Change

Barack Obama promised “hope and change” when he ran for president. Once elected, he did institute change ... lots of change ... change that favored immigrants, the greenies, China, Russia, the Ukraine, Muslim countries and those south of the US border. But never came through with the “hope” part. When Trump took over, he too has changed things ... mostly by reversing those damaging Democrat policies.

So why were Obama’s changes so readily accepted and Trump’s so vehemently resisted?

May I suggest that Obama’s changes advantaged those above-noted third parties while disadvantaging the unaware American middle class. Trump’s changes have mostly reversed these Obama wealth and hegemony flows.

And the resisters to this change are the environmentalists, globalists, media, Deep State and some foreign governments ... all whom had benefitted under Obama’s reign.

Middle Americans sense this u-turn and the resulting relief to their political frustrations. This is why Trump’s rallies are overflowing and why he will likely be re-elected with a larger electoral margin than he received in 2016. Americans will not be whipsawed once again with re-heated Democrat give-aways.

Obvious Truth #31

Our world is  often fundamentally transformed, for good or evil, by wackos in disguise ... the nuttier the fruitcake, the bigger the change. It is then up to the sane among us to maintain or reverse this new status quo. -- Anon.

Today's Quote

Always bending to change is not necessarily progressive. Most times traditional methods are tested and for the good and their scrapping can be catastrophic. -- Anon.

Change

The United States has had only one glancing blow from a hurricane in the last eleven years ... and now we learn that the number of tornadoes are also down here for the fifth year in a row ... see: Climate Depot Story. Yikes! This can't be! Climate change is supposed to be bad! It is a goblin that is forcing us to hide under our beds in trembling trepidation of extremes of all sorts that will kill polar bears and traumatize snail darters. But we are now learning that some of this naturally-occurring change can be good. This is bad! It has to be bad to be good! Legions of fake scientists buy their timeshares in Hawaii or their new Porsche 911s by ringing the alarm bells every government-grant cycle about the next climate catastrophe that is about to occur. If we don't have more catastrophes how will they survive?

Isn't it ironic that President Obummer who rode in office eight years ago under the banner of "change" could then spend billions of taxpayer dollars fighting the bugbear "climate change" ... which anyone with a room temperature IQ realizes is what Mother Nature has been doing for eons ... all to keep us on our toes. Yet, without even trying, Obummer was in office when this good climate change happened. He must be Devine.

If you are compelled to read more about what Obummer changed and didn't change during his plutocratic romp at the White House, read Peter Baker's thoughts on the subject in the New York Times  Opinion Piece. He gets it about half right.

Creeping Corruption

The Obama administration and its legions of acolytes are causing me to experience creeping corruption fatigue.  Maybe it was that I just wasn’t paying enough attention, but I used to believe and trust that those in government had the best interests of the United States at heart.  But now I am not so sure … as I hear an insidious drumbeat of government scandals (any one of which might have brought down previous administrations) ... and instance after instance of those we elect or appoint to manage our affairs subverting the best interests of our country in order to advance their own agendas and rewards.  Here are three such instances (I could provide twenty more out of the current news cycle):

- Benghazi Musical Chairs

- Patriot Act Corruption

- Border Security Non-enforcement

And, unfortunately, at the top of the list of these subverters is our President.  Does he not care what kind of country he is creating for his daughters?  Does he not respect the legacy of achievement that the 43 Presidents who preceded him had constructed?  He can charm the world with his effacing smiles and his teleprompter eloquence, but behind the scenes he and his minions are subverting our Constitution and even destroying our way of life.  To get elected Barack Obama had promised "change" and, it seems, his regime is spending all their waking hours pursuing this agenda ... primarily through creeping corruption.

I am rapidly losing that thing called hope.

Afterward: Even Ralph Nader agrees with me (at least in concept, but not in detail) ... see: Newsbusters Story

Fortune Cookie Politics

A long time ago I got a fortune cookie which had the following message: "If your head and your heart agree, you are seldom wrong."  Interestingly, I have had this adage proven correct many times since.  My last post here discussed the Paul Ryan pick for the V.P. slot on the Republican ticket and concluded that it was a decision of the head and not of the heart ... as a Marco Rubio selection would have been.  To me, this had clearly diminished Mitt Romney's chances of being elected President.

The reason that I had thought this is that I believe that the American people too often vote using their emotions and not their logic.  However, seeing the enthusiasm at some of the Romney/Ryan rallies over the weekend, has moved the needle somewhat away from my initial conclusion.  Also, some of the talking heads on television have pointed out that, recently both in liberal New Jersey and Wisconsin, voters have responded to cerebral arguments about the economic futures of their states.  There, they have elected fiscally conservative politicians who have treated them like adults ... and leveled with them about what would happen if meaningful austerity measures were not enacted.  And so, although I still believe that the upcoming campaigns will be over-loaded with emotional vitriol, I now believe that the Republicans may still have an outside chance of prevailing.

Incidentally, the last fortune cookie I broke open said, "If all you do is hope, change is dangerous."

Killing Capitalism

The stock market keeps going down hardly without a pause (see Market Plunge) … pretty much since it was clear that Obama was to be elected President. The nagging question is -- why? I have finally and reluctantly come up with my answer and it is not pretty – President Obama seems bent on killing capitalism. (Gasp!) What better way to slay the bourgeois notion of private ownership of the factors of production than to eliminate the shining symbol of this private ownership -- the stock market? Given what we learned about Obama’s friends and mentors during his campaign, I seriously doubt if this result would be inadvertent.

As a child in the 1940’s and 1950’s I remember that the Soviet Union would often use “Wall Street” as their bete noire representing the United States in their crusade to vilify and defeat us. So, someone who wants to “change” forever the fundamental character of this country might well first attack and eliminate this symbol. And Barack Obama seems to be performing creditably in his job one. For example, he has:

- continually talked down the economy and the stock market with his drum-beat doomsday pronouncements.

- systematically attacked U.S. industry groups with his plans for fundamental “change” – the pharmaceutical industry by planned drastic reductions in the government’s Medicare drug reimbursements; the coal industry by his threat to eliminate coal-powered electrical plants within ten years; the utility industry by his call for alternative energy sources without ever focusing on nuclear power and by his call for carbon “cap and trade” taxing; the health care industry by his thinly-disguised plans for the government eventually to be the sole health care insurer; the banking industry by his Treasury Secretary’s reluctance to spell out a workable rescue stratagem; the petroleum industry by backtracking on his party’s pre-election promise to begin more offshore drilling and by his eliminating tax incentives for new oil discoveries; the defense industry by his easy willingness to abandon our missile shield initiative and his implied coming draconian reductions in defense spending; the auto industry by making them effective wards of the state; and all industries in general by the crowding-out of future financing opportunities by the massive government borrowing that will be required to fund his stimulus bill (and other pork spending).

- shown little or no concern that trillions of dollars of wealth that has been destroyed by this stock market slide (reference Jim Cramer’s rants: Cramer Rants).

And apparently Jim Cramer and I are not the only people who think so. See also: Power Line and The Wall Street Journal

If this speculation of mine turns out to be true (and, believe me, we will know soon enough), it will be considerably ironic since it was many fat-cat Wall-Street capitalists who financed much of Obama’s campaign. (Sorry, no take-backs.)