Imaginary Conservative

Trump won

Sunshine melts snowflakes.

Attached is a rather rambling rant maligning smug "conservatives" who gloat that, "We suffered for eight years under that tyrant Obummer. Now it's your turn."
source material

A favourite Obama rhetorical trick was setting up a false narrative, then shooting it down. Like Slippery Dick Nixon, he will spend the rest of his life trying to rewrite the history of his failed presidency.

I am no conservative, more of a real liberal, what are called libertarians today. The ex-president was infuriating for many reasons, which I've delineated elsewhere. I wouldn't say I suffered, except to the extent that Obamanomics destroyed the job market, adding me to the unemployed tens of millions, occasionally willing to take jobs we wouldn't have dreamed of accepting, for little recompense, when lucky enough to find them.

More annoying to me was Obama blowing up the Constitution, ignoring our representatives in Congress.

Scott Mednick writes of these straw-dog conservatives, that he is "surprised you would wish suffering upon me. I do not wish harm on anyone… The election is over. It is important to get past campaigning and campaign rhetoric and get down to what is uniting, not dividing and what is best for ALL Americans."

Sounds great, less fulfilling. Because who are slinging rhetoric, sabotaging the new President's policies, demonstrating and rioting? Hint: Not conservatives.

The original rant is attached [original], so you may read it to reach your own conclusions. Since I've already stated why Obama was the worst president in my lifetime (approximately 70 years), I will not reiterate, but I will comment on Mednick's drivel.

His consistent style is admirable, whereby he lists various dubious statements, followed by, "Has this caused your suffering?" In the USA, you may disagree with policies, even if they do not affect you personally. In the long run, they usually do.

Before getting to his list, he claims there was rhetoric that Obama "would impose Sharia Law, Take Away Your Guns, Create Death Panels, Destroy the Economy, Impose Socialism," none of which came to pass. While some of those did, Obama's shortcomings prevented him from achieving goals, such as disarming the citizenry by crippling the Second Amendment.

The list of a dreamy messenger

Off the bat, Scott Melneck offers: "Gays and Lesbians can now marry and enjoy the benefits they had been deprived of. Has this caused your suffering?"

That is Item One. Only Obama ran twice (and previously) as supporting marriage between a man and a woman only. The Supreme Court bestowed this new right. It had nothing to do with Obama, so that's just dishonest, not to mention sad that Melneck's major listed accomplishment was not the former President's.

The Dow has increased — a lot. True but, in a way, it did cause me suffering. Because I was unemployed, I had no money to invest and share in the Bull Market. Millions of others were in the same boat. A major reason the Market rose was low interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve. Again, not Obama's doing. That low interest rate hurt those who could save a few dollars in the bank because they earn little to nothing on their savings, which depreciate as the dollar is worth less (and worthless) with the hidden tax of inflation.

Naturally, Mr Mednick boasts about the impending Depression that was averted, and all the jobs that were created. He forgot those that were "saved," according to the Obama administration. But you cannot prove a negative. No one knows what would have happened had the government exercised restraint, and let the economy correct itself. That has worked before. We have only the government's word that we averted "the worst recession since the great Depression" or whatever. To be fair, Republicans shared in some of the misguided meddling, further illustrating that the two-party system is a sham. [It's two! Two! Two parties in one.]

There were more jobs. Partially thanks to Obamacare, people needed to get more than one job to make ends meet. New jobs were not equivalent to those lost. We all were, or knew, persons struggling in the weakest recovery since the real Depression, in the 1930s. And there was a spike in Disability claims, despite greater safety in the workplace, unless you count the danger of losing your job.

The U-1 unemployment rate was down to 4.7%, as the labour force dropped to a record low. The fewer arbitrarily counted in the work force, the lower the official rate. For more on the Unemploiyment statistical deception practised by both parties, see: Unemployment Stats.

real snowflakes Snowflakes Please Take Note
"If you keep saying he's like Hitler, you become the caricature, not him. Your hysterics pollute everything you say.
It's hilarious, actually."
  – Greg Gutfeld, 22 February 2017

Mednick writes that Obama "shut down the US secret overseas prisons. Has this caused your suffering?" I do not care, but we don't know that because they are secret, and no administration was more opaque than the last one. We do know that Obama ramped up the drone programme, with its collateral damage, so terrorists were not taken alive, begging the question, "Is it better to be imprisoned or dead?" What does Muhammed think?

"He banned torture." Well, he banned water-boarding, defined as torture. Torture was banned decades ago.

Here's a confusing stat, he states: "Uninsured adults has decreased to below 10%: 90% of adults are insured — an increase of 20 Million Adults. Has this caused you suffering?"

I assume he refers to health-care insurance. These numbers are difficult to quantify, but having insurance is not the same as having health care access, much less quality care. Obama lied about being able to keep your plan and your doctor, which some might put in the Suffering category. Liberals famously care about the people as a group, not individuals.

Mednick also boasts of the "rate of increase" in premiums slowing, overlooking that lower rates were promised. He also forgets that an average means that many received huge increases, sometimes over 100%. And deductibles rose to the point of creating useless coverage. But the many must bite the bullet for the good of the rest of us if, indeed, any good is derived. That's the Progressive way, barring the way of progress.

Some benefited from the Unaffordable Care Act, some were hurt by it. In the long run, it is another unsustainable, deceptive government programme, cynically written to postpone its worst impacts. Despite that, President Obama "rewrote" parts of it, often just before an election, using Unconstitutional executive orders. Cynical and political.

Insufficient for critics? "He passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Has this caused blah blah…?" Congress passed it. Obama signed. Not sure it caused suffering. The real question is whether it prevented hate crimes. Short answer: no.

He saved the US Auto Industry. Right, and he destroyed al Qaida. Sure. Tell that to all those devastated in the auto-industry "rescue" and those killed by Isis (or Isil).

Tearing a page from the Obama Cynical Statistical Playbook, Mednick claims that "the deficit as a percentage of the GDP has gone from 9.8% to 3.2%." No mystery there. The deficit was so high in Obama's first year, with massive spending, it was easy reducing it subsequently.

Probably irrelevant that the National Debt nearly doubled, to almost $20 trillion, under Obama. That has caused suffering, whether you acknowledge it or not. The suffering begins when interest rates increase, and again when the current youth are faced with a devastating debt to finance profligate spending by their elders.

"Obama preserved the middle class tax cuts." I'm fairly certain he ended them but, even if he didn't, he increased taxes in numerous ways, with a big chunk coming from the Unaffordable Care Act. Millions did pay less in taxes because they were unemployed, or earning less than before.

There's more. Credit Card reform, "so that rates could not be raised without you being notified." With banks paying close to zero percent interest, why are they charging as much as 35% on credit cards, excluding added fees? That doesn't seem like reform.

"Abortion is down," Melneck states. Can the government claim credit for that? Maybe people are screwing less because they are getting screwed by what Kristin Tate calls "Government gone wild."

"He protected Net Neutrality." Sure he did. Obama gave away control of ICANN (yes I can!), expediting censorship in other nations, like his cohorts in Iran, Syria, Russia and so on.

A choice claim: "He negotiated with Syria to give up its chemical weapons and they were destroyed. Has this caused your suffering?" Ridiculous. After renegging on his "red line," he allowed his buddy, Putin, to negotiate with Syria. We don't know if the weapons were destroyed, unless you trust Russia as much as you do Obama.

UPDATE. Another gas attack in Syria occurred on the fourth of April, 2017.
[see: Chemical Weapons used in attack (BBC)]
It appears that all of Syria's chemical weapons were not destroyed, contrary to previous claims.

What else did the former President do, besides appointing Hillary Clinton to a job that overwhelmed her, and making dozens of other horrible hires? Killed Osama Bin Laden. Most Americans give him credit for that, although he didn't pull the trigger. After it happened, leaked information put the doctor who helped locate Bin Laden, Shakil Afridi, in a Pakistani prison, where he continues serving a 33-year sentence, thanks to Obama. I'm guessing the doctor is suffering.

"He normalized relations with Cuba." Another unilateral decision, exactly the way Castro did things in Cuba. In return for which, we got nothing. I notice Mednick doesn't mention Obama's proudest moment, the Iran treaty (agreement — technically not a treaty). This has tamed Iran, in the storybook world inside Obama's head.

"Corporate profits are up 144%." Yes, and the disparity between the wealthy and the plebes soared under mismanagement of the economy.

Mednick ignores other accomplishments, like the EPA dumping waste in the Animus River. Oops! Remember the Gulf oil disaster in October 2004 that Obama ignored, possibly to make the oil industry look bad at the expense of the environment. Luckily, the press did not press him on this blunder. Lucky for President Obama, not so lucky for the wildlife and humans damaged by the worst oil spill in US history.

The leader of the executive branch created a climate of hatred and distrust, fragmenting the nation into racial, ethnic and gender groups. Did this cause you suffering? Domestically, he demonised police without offering any solutions to systemic problems. His foreign policy was horrific, even worse than the bounteous blunders of the past few decades.

Not everyone angry with Obama suffered. Many profited from his misguided policies, even while recognising the absurdity of those policies. But what of the anti-Trump fanatics? Have they suffered during the past few weeks, since the inauguration? I mean, other than their self-mutilation.

President Trump

I have not suffered through Trump's presidency thus far. Some actions I like, some I dislike. Many of his appointees are excellent, such as department heads who oppose the essence of their departments, like Education and Commerce. Short of shutting them, seems like a fine strategy. Gorsuch appears to be a fair judge who will follow the law and the Constitution. (To be fair, you never know until he's on the Court.) Democrats seem more irate that Obama's pick, Merrick Garland, got no hearing. They would have done the same thing had the situation been reversed, and have said as much. On the odd chance Clinton had won, they would have supported anyone she chose, even if that person who swore he'd toss out any criminal charges against her.

Trump is willing to discuss policies with Congress and others, including Democrats. When Obama said he wanted to work with Republicans, what he meant was that he wanted them to vote for his proposals without compromise. Yes, Mr Obama is a dick. He did not work with Democrats in Congress or in his own cabinet. He lied compulsively about everything, blaming others for every problem, while denying any of the several serious scandals were real, stonewalling and undermining investigations. He misused his power to pervert laws and undermine political opponents. There was real suffering, when the IRS and other agencies destroyed the lives and livelihood of his perceived enemies. He was friendly to nations that hate us, mean to our allies, as he treated Israel like shit.

Trump likely will not be a good president, but keep an open mind. I came to loathe Obama for everything he did and represented. Unlike some, who said they disagreed but he was a swell fellow, I recognised him an evil man. And, as I've said before, had he been a Muslim from Kenya, I cannot imagine anything he would have done differently.

do not cross

You lost!    

Psycho Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Despite posturing and politicking during the Gorsuch hearings in the "world's greatest deliberative body," there was one positive outcome. America finally got an unambiguous statement from Dianne Feinstein expressing her contempt for the US Constitution and the rule of law.

In her very own words:
"Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. It's the approach taken by jurists such as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, or former Judge Bork. While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of modern constitutional jurisprudence. It's been twenty-five years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we've seen from Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and Judge Gorsuch's own record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and becomes an agenda."
[see: Living Like a Traitor.]

Very interesting or, more accurately, disturbing, as she expanded on her beliefs, or lack thereof. Of Gorsuch, she stated:
"He believes that judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means.
"This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling.
"I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves."

That is very personal, but she was elected as a senator, not a judge, to represent the people of California and of the United States. Has she ever campaigned on abolishing the Constitution? No.
More troubling, there is a way to change the Constitution legitimately, through the amendment process, which has been used seventeen times since the Bill Of Rights was ratified in 1791.

DeFi ant

Based on the aforementioned statements and on policies espoused since she was San Francisco mayor, Feinstein believes the Constitution protects the government, not the citizens, and can be changed at the whim of judges, presidents or even self-important senators. Were that true, we would have no rule of law and be no better than a third-world country, like North Korea.

Gorsuch had to explain the Fourteenth Amendment to Senator DiFi [see: Explaining the Law to a Twit.] due to her boundless ignorance of the government, despite her being a cog in it for far too long.

If Feinstein's arbitrary judgment applies to the Constitution, it applies to laws. So Congress could pass a law and the Court could rewrite it, much as Obama did when he believed he was a monarch. A Supreme Court that can grant new rights can also eliminate existing rights which, remember, are God given, not government given.

Feinstein's "opinion" disqualifies her from voting for or against confirmation. In fact, it violates her oath to uphold the Constitution. Dianne Feinstein should abstain, for a change. She should be censured, at the least. END


Posted 31 March 2017 cat and freckles



Women for Trump

The Official GT Slade Blog

next   top   Previous