Monday, November 21, 2016

What he leaves behind

Barack Obama became president because of the color of his skin. From the start, observant people were unconcerned about his race but suspect of his intentions, because of his background.
The tipoff was when he announced that he intended to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Why, people asked immediately, would anyone seek to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history, one that has done more good for more people than any other, ever?
Dinesh D’Souza provided in the answer in his best selling book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, which was made into a movie. As in the Soviet Union, D’Souza’s actions put him in prison.
Obama, D'Souza explained, was the product of Obama’s communist parents, stepfather and mentors.
They believed, as did Obama, that the United States was too powerful and too prosperous.
In his two books, Obama made his intentions clear. (What kind of a narcissistic egomaniac writes two autobiographies before he reaches middle age and before he has accomplished anything in his life beyond being a “community organizer” (professional agitator)?
Other clues were that he sat in his church nodding while his pastor thundered “God damn America!” Another was when his wife revealed that she never had any regard for this nation until it elected her husband.
Although he spoke of lofty goals like world peace and stopping the alleged rise of the oceans, Obama clearly set out to make the United States less prosperous and less powerful.
While he did nothing toward his stated goals, he did make progress during his eight years toward his true goals.
By putting back from the world stage he allowed other interests to assume the power he relinquished. He kowtowed to those interests and made deals that were not in the best interests of this nation.
He constantly belittled the Christian and Jewish religions and praised the barbaric religion of islam, which is continuing a 1,400 year quest for domination of the world.
On the economic front, he seized control of a large segment of the economy – health care, vastly increasing its cost and the government’s control of it. He pursued policies, such as minimum wage increases and tremendous increases in regulations, that destroy jobs.
At the end of his stay in office, growth was at a record low pace and the national debt had doubled since the time he criticized his predecessor for the size of the debt. Although he pledged to right the economy during his first term, and stated that he should not be re-elected if he failed, he failed and ran again.
In short, he was a complete failure. Yet, he endorsed someone who pledged to continue his course and said the election would be a referendum on his policies.
They were repudiated.
As a practicing narcissist, Obama constantly obsesses over his legacy. Here it is: he will be what Charles Krauthammer called a “historical parenthesis” – the first person ever elected president who hated the country he governed and sought to lower its status in the world.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Liberals panic as local paper chooses Trump

Jacksonville's small but vocal left-wing community is having a communal meltdown today with the newspaper's endorsement of Donald Trump for president.
Liberals, who know everything, see it as evidence the paper is slipping into the slough of conservatism.
I know a bit about this. After 12 years as editorial page editor, the last editorial I ever wrote was the paper's endorsement of George W. Bush for re-election.
Here's what happened this time around: the owner of the paper made the decision. He is a conservative. It is his prerogative.
When Barack Obama ran against John McCain, the local publisher, a liberal, decided to endorse Obama without consulting the owner -- over the warnings of experienced people who understood that the owner preferred to call the shots in presidential elections.
So they wrote a syrupy editorial endorsing Obama because of his superior blackness. The next week, after a phone call from corporate headquarters, they wrote one explaining that they had reconsidered and had decided McCain was the better candidate -- making complete fools of themselves.
Today the left-wing newsroom editor is making a complete fool of himself by disavowing the paper's endorsement. If I were the owner, he would be fired.
Communist/socialist/liberal/progressives in Jacksonville are venting on social media that the paper has become conservative.
Despite today's endorsement, the paper is not conservative and hasn't been for about 10 years. Before that, it was conservative for about 150 years.
Like most newspapers, it suffers from a newsroom nearly full of nutty kids and aging libs, but the opinion section was solidly conservative -- like the majority of Jacksonville residents -- until the shift.
That shift happened because the owner of the chain that includes the local paper is losing interest in his business and has turned it over to his kids, who somehow turned out liberal. They have been hiring liberal editors and publishers.
The corporate ethos has been to allow local publishers to decide editorial policy -- except in presidential elections. I expect that will change after the owner dies.
In the meantime, fear not liberals. The paper will be as loony as you are except for one day every four years. Is that too much for your sensitive, tolerant psyches to endure?
And think about this: if you think it was a terrible day for the left wing in Jacksonville today, imagine what it will be like if Trump wins Tuesday and the nation is given a chance to recover from the eight years of misery and decline it has endured.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Choosing evil

I must be really stupid because I just can’t grasp the arguments some pretty smart conservatives are making to justify either voting for Hillary Clinton or not voting at all.
Let’s stipulate that these probably are the two worst candidates for president in history, and also that neither is officially a nominee, yet.
But if it happens, why would a conservative not do whatever is necessary to stop Hillary from winning?
One argument is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Well, yes. But that also means that the alternative is more evil.
Since one is going to win, wouldn’t the prudent move be to vote for the lesser evil and thus try to prevent the more evil from winning?
Aside from Clinton's meanness, total lack of honesty and far, far left philosophy, there is one argument that seals the deal for me, as far as choosing one of these two.
There is 100 percent chance that Clinton would nominate an ultra-liberal justice or justices for the Supreme Court.
Trump is a wild man but it appears that there is less than a 100 percent chance that he would do so.
Another unconvincing argument is that Trump’s candidacy will somehow cause the GOP to lose a majority In the Senate.
If that is going to happen it is already a done deal. His winning won’t change a vote that already has taken place. But he could still nominate a conservative justice and get it through a Democratic Senate. Democrats constantly make the argument that a president is entitled to have his nominee approved, and I don’t think they would dare leave a seat open for four years if Trump stuck to his guns.
The process is deeply flawed as shown by the fact that we have these two presumptive nominees. But that is no reason to drop out of voting.
Every vote cast for Trump negates one cast for Clinton.
The old saying is true: If you don’t vote, they will.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

This is THE election

Every four years, someone pronounces the upcoming presidential election "the most important election in recent years."
The one this year actually fits that bill, and then some.
What's at stake:
Tilting by appointment the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court for many years ahead, at a time when it is facing critical issues.
Action on illegal immigration. This is an issue simmering among the silent majority and is a major explanation for the ascension of Donald Trump, the only one vowing to take corrective action.
Getting a grip on government spending and debt.
Leadership. This is a critical issue in foreign policy. With the United States in retreat, tyrants around the world are encouraged toward aggression.
There are other issues, but these are the ones that will make or break this nation.
Elections have consequences. Never more than in 2016.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Social Security is misunderstood

There are any number of Facebook posts from people complaining about Social Security. But they are complaining about the wrong things.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and will go bankrupt unless something is done.
But the whining about calling it an "entitlement" is pointless. It is an entitlement, just like your paycheck is an entitlement. If you are in the program you are entitled to collect a pension after you retire.
Entitlement is not a synonym for welfare, which apparently is what some of these people think.
The problem with the program is the same as with any Ponzi scheme. At first many people were contributing and only a few were drawing money.
Today it is just the opposite. Where there were once 15 people paying in for every retiree, today there are two people contributing for every retiree. Making it even worse is the fact that people live much longer.
The other complaint is that the government "borrowed" the money.
When SS ran a surplus, what were they supposed to do? Invest it? Do you really want politicians playing the market with your money?
They could have let the cash pile up in a vault, I suppose, but I'm not sure what that would have accomplished. They were still spending more than they were taking in overall, and the deficit would have to come from somewhere or the debt would have gone up even more.
The problem can be fixed. What is lacking is the political will.
But people need to understand how the system works in order to fix it.
The easiest and most obvious fix is to raise the retirement age. It is unrealistic, given the rise in life expectancy.
If you want to retire earlier, save your own money and retire when you want.
Liberals deserve the blame, not necessarily for beginning the program but for greatly expanding it without bothering to make it sound, and for refusing to act now.