 |
| Photo from the Daily Mail |
One of my Facebook finds offers the following explanation:
Dear Democrats and Liberals,Additional reading from THIS BLOG POST at Ed Bonderenka's site, Not of This World:
I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact, you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently "triggered." Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
"How did this happen?" you ask.
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
"You" created "us" the silent majority.
And we became fed up, and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
"You were supposed to be seeing that America's children were getting a top education, but you indoctrinated them with socialist ideals and Common Core.
You're Fired!"
"You were responsible for protecting our borders and you let people invade this country,
You're Fired!"
"You were supposed to be protecting America's environment and you put Americans out of work.
You're Fired!"
"You were supposed to be fighting America's enemies and you restrained our soldiers from prosecuting the war.
You're Fired!"
"You were charged with collecting taxes and you persecuted conservatives. You're Fired!"
"You were charged with administering services to veterans and you bought artwork. You're Fired!"
You also nominated the head of the infamous Clinton Gang.
ReplyDeleteThe most corrupt politician you could, since Bill already had his shot at it.
And people noticed.
Lead headline at the BBC:
ReplyDeleteTrump: Obamacare key provisions to remain
Duck,
DeleteApparently, Trump is considering keeping two of the provisions of ObamaCare. I read his exact words somewhere, and nothing I read indicates that he's made a final decision.
From this source:
Delete...Trump indicated that he might keep several provisions, such as the law’s insurance guarantee, which requires that insurers cover Americans, even if they are sick.
He also said he likes a provision in the law that allows young adults to remain on their parents’ health plans until they are 26.
Trump said he had been persuaded to look at these provisions after meeting at the White House with President Obama this week.
“I told him I will look at his suggestions, and out of respect, I will do that,” Trump said.
The two provisions are among the most popular in the health law, which Obama signed in 2010.
And congressional Republicans have signaled for several years that they would keep them in any repeal program that they develop....
Trump is a businessman, and he's doing what a businessman does: running an idea up the flagpole.
The federal government does not have the enumerated power to administer a mandated health care program, with taxes and fines. Trump has already proven that he is no Conservative.
DeleteCI,
DeleteThe federal government does not have the enumerated power to administer a mandated health care program
We could say that about a lot of other federal programs, too. Think FDR!
These unconstitutional programs are in place because of the general welfare clause in our Constitution's Preamble. What a floodgate that particular clause has opened!
As far as who is and who is a true Conservative, the list is limited. And I'm no longer sure that the electorate will support true Conservatism. I've felt this way for well over a decade now.
The ugly truth is this: we've had a paradigm shift, and, in many ways, Conservatism lost. I lay most of the blame at the feet of our public education system (K-graduate school).
It concerns me not that Trump might be interested in retaining some popular provisions of a generally failed program, which in itself as CI pointed out is unconstitutional, but that Trump thinks it's HIS prerogative to decide what is law.
DeleteBeen there, done that.
That's the greater constitutional issue.
We could say that about a lot of other federal programs, too.
DeleteExactly! And until somebody starts cleaning house, all we're doing every 4 years, is voting for the person who promises to maybe better manage unconstitutional, collectivist policies.
CI,
DeleteThere is no way to roll the clock back completely. But maybe -- just maybe -- Trump will on a business-management basis.
This is certainly know: Jeb Bush would have been nearly as great a disaster for our republic as HRC. And the GOP management was determined to run Jeb -- until Trump showed up. I see the political demise of Jeb as a great victory for our republic.
Disagree. We can absolutely remove unconstitutional programs. We just lack the political backbone.....thus we proclaim to the heavens a diametric opposition to the "other party", and then carry on as usual. This is why the duopoly is killing our Republic.
DeleteCan't wait to see what he does with the 2A.
CI,
DeleteDisagree. We can absolutely remove unconstitutional programs.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
One final thought on this, if we absolutely cannot remove unconstitutional programs once begun, why do GOP candidates run on doing exactly that? Are they lying to you?
DeleteLacking the political backbone? It's not force of will, it's force of electorate.
DeleteFair argument, but my question stands.
Delete" why do GOP candidates run on doing exactly that?"
DeleteTo get votes.
Are they lying? Technically yes. But it shows intent.
Congress and political representation.
There's a thought, my friend, that I want to blog, but not take focus off my current post, regarding the electoral college. I'm looking forward to your input.
I'll keep an eye out!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteModifying the existing law is easier than pulling it out by the roots and putting a new program it its place, and it serves the same purpose.
DeleteWhy do we succumb to Ducky's plonkish literalism? It's a common ploy designed to throw spiked jacks in the road and flatten the tires of productive conversation.
Little progressive imps are fanning out across the nation sowing dissension before the Trump presidency even gets starter.
My advice? IGNORE THEM
Also, millions now rely on Obamacare. Trump and the GOP Congress realize it would be irresponsible to simply yank the program. It's going to take at least a year or more of transition in order to not leave people in the lurch.
Sure, some pig-headed rightwing morons will be screaming on day two because they didn't repeal on day one. They too should be ignored.
SF: agreed.
Delete"You were charged with protecting the First Amendment and you saw that Christians were persecuted for their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYou're Fired!"
Could you clarify this?
DeleteSending out the cake baking police. Selectively even, having never test-cased a Muslim bakery.
DeleteOr Little Sisters of the Poor.
Is there any instance of a Muslim owned bakery refusing service? Keep in mind that I support a private business owner refusing service to anybody they wish.
DeleteThe Little Sisters chose not to partake of the religious organization exemption. They were not persecuted anymore than anyone else falling under the unconstitutional ACA.
All citizens should be exempt under religious protection, not some addendum to a law.
DeleteConscientious Objectors to the draft don't have to belong to an organization.
That begs the larger question of why should some Citizens be treated with preference by the State, based only on what they profess to believe?
DeleteI knew we'd be arguing this again.
DeleteA right is not a preference.
The 1964 Civil Rights Law was an overreach that should only have applied to government institutions, anyways.
I have a right to trade in commerce and not violate my conscience, such as not having to perform a legal abortion.
Your move.
You and I agree, to a point. The ACA is unconstitutional.....as is a mandate directing a private enterprise, engaging in lawful commerce, to provide goods or services to everyone.....instead of whom the business deems fit.
DeleteBy singling out the Little Sisters, you seem to be saying that a belief system should get one a pass....but not another Citizen who may not share that belief, no? The former is preferential treatment by the State.
"The former is preferential treatment by the State."
DeleteCI, your mental gymnastics aside; No its not "preferential treatment by the State". Its an enumerated right under the Constitution. Do you disagree with that? If so, its seems like more of a spoiler mentality or sour grapes.
The State has always shown preferential treatment to certain groups one example would be the eligibility of appointment to West Point. Sons and daughters of Medal of Honor winners are eligible as are sons and daughters of deceased or 100% disabled Armed Forces Veterans. Why should they be eligible for such a cherry because of an accident of birth?
(BTW, I am a army veteran and was told shortly before mt ETS that I was eligible for appointment if I cared to strike for it and I don't disagree with the policy.)
If you disagree start the process of amending the Constitution.
Its an enumerated right under the Constitution.
DeleteCan you show me where in the Constitution it states that either 1) religious belief allows preferential treatment under the law, or 2) adherents to religious beliefs may pick and choose which laws they will abide by [even when an exemption is provided for them.
Your MoH analogy falls rather flat, as it's a stipulation of the award for service to the nation.
If we actually had Conservatives in power, we could start amending the Constitution, where appropriate. Unconstitutional, leftist policies and program don't need to be amended, they need to be phased out.
I'm not following, CI. Little Sisters shouldn't get preference for being a religious organization.
DeleteIt's not a preference to have your rights recognized.
The right to exercise your religious beliefs without compulsion from the government unless a danger to others overrides someone else's right to buy a cake or procure an abortion.
The law shouldn't force someone to support or finance abortion or contraception services.
No, I'm saying the Little Sisters had their rights explicitly recognized by the religious organization exemption. They chose not to take that exemption...their argument was "being complicit" in providing birth control by merely signing the exemption, even though they were not involved from the point of the exemption forward. Their religious liberty would to have been violated by undue government burden.
DeleteThe larger issue, which now mot many on the right seem to care about [since Tuesday], is twofold; the Federal government exceeding it's enumerated powers with respect to a mandated health care system, and an exemption not provided to the citizenry at large.
Paraphrasing what Warren stated, if one thinks we should have mandated healthcare, amend the Constitution.
They would have been approving of someone else doing in their name what they themselves could not do.
DeleteAlso, they are not looking for a preference.
They are looking to not be made to do that which is abhorrent to them or have someone else do it in their stead.
Ed - Then the case is made for utterly repealing the ACA, no?
DeleteIf you can get it done. Politics is the art of compromise.
Delete@ CI
Delete"Your MoH analogy falls rather flat, as it's a stipulation of the award for service to the nation."
Are you saying that a stipulation takes president over governmental favoritism? What have these sons and daughters did that deserves this favoritism? This is a boon "not provided to the citizenry at large."
"Paraphrasing what Warren stated, if one thinks we should have mandated healthcare, amend the Constitution."
I agree with that totally but, pragmatically, I don't think you'll get anyone in a position of power to touch it with a 3.048 m pole because of its political implications for SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
An act of Congress explicitly detailing the gratitude of a nation for services rendered, often at the gravest sacrifice? Yes, I do see the difference.
DeleteBut you're correct. Pragmatically, virtually no entitlement program will ever be abolished once enacted...much like revenue streams. Which casts a bright light on the sloganeering of not even a week ago....to the camouflage and apologizing of today.
Political theater....and far too many are willing to sell their integrity cheaply, to partake.
CI,
DeletePragmatically, virtually no entitlement program will ever be abolished once enacted...much like revenue streams.
Has any entitlement program ever been abolished/completely defunded? Here in the United States, I mean.
Outside of minor reforms, none come to mind. So why does the GOP campaign on that?
DeleteThis video, "5 Most Ridiculous Celebrity Freak Outs in Response to Trump's Win," is a bit long, but worth your time. Spew alert!
ReplyDeleteI know you are busy, but if you ever get 2.5 hous, watch this. It's a "different" narrative... not necessarily "true" or "real", but worthy of your time. As a history of suicide bombings and indicator of what we can look forward to in the future, I suspect it's pretty good.
DeleteFJ,
DeleteWill try to find time to watch that video.
I've started tracking down ALL the guys videos. This one makes me LAUGH at Joe Biden's "Cancer Moonshot". They're not aiming at the "moon", they're only pretending to aim at it.
DeleteFJ, I just wanted to say that over the years you have broadened my horizons and made me laugh when a good laugh was needed.
Delete(Damn those torpedoes!) ;^)
COMPROMISING with eh DEVIL is exactly the same as COMPROMISING with the MARXICRATS.
ReplyDeleteIf Mr.Trump goes back on his some promise to JETTISON Obamacare in its ENTIRELY and replace into something far BETTER, my faith in him will not have been justified.
I have to admit my heart sank and a chill began to set in when OVOMIT and the President-Elect met for a "cordial interview" for NINETY-MINUTES at Casablanca.
I would have preferred to see Mr. Trump give him a slap in the face, a punch in the nose, and good swift kick in the shins before spitting on OVOMIT's prostrate form before turing on his heel and leaving the bastard president sobbing.
FT,
DeleteI'm not sure that we know what happened it that meeting.
And I'm wondering if the media are trying to created a Magical Negro narrative: specifically, that BHO so wowed DJT that DJT underwent "a conversion."
Thus far, the touted compromises don't fall into line with DJT's own words, which include "may" and other noncommittal words.
Time will tell if DJT will bend and thereby nullify his campaign promises. The pressure to make him do so are intense, IMO.
I started blogging years ago when progressives started pushing to redefine marriage and to force states to adopt their skewed vision of human biology. Our political signs kept getting stolen by folks who would rather shut down speech than allow dissent.
ReplyDeleteNow we see that same pigmy mentality on a national scale. Progressivism is a disease that infects and paralyzes the brain.
˄ brain-dead proof.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDucky likes to sneeringly refer to those on his right as "Calvinists," which is quite ironic and a revealing display of psychological projection.
ReplyDeleteProgressivism preaches a political Calvinistic Predestination
They can also be likened to a religious cult that predicts some event or the end of the world, and when it doesn't happen, some commit suicide or go crazy, while the leaders go about patiently setting a new date for the cataclysmic event.
The progressives are in meltdown because they believe their ideology is destined *Destiny!* to "progress" and own the future, hence the frequent arrogant and absurd pontifications about how the enemies of progressivism are "on the wrong side of history."
They have declared themselves right, everybody else wrong, and they have slammed to doors of their minds.
There is no more un-scientific statement than, "The Science is Settled!"
Progressives inhabit a hermetically-seal madhouse, minds poisoned by their own fumes. When reality forces its way in--as it always inevitably does--it incites the wailing, lashing out, violence, incoherent babbling, overwrought histrionics and hooting lunacy we all now have the misfortune of being subjected to.
May God grant peace to their tortures souls.
When you quote me please be accurate.
DeleteI refer to much of the evangelical right as Calvinist.
Much of that is tied up in their propensity to blame the poor rather than accept the possibility of structural problems in our system plus the curious notion of American exceptionalism.
However, the most damaging is their union of religion and laissez-faire capitalism. It would be tough to find a group who is more closed minded. Since by being biblically inspired they have no need of creative thought only dogma.
Look to the beam in your eye.
I knew you would be incapable of considering what I said.
DeleteThank you for stepping in a reinforcing my point.
Why the November 8 Result?
ReplyDeleteHere's another analogy that will never penetrate the rusted-shut steel trap minds of the indoctrinated progressives:
I knew many liberals back in the 80's, good folk who worked hard and raised their children to be good and moral citizens. The GOP repulsed and angered them chiefly because these good liberals resented--rightly so--having "family values" and morality lectured to them by pompous, sanctimonious pricks (many of whom turned out to be colossal hypocrites).
Now, can anyone see a mirror image of that being played out over the past decade by pontificating Progressives?
Basically, The Progressives are out of touch with the heart of the country. They couldn't hold their coalition together and overplayed their hand.
DeleteRush Limbaugh (just to "cheese" Nostradumbass off) always said that they were laughable when they didn't have power and scary when they did.
The "Progressives" aren't true Communists or Socialists for that matter but they use Communist Revolutionary tactics and Socialist rhetoric.
They are always forced to overplay their hand. You can't keep a "Progressive" base of infant revolutionary's intact for long periods of time without bloodletting. You can't keep a party center of working class "plebeians" intact by disrespecting them and ignoring their grievances. (mighty short sighted for a "Progressive" group that, literally and figuratively, can neither feed or clothe itself.)
Bill Clinton's mantra of "I feel your pain" is long-passed its expiration date.
Well stated and perfectly accurate.
DeleteOh, this is a good one. And yes, I want their brains to twist and squirm like earthworms on hot cement with no grass in sight. Maybe the shock to their brains will drive them closer to reality. Not optimistic though.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the process of "compromise" with "Progressives" always downward from a Conservative standpoint?
DeleteI'd say propose a Bill stating that every Citizen be required to own 4 firearms, 2 "real" assault rifles and 2 pistols capable of concealed carry. Then we could "compromise" to make that 2 firearms.
;^)
@ Kid,
Delete" I want their brains to twist and squirm like earthworms on hot cement with no grass in sight."
How would you know?
;^)
Warren, I like your thinking!
ReplyDeleteGreat post - embodies truth.
Baysider,
DeleteWarren rocks!
For good reason, he is my blog partner -- full partner.
Thank you Baysider.
DeleteAOW, :^)
Not only did the Socialist Regressive PC Left cause a President-elect Trump, the "'Go-along-to-get-along' because we are scared we will not get re-elected GOP elitist establishment" had a big hand in it.
ReplyDeleteMy original choice for President was Rand Paul (for many reasons). But honestly, from the first time he jumped on Trump in the very first debate, for not agreeing up front to support the GOP nominee no matter who it was, he was doomed. Each and every candidate that took him on from that point on, slipped out.
Like Paul Ryan said recently, Trump heard something that no one else in the GOP heard. There was a large and mostly silent group of people who had no faith in the system, who were awakened when they heard someone who represented their positions.
LA,
DeleteYes, the GOP elitist establishment was a major factor. There was no reasoning with the people. I tried. Dead end.
A lot of people were fed up with the GOP establishment's choice of nominee in 2008 and 2012; many of those fed-up people stayed home.
I was hoping Ted Cruz could have been President. With his knowledge of how the Senate and Supreme Court work and being a true Constitutional Conservative, we could have hoped for some real changes in Washington the Republic. The Establishment needs to be crushed!
DeleteWarren, the problem I had with Cruz was his connection to Goldman Sachs. Having a wife working for them is counter to calling for crushing the establishment, in my view. Make no mistake though, Trump's win is a crushing defeat for the establishment. All who came up against him failed and the more they fought against him, the stronger he became.
DeleteBut as in all elections, the easy part is over. NOW, he has to govern. We will see what he does, from here on out.
[If]this is true all whining should cease.
ReplyDeletehttps://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/