Category Archives: Obama

Corona, corona

Corona beer comes from yeast, not a virus.
there is no connection whatsoever…

There are people who believe that the latest health threat to emanate from China is caused or somehow made contagious by Corona Beer, a well-known health threat from Mexico.  It is on this canvas that the gloppy acrylics of impeachment, economics, presidential politics, petro-dollar monetary policy, Antifa, Hezbollah, North Korea, opioid deaths and suicides, and the real threat of coronavirus must create a picture that is both truthful and meaningful to majorities in dozens of countries including our own.  Whew!  There are 15 national leaders whose views and beliefs about these and other issues, will define the next ten years and beyond: Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ali Khamenei, Kim Jung Un, Xi Jinping, Ram Nath Kovind, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Volodymyr Zelensky (who at least has a sense of humor), Arif Alvi (who doesn’t), and both last and least, Nicolás Maduro, who is an idiot.

Mixed up in all of their opinions is the existence of American constitutionalism, our ostensible structure of rights and freedoms, and our unbalanced, imperial economy.  Our primary concern must be the survival of the United States and freedom itself.  What presidential politics does every four years is stir us enough to reflect on our beliefs about our nation and our country, not the same things.

Democrat hotheads, committed to control of… well, everything, have impeached Trump to no good end, although his acquittal was never in real doubt.  No good end, certainly, but the disinformation value of, first Mueller, and then impeachment itself, must appear to elected Democrat leaders as a worthy end nevertheless.  Those who now shy away from bottled Corona most assuredly cling to bottled hatreds, known and unknown, but felt viscerally.  So there is the worthiness of relentless hatred of the aforementioned Mr. Trump.

There should be little disagreement with the proposition that hatred is the worst basis for political competition, yet hatred is everywhere employed in the United States, of all places.  Hatred doesn’t develop automatically.  Fear does: it’s pure ethnocentrism, even “racism,” per se.  But racism and fear of difference are not hatred.  Hatred is a visceral desire to kill or destroy the “other.”  To fear or to mistrust a stranger – or a strange “culture” – is instinctive and need not be taught.  To HATE  that person or group requires coaching, teaching, explanation and mythology.  It’s a long-term, methodical process to convert fear to hatred.  Who does crap like that?

Here and there are parents who were, themselves, taught to hate certain others and to varying degrees manage to convince their children to also hate them.  But it’s not as easy to do in the modern era, as public schools, ostensibly, fight the urge to bully or to gang-up on the unusual or most defenseless kids.  To some degree, children receiving messages of hatred at home are going to hear enough lessons countering that prejudice, that fewer and fewer reach early adulthood with firm hatreds.

Yet, now we have a split electorate, fueled by the sweet lies of socialists (people complain about Trump’s looseness with the truth but never a peep about the absolute and historical bullshit spread in the name of socialism).  A virtual communist is at or near the front of the pack in the ostensible “Democrat” party’s campaign for nomination to the presidency, and giddy polls regularly trumpet the acceptance of “socialism” by millenials.  There are reasons to fear Bernie Sanders’ cry for “transformation” of the United States, just as there were for the stated intentions of Barack Obama to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

Consider just the “ACA,” Affordable Care Act, which was not “affordable,” whatever that was hoped to mean, and it wasn’t about “care,” particularly: it was about coverage, the perpetual stumbling bloc to health care.  The nature of every “coverage” entity, whether “insurance” companies and HMO’s or governmental agencies that both regulate and directly pay actual care providers, is to reduce costs.  The main difficulties inherent in the ACA-expanded coverage industry were made worse and more expensive, nearly removing people from decision-making while nearly removing physicians and others from caring about their customers.

These sorts of change ought to be anathema to citizens of a nation with the heritage of the United States.  Our mythos is founded in individualism, self-made success, pioneering advancement into unexplored territories, and homesteads created even where the only building material was prairie turf.  Somehow the steady erosion of socialist promises of “free” safety and comfort have weakened the resolve of Americans to take control of their lives and circumstances, and to do so responsibly.

(See:
http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/01/16/health-care-fairness-and-free-enterprise/

Obama also made substantial changes to our foreign relations and to our ability to control events to our benefit, rather to enhance the influence and strength of Muslim regimes.  Fundamental transformation.  Here in 2020 these same intentions are voiced repeatedly by Bernie Sanders and others whose vision is not to improve or “perfect” our union, but to replace our form of government by altering Constitutional institutions and original rights.  The “new” goals are not comprised of strengthening liberty, but to “set” everyone’s standard of living so that no one is “above” his fellow residents: ultimate “fairness,” a new form of political organization that removes the interference in individual beliefs by churches, and in which every sort of human pleasure-seeking will be permitted… by benign elites, and, perhaps, taught in public schools.

The struggle of socialism is never-ending.  While “we” in the American, Judeo-Christian traditions of individual liberty and responsibility tend to assume our battle for freedom is won… and done, globalist socialism never rests on its continuum of undermining and destroying liberty and faithfulness.  It is a continuum that extends back to the “Garden of Eden.” 

“What?” you say, “nothing Prudent about that silly claim.”

Well, a few terms we don’t think about enough: Thesis – The Word of God, or the first premise; Antithesis – Direct opposition to the Word of God; Synthesis – Human-generated, pretended, compromise position with the Word of God.  The synthesis becomes the new Premise, no longer the Word of God, something less.  Is this not exactly what the “Serpent” offered to Eve, assuring her that God’s threat to not eat of the tree in the midst (center) of the Garden, or touch it “…,lest thou die.” would not come true.  “thou shalt not surely die.” the serpent told her.  God issued the thesis to Not eat of the tree; Serpent offered the antithesis  that the punishment would not be death (at least not right away) and the rewards of knowledge were worth the chance.  Is this process any more or less than the Hegelian dialectic?  Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis.  Abortion is no longer murder; socialism will create a better America than God did.

BALANCING ACT

Increasingly Mr. Donald Trump is becoming the fulcrum on which our democratic republic balances, and he has not shown, yet, that he is rigid enough to affect the balance.  This is not to say he isn’t tough.  The constant attacks, threats of impeachment since inauguration, and unusual hatred, would wilt lesser men, and often has.  Much has been made of the turnover in Trump’s administration, as if it represented “chaos” in the administration.  While it may yield a little “chaos,” it is temporary.  The problem is that Trump believes that when someone is hired, he or she owes an outward loyalty, at least, to the “boss.”

What has taken him some time to recognize is that every – as in, every single one – person in a position to execute policy or influence policy, has an agenda.  Worse, since the Obama administration, agendas in Washington are no longer matters of how to accomplish national goals, no nuanced approaches to policy.  Agendas now are only to accept or to oppose the direction desired by the elected president.  Many of those recommended for top appointments, especially on matters of international policy, held an agenda of opposition, and deserved replacement.  The president now must become very strict towards his appointees, and this mood must extend deeper and deeper into the many agencies who are happy to oppose him.  (see: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2019/11/28/due-process/ )

Is Trump up for this?  It is hard to tell.  He seems not to take very much advice, else someone would have tempered his Tweeting; on the other hand, his selections for judgeships reveal good work and recommendation by someone else.  Still, he has not been as thorough in replacing appointees as his predecessor was, and many of those in the White House, State Department, Department of Justice and the “Intelligence Community,” are actively opposed to Trump, his background, his style of work and speech, and to his America-first policies.  Their allies in the Congress and other covens of Democrat-leftists, have done their worst to hamstring the president since he first appeared to have a chance at the nomination, never mind the election.

Despite the roadblocks and mistreatment by much of the press, Trump has managed to accomplish quite a bit, and he has changed the nature of American diplomacy somewhat.  Will it all bear fruit?  It is impossible to say, but certainly no more impossible to predict than have been the results of “normal,” deep-state diplomacy over the past 50 years.  The best way to guarantee the predicted outcomes in all that time has been for the United States to give up more – including sovereignty – than we ever have asked… or received in return.  Predictions of opposing sides’ accepting all the American largesse our “negotiators” could give away, always came true.

One hopes that should we not obtain the quality of a deal we need for U. S. benefit, that our “side” will stay strong and not immediately throw more value to the other side in order to “win” some sort of a deal that politicians can crow about, knowing that after a few dust-ups, most voters will forget what was even at stake and accept that the deal we got is better than “not talking” at all.  This is national hogwash, of course, and it stems from a general attitude of American unworthiness compared to other nations’ interests.  Trump supporters want a bull-dog negotiating for our side, both domestically and internationally.

At some point, one would surmise, the mendacity of the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and even the Obama White House, and the 3-year story of failing to prove any – as in, not even one – of the amazing allegations against Donald Trump and his appointees and supporters, would begin to dissipate the hot tempers that accompanied those allegations, both personal and legal.  At some point, the charges of “racism” and “sexism” should abate; the so-far indefatigable charges of “collusion” with Russians, well-debunked at great effort and expense, should fade away as the truth penetrates haters’ consciousness.  At some point, all of the energy needed to maintain hatred of Trump, the person, could be expected to turn toward political action.

But, with the gaveling into passage of two gaseous “articles of impeachment,” not yet.

RATIONAL ENDS

Antifa thugs with weapons and masks claim to right the wrongs of "fascists", mistakenly named as far-rightists.

One can understand why liberals and other proto-socialists feared George W. Bush.  He had developed himself into a patriotic, empathetic and religious man, shucking the follies of his youth and the excesses of inherited power… for the most part.  Growing up in the shadow of powerful and successful (read: wealthy) people, going back several generations, creates a different mindset and outward view from those of most of us.  The Bush dynasty developed from good fortune and good genes, and, perhaps, some good luck, but no family with the political impact of the Bushes could have had its hand on the levers of wealth and power for so long without ruthless application of power and influence.

But “W” is/was a little different, more empathetic, stemming from his “kinder, gentler” father, George H. W. Bush, and from his newfound humility.  Unfortunately, after the 9-11 attacks, “W” also wanted to change the world, exporting and delivering democratic republicanism to other peoples who were not, in themselves, prepared to believe in it.  Still, more than most who ascend to the presidency, “W” remained fairly honest, believing in what he was doing, however wrong-headed.  Not a bad guy, all things considered, but not a particularly successful leader of the free world, let alone of the United States.  The hatred of him was just as wrong-headed, but some of the fears were rational.

The left was more than ready for a change and with some ruthless interventions, able to ride a wave of window dressing and socialism into the White House with Barack Obama.  Republicans in general didn’t trust him or ANY of his ideas, while those in congress tended to give him what he wanted for appointments and budgets, despite uniform hostility to the mis-named Affordable Care Act.  They couldn’t even make hay from his wild failures internationally and the mis-feasance / malfeasance of his Secretary of State… not even from his demilitarization of the armed forces, socially and financially.  He completed two terms, by the end of which he had virtually decimated the Democrat Party.

Still, Obama accomplished much of what he promised to do, starting with the destruction of compromise with Republicans.  “We won,” he would say.  Policy discussions with Republicans were few and fruitless, if not more derogation than debate.  The liberal press learned that access came from right-thinking (left-thinking), not honesty and, indeed, many government types were finding jobs with networks and relatives of powerful network types were finding jobs in the administration – altogether too cozy a relationship and bearing no relationship to the term: Free Press.  From 8 years of besmirching “W” Bush at every turn, the left-leaning, Obama-approving press learned that fawning coverage of Obama was a ticket to better ratings.

For the average listener/reader/watcher, the Obama administration was the opportunity to espouse socialism and so-called “multi-culturalism.”  Suddenly, finally, it became okay to proclaim alternatives to and opposition towards… umm, actually, more like hatred  towards the institutions and standards of “American” culture.  Everything that was influenced by the Bible, Christianity and English common law, was fair game for leftist, communists, socialists, atheists and anti-U.S. activists of every stripe, many of whom had been lurking in public education for years.  College campuses are full of their weak-kneed and malleable products, now.

Oddly, crony capitalism expanded under Obama, that erstwhile social warrior, as have monopolies, due in large part to the digitization of information and the intellectual laziness of large swaths of the population, particularly educators.  Given free rein to proselytize leftward, weaker teachers at all levels literally graded on right-thinking (left-thinking) rather than on true intellectual curiosity, balanced inquiry, research and expansion of knowledge.  Indebted graduates and drop-outs emerge committed to ideas untested and unchallenged.  Some professors, reduced to tears and seclusion after Hillary’s electoral loss, have never recovered, except to hate the current president and to entertain ways to undo some parts of the Constitution so that such defeat may never recur.

The “politics of personal destruction” first named during the early Clinton era, has become just “politics.”  Since The Loss, the only path to power appears to be one that climbs over destruction of opponents, at least for Democrats, and not one paved with better ideas, policies and uplift.  As with all socialist movements, uninvolved people are also destroyed, at least in spirit, in order to create a more perfect world, free of merit and everything else that works for the majority of people.  Inevitably, the controlling elite minority (also very wealthy) will self-identify and new rules will prevent anyone else from gaining “unfair” advantage in society.  Those who “cling” to quaint ideas of individual sovereignty, self-protection, private property, unlicensed enterprise and the Electoral College, will be clearly spotlighted as the reason for others’ failure to achieve, and further restricted to make things even more fair.  A final solution for their uppity independence will pass both houses.

Now, too, politics includes the Orwellian “Antifa” gangs.  Somehow, and for obscure political reasons never explained, various municipal governments tolerate lawlessness as if it were actually “anti-fascist” in its purposes.  Who wants “fascism” in their warmly welcoming and inclusive cities?  The thing of it is that “antifa” employs the tactics of classical fascism!  Huh.  The terrible “fascists” whose heads they try to crack consist of people who believe, basically, in the U. S. Constitution, and there is the crux of modern politics: Constitutionalism and the enumerated and implied rights guaranteed thereunder, is being vilified as “fascism,” an extraordinary twist of language and logic.  Our “free press” supports this dichotomous hatred of the country whose Constitution protects them.

The other “new” element of politics in 2019 is a mix-up of anti-legality and anti-Americanism, if not anti-Americans.  The hot words are “illegal alien” or, more accurately: “illegal entrant.”  One party has invested political capital, much heat, anger and historic blindness on behalf of open borders, unrestricted illegal entry and loose, extra-legal asylum/refugee processes.  The net effect of it all is to flood the nation with aliens who are neither committed to earn citizenship or even to learn English, rather to steal from Americans – through government agencies who willingly participate in lawlessness – in order to “share the American Dream” or other phrases of equally opposite meaning.  That there is a political party gaining support on this basis ought to trouble all of us.

It seems within the realm of Prudence to doubt the true motives of the Democrat party and its best-known leaders.  This is no testament to the righteousness of Republicans, but the rapid leftward skid of Democrats is unparalleled in American history.  Since Roe v. Wade the defense of abortion has become more than a mere knife in the heart of Life, itself, morphing into a virtual sacrament that Democrats must receive to stay in the party.  Death to unborn children, unborn Americans.  It has served its second purpose well, the delegitimizing of religion, most specifically Christianity: the death of America, itself.  In leftist hands abortion has been the sharp wedge for breaking the bonds of our federation of states and to break the bonds of freedom, as well.

Some 61 Million Americans have been denied the Right to Life, mainly for convenience.  Some millions of them would have grown up to love this nation and its exceptional purposes.  They’d have grown and loved and learned and married and taught their children to take care of themselves and their families and their country.  Perhaps that is the threat those babies represented – a threat so grievous that they had to be eliminated before they threatened the final solution for our aberrant Constitutionally limited  democratic republic, Land of the Free.

Simple abortion has itself morphed into infanticide while illegal entrants are encouraged to sneak in to the country in order to have their babies become U. S. citizens as if by magic.  There is magic afoot in abortion on demand: black magic that makes murder the day before birth a right; and for babies who insist on living through abortion procedures, quiet termination in HOSPITALS at the hands of doctors and proto-parents who simply don’t want to take the baby home.  Are these children not U. S. citizens by virtue of birthright?  How is it that these citizens have not been murdered by willful neglect?  Magic most foul, and the hallmark of Democrats – the Party of Death.

Red Rover, Red Rover…

The wisdom of Barack Obama is finally coming into focus.  Conservatives had a field day pointing out ignorant and inaccurate things Mr. Obama has a habit of saying: “57 states,” Austrians speaking “Austrian,” Hawaii being “in Asia.”  Barry Soetero, ne’ Obama, has demonstrated rather loose connections to hard facts, but those are not where his ‘wisdom’ lives.

Perhaps his first wise move was marrying Michelle Robinson, by far the smarter of that couple.  It is Prudent to assume that Michelle’s advisements to her husband overrode and were superior to many of his own ideas, including with whom to surround himself.  We suspect that this included having Joe Biden serve as his Vice-President.  Biden would never upstage her husband and would serve to make him seem normal to suspicious Whites.  Barry’s wife was/is far more popular than he was… or is.

Barack’s life is mainly a closed book, the details of which are purposely obscured; Michelle’s is far better understood in comparison.  Mr. Obama is unable to even prove his birthplace after spending literal millions to stop constitutional demands for that proof.  Prudence suspects that there will eventually emerge proof of non-U. S. birth for this enigmatic man, the legal implications of which are fascinating.  Back to the wisdom part.

Obama’s wisdom is political, and little else.  He’s not an historian or an economist, certainly no military expert and he can’t throw a baseball, but he understands propaganda and manipulation, both short and long term.  Prudently, he has destroyed the Clintons as part of his oft-stated intention to “fundamentally transform” the United States. First, he defeated Hillary head-to-head, but made her Secretary of State where she could bear the brunt of the wild and wishful foreign policies he was planning.

In that role, Obama allowed stories to exfiltrate that it was Mrs. Clinton who pushed for the destruction of Libya, for example, which hardened feelings against her in some quarters, essentially ruining any residual veracity she may have had.  He allowed her – possibly helped her – to profit from “pay-to-play” schemes involving the Clinton Foundation, essentially buying her loyalty.  Additionally, he permitted by acquiescence, her use of an illegal eMail system, forcing her into a legal corner almost guaranteed to ruin her candidacy for president.  Trump, in reaction to the dangers she finally appeared to represent to ‘normal’ Americans, was the electoral result.  But liberal-socialists need not have worried, the groundwork had been well-laid in the waning months of Obama’s administration to hog-tie the new president, and take over the opposition, once the Democratic Party.

To make certain that the Clintons would be destroyed, Obama’s friends, Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch… and others, added as thick a patine of sleazy dealings and advantageous treatment for Mrs. Clinton as could be applied, assuring her electoral failure.  That was job one.

Job two is destroying compromise between the two parties while guiding Democrats so far leftward that there is no suitable descriptive name for them any longer.  In a political blink of an eye, Democrats have swarmed to challenge Trump with what appear to be outrageous propositions (in the eyes of conservatives and other ‘normal’ citizens) not least of which is the invasion across the southern border.

Trump, never more than imperfect, somewhat glaringly so in certain arenas, was elected as much a ‘not-Clinton’ as a recognized expert in foreign affairs, economics, military power or diplomacy.  He has surprised many by persevering through a mugging of a thousand cuts, and shows some decent instincts, but has yet to comfort the skeptical.  Despite good approval polling, Trump is made more vulnerable by the nature of the multiple representatives of socialist idiocy arrayed against him.

The Democrat candidate he will face is not yet in the race, is our Prudent opinion.

One recalls the burst of excitement during the few days that it seemed possible that Oprah Winfrey might get into the presidential race.  Finally, supporters thought, a “non politician” we can get behind.  They already loved her and Prudence suspects that there were virtually no criticisms of her that would have stuck.  She isn’t going to run for president.

Back to Barack Hussein Obama’s political long march to transform America.  He and his backers have prepared the ground and ‘fertilized’ it well.  All he needs, now, is to plant the right flower.  And he will.  It is impossible for him and for his fellow travelers to recede into the background.  Their struggle to overturn freedom is a daily one.  The master they serve never sleeps and never relents.  Trump is going to face Michelle Obama, who will announce with Oprah at her side and a fawning press at her feet.

Hillary Clinton was a minor quiz; this Constitutional Republic is about to be sorely tested.

Let’s Start With the President

By Prudence Leadbetter

Dateline: Washington, DC, August 2015

Hour by hour the audacity of Obama’s socialist revolution amazes even the most jaded observers.  Otherwise intelligent reporters and analysts, although biased toward the left, are completely hornswoggled by the rush of new and foreign policies that are tumbling out of the White House.  While Obama sets about to hastily transform America into something radically else – which is his singular and intensive purpose – pundits are actually debating the fine points of his erstwhile “economic recovery plan,” wondering on air whether it will “work” to restore “our” economy.  No one seems to recognize that Obama’s real plan is working just fine – the evidence is all around us.  His is not a war on terrorism, it is a war on Capitalism and so far he has won every battle.