know what is best for you, and we'll make you do it in spite of you" sort of way. They have been exceedingly clever at urging us in that direction, only to find they haven't yet been able to tweak things into the utopia they have been promising each other - and us - for Oh, so many years.

Recently, another horse in the race toward "One World", globalism, a universal hegemony, has been experiencing a resurgence. That would be islam. Not a religion, but an ideology. A cult(ure) of madness, of perversion, of dominance and tyranny. A cult constructed by a clever - if actually illiterate - desert brigand named mohammed. A perverted fellow who thought he was clever enough to sit on the porch with the big boys - Judaism and the nascent newcomer, Christianity. When the Jews and the Christians were rude enough to ignore him and his newly made-up "religion" (which he named "islam", which translates exactly as "submission - NOT "peace"), he got mad, picked up his marbles, and went home. He thereupon decided to cross out all those nice things he said about the Jews and the Jesus crowd, and began to tell his followers to "strike their necks", damn them.

Well, since he couldn't read or write (even if allah [the moon god] did declare him the "perfect man", who could do no wrong), someone else had to follow him around and memorize (as best they could, but you know those desert dwellers - spelling and punctuation weren't their strong suits, so it may have gotten written down a little garbled later on, when everything he said and did was finally put to paper. Or papyrus. Or vellum. Or Charmin. Those scribes were lesser men, who _had_ to write it down, or they would forget it. mohammed never forgot, he merely changed his mind from time to time, and everything that _followed_ what he had said before, was obviously more important than what he had said before. This is known as the principle of abrogation, which means that he could change his mind at any time, but what he said _this_ time was the allah's honest truth. From the mouth of allah's messenger himself, never to be doubted. And NEVER to be changed, till the end of time. And then some.

So, now that mohammed had grown tired of "three stone monte", and sampling his neighbor's goat herd, he told anyone who would listen that allah (the one and only true god, no matter what the Etruscans, the Greeks, the Chaldeans, the Romans,, the Hindu, the Jews and the Christians said, nor how many they worshipped in the centuries before mohammed got bored (and picked up that nasty rash), that his visions were the allah's honest truth. He developed such a following that he was named "allah's messenger:, "mo the honest", "the truthful", and "the most moral" - of used camel traders.

And if anyone complained because the camel he had just traded had only one ball, he told them, "So, nu? It only takes one good ball." If anyone knew the truth of that statement, it was mohammed, who nonetheless went on to father some children, even if the first few died soon after their birth. In a dream, allah vouchsafed to mohammed that it was his wife's fault, because she was twenty years his senior. From then on, it was holy writ in islam that everything was the woman's fault. Even when she got gang-raped by fifteen devout muslims. [When NASA was charged with determining and celebrating the advances in science and cult(ture) for which the muslims were responsible, it was found that cricket and baseball originated with islam. Thanks to the frequent stoning of women to death for the slightest of faults, muslim men developed wicked pitching arms. They do pretty well at horse shoes, too.]

When mo discovered he just couldn't get no respect from those Jews and Christians, he decided to start striking some necks.  He only had two skinny little arms, hardly long enough to reach, on those lonely, lonely nights in the desert, far from the goat herds he loved so well. (And so often.) He was a clever little shiite though, so he figured out that he needed some followers with long, strong arms.

Ever since mo discovered that, compared to other men, allah had left him a little short, he developed a taste for young girls. Very young girls. Girls so young that they didn't realize how badly allah had deprived him. Safe from any comparisons, he was able to enjoy himself, in spite of missing the warmth of the herd - and they _never_ talked, even if they knew from comparing their other night visitors that mo had been short-changed. mo realized that, while he was sleeping, allah had visited him with a vision saying that little girls rocked. mo also learned that war brides (known as sex slaves in the civilized world, which didn't exist yet) were cool, and so were the wives of men you had killed so that you could acquire the wives for yourself. multiple wives were even better. The occasional bacha bereesh ("beardless boy", pre-pubescent) was a lot of fun, as well. Heck, your father-in-law, brother-in-law, nephew, cousin, or even Darryl, that cute looking shepherd with the pretty goats, were all approved by allah. [The Ayatollah Khomeini, supreme religious leader of Iran for a while, wrote a book called the Codes of Conduct which indicated all of these were fair game. But wait, there's more! Even sodomizing an infant is allowed, as long as you don't enter a female infant vaginally. (But if you did, there's a remedy for that, too.]

This simplified mohammed's need to obtain lots of followers who could strike a lot of necks for him, and gather some war brides for him while they were at it. What desert brigand, what desert scum could resist joining mohammed's banner when they learned that all of these fun things had the Good allah's-House Keeping Seal of Approval, including whacking some infidels? Why that was better than whacking - uh, better than anything else they could do short of a night wandering through the pens during the big All-Arabian Goat Auctions, held in Medina twice a year.

Because mohammed's short-comings were genetically passed on to his descendants, to this day muslims are thankful for allah's endorsement of child marriage, as well as Thursday night bacha bazi ("boy play"), where very young boys (pre-pubescent bacha bereesh, "beardless boys") are dressed up as girls and made to sing and dance, while the old, almost impotent muslim men drink tea and draw on hookas, until it is time to "call it a night". Then they take their choice of the boys to their rooms, where they use them, willing or not. Mostly not. This is done on Thursday nights, because allah is busy with more important things on Thursday nights, and won't know that they have been doing something naughty. I kid you not, they really believe that. Or so they tell themselves. Logic, reason, are in short supply (okay, I'll stop with the short jokes) in islam.

 Well, I'm going to call it quits here. I apologize if I bored some of you to death,


or if I have wasted a lot of your time telling you Things You Already Knew About islam.
[For those of you who haven't already heard my explanation, I refuse to use capitals for names and words in islam, because I don't want to show even that modicum of respect. I only capitalize ISIS or IS, because I don't want to confuse it with Bill Clinton's monolog on "is". I also don't want anyone to think I am showing Bill Clinton any respect.]

I will try to return here and continue this screed in a day or two. It wouldn't be fair to tempt the one or two people who use to read these scribblings (you still there Grog? How about you, Irish? I can't believe you are still carrying me as a blog you follow, when I haven't posted in eleven months. Thanks for hanging in there.)