Obama is the worst
I was born May 1949, the significance of which will become clear. There have been terrible presidents since then — crooks, liars, incompetents, sleazeballs, scumbags.
Yet the longer Barack Obama is in office, the lower he has dropped in my estimation. He lies. He defies the Constitution, and lies about it. He signed the Unaffordable Care Act into law, after lying about every aspect of it. I doubt he has read it. His foreign policy would be a joke, except worldwide blunders are not really that funny, especially when they are deadly. As I have written, if he was a Muslim from Kenya (and he is not), I cannot think of any way he would have conducted himself differently. Notice how he always knows exactly what will tick off Islamists? Obama has stirred up dissention and partisanship, turning the US from a melting pot into a smelting pot.
Economists, and Obama, claim the USA are in a recovery. Most Americans believe the economy is shitty, to use the technical term. We are not imagining it. Incomes are down, millions are unemployed [see: table below], and the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us keeps growing, decimating the Middle Class. As the chart directly above shows, our consistently low annual growth rate of 2.1% has fallen to 1.2% in the second quarter, according to the Commerce Department, making this the weakest economic expansion since 1949, the year I was born. [See why I mentioned it.]
So officially, for all these reasons and more, I can proclaim: Obama is the worst president in my lifetime. Some assert that hes the worst president ever; I lack the historical perspective to verify that.
I can say unequivocally, and vocally, that despite competition, Obama is the worst president since 1945. No wonder he wants Hillary Clinton to succeed him. Potentially, she is the one person who might make him look less disastrous in comparison. That is undoubtedly what he means when he calls her prepared. The question is, how can we prepare?Posted 9 August 2016
She can run
Keep On Smiling
Someone whom I respect and admire, author-psychologist Dr Judith Tutin, wrote a great piece, picked up by Yahoo!, on how women can project an image of strength without allowing others to tell them how to act. I agreed with the thrust of the article, nitpicking one detail. She wrote that people groused about Hillary Clinton not smiling enough. Ho hum.
I had not heard complaints about not smiling, during the years of following this election cycle, which will end in 72 days, not that Im counting or anything. Then again, Id never heard of the ALT-RIGHT until last week, at least not in a non-computer context. A vast majority of Americans loathe the Democratic nominee. Clintons facial expressions would not change that.
After extensive research [Googling the phrase Clinton needs to smile] I uncovered quite a few instances where this claim was made. Here is a reaction on Twitter to one such tweet.
So I apologise profusely for doubting the good doctor, but I never heard that particular complaint. Honestly.
I had heard people saying that Carly Fiorina needed to smile, not Hillary Clinton. There is plenty of negativity about the former First Ladys presentation. Im not convinced this is a gender thing because Ive seen and heard of persons in both of the major sexes being called on to smile more. I may even have heard such comments directed at me, a confessed heterosexual male. Why you look so mean? That sort of thing.
Complaints came regarding Ms Clintons attire, when she addressed poverty wearing a $12,495 jacket, her laugh, her delivery, even the suggestion that she seems uncomfortable reading her speeches, as if carefully parsing her words to avoid incriminating herself.
Her husband is a far more accomplished liar. That is not a gender distinction, Bill personally lifts deception to an art form. While Hillary Clinton is a serial liar, she has never been convincing. She cannot hide her anger when dissembling, probably thinking, if Bill were slinging this horse shit, hed get away with it. Hillarys only saviours are the current opaque administration and a compliant media.
My only defence of smile-controversy ignorance is that my Twitter feed includes a better class of commentators, and that I avoid the kind of smarmy media trafficking in facial-expression evaluation: Chris Matthews, MSNBC, NPR and other imbalanced outlets. Apparently, the left-wingers I follow are more thoughtful than the clowns who want Clinton to smile and say cheesy.Posted 28 August 2016
Watching the Election
Saw another Trump speech. Fast forwarded through most of it, except his comments on the Democratic Party failing African-Americans. He seemed unusually restrained, in spreading the same message as Lenora Fulani in 1988 (and 1992), that Democrats have done nothing for Blacks. I mean, other than popularising the term "African-American," so nothing. That is why Democratic media are doing the same thing to Jill Stein that they did to Fulani, trying to make her disappear.
Trump could have pointed out that the party of identity politics are waging a War On Blacks, reaping the benefits of keeping them on Uncle Sams Plantation, as Star Parker puts it. Most of Trumps promises lacked substance, but he got one thing right. He said Blacks have nothing to lose by voting for him, which is probably true, although they would fare far better under Gary Johnson, as would we all.
The previous day Id seen Hillary Rotgut Clinton dressed in a chameleon-coloured outfit. Fittingly, she was portraying the Law-and-Order candidate for a day, a title Trump had already claimed. She does have a record of pushing strict punishment and increasing the number of police but, for now, shes pretending to like Black Lives Matter because she fears losing Black votes, and assumes they all like BLM because they are all the same to her.
While this is part of her strategy of saying anything to get elected, she should avoid the subject of Law and Order because she comes out with statements like: Everyone is safer when there is respect for the law and when everyone is respected by the law. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone but me. I am paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.
One of her handful of police supporters is Bill Bratton. The former NY Police Commissioner is retiring to a cushy job with Teneo Holdings, part of the vast Clinton conspiracy. According to the Daily Beast, "the company is so intertwined with the Clintons that some accuse its founders of tacitly marketing the firm as a means of accessing the political power family: pay for Teneo services and make Clinton connections in return." That makes him less than disinterested, although most media outlets forgot, or were unaware of, his strong ties to the Clintons. [They omitted it deliberately.]
Those are the latest campaign-trail developments. Same sad shit. Polls up and down. Now, will you vote for Gary Johnson? You vote for freedom is free, 8 November.Posted 19 August 2016
Pass The Sugar (Tax)
Oh say can you sit
A story injecting itself into the news for several days. American-football player Colin Kopernicus refuses to stand during the Star Spangled Banner, and honour the flag because, I believe, he objects to police getting away with killing Blacks. What do I think? I do not give a rat's ass because Number 1) he's a football player, and Number 2) of all the horrible acts committed by these sports figures, this is the one that draws all the outrage? Would he have been better off beating a woman or shooting someone? In one election cycle, the big issue was whether there should be a Constitutional Amendment making flag-burning a crime. Let me repeat. Burning the flag should be a crime, supporters said. Not holding it upside down, stepping on it or ignoring it. Burning it. That false issue vanished. Now not standing is supposedly something to offend us. No, its not. Many times, I have faced a situation where everyone stands for enforced patriotism, usually at a sports event. I usually stand and do nothing more — no hand on my heart or singing along. Forcing a pledge offends me, fine in a fully totalitarian nation, not a free one. Now, it is being argued that soldiers fought for our freedom, so we should stand and salute the flag. But they didnt fight for a fucking flag, at least I hope not. In most cases, they didnt fight for freedom, just to satisfy some sleazy politicians who ignited a war for expediency or on a whim. The Revolutionary War was fought for freedom. A few others as well. During my lifetime, there have been exactly zero wars that had anything to do with freedom or protecting the United States. I feel terrible that countrymen and countrywomen were killed and maimed, but that has nothing to do with a flag or a song. And the wars were wrong. As far as the players issue with the police, I would support him if he complained that the police get away with abuses, including murder, because of systemic failure and militarisation of law enforcement. It has nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity. Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko thoroughly examines this problem. Kopernicus could read it, if football players read. What bugs me is that the Constitution is ignored. That is the law of the land, not some silly banner or jingle. Big-mouth Donald Trump put in his two cents, saying the guy should move to another country. I lsuspect there are places with more freedom, but that is hardly the point. The US of A claims to be the land of the free in the song that is key in this controversy. Whether another country is freer is irrelevant. We do not even have free and open elections, as many other countires do. Until the government starts following the Constitution, freedom is an illusion, this nation is a fraud and everyone can ignore the stars and stripes, in my humble opinion. 30/8/16 c a t
|Its a Byrd, its a Plame, its |
a GT BOOK REVIEW
Lies, Clinton style
Questions for Madam Secretary25 import things about Hillary instead of the usual left-wing piffle:
by John Roberts, retired
The Official GT Slade Blog