Full disclosure, I didn’t watch a single word of President Trump’s inaugural speech to the United Nations General Assembly (also known as UNGA by the suits in the media). I have to be honest with y’all, I don’t much care for the United Nations.
There is nothing remotely serious about a bunch of anti-American, anti-semite, anti-Christian world “leaders” blowing smoke out their derrières. I have zero patience or tolerance for a bunch of self-righteous Marxist suits shouting obscenities towards everything that is righteous. Except when they begin to take away my rights and steal my property, then bring out the torches and pitchforks (and the well-armed militias).
However, it was Trump’s first speech to the swamp dwellers of global Neanderthals. By all accounts, everyone on the Left hated it. That’s to be expected from the morons over in “the resistance.” But what is slightly more interesting, but only by a hair, is the reaction from those on the Right.
Let’s be clear, there are currently multi-levels and groups that comprise the “Right,” none of which is particularly “conservative” at the moment. But for the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to lump people in one of two camps. The right-wing reactions ranged from skeptically praiseworthy of Trump’s speech as “the finest” speech of his presidency to the “Fearless Leader” cult who believes that Trump was Churchillian.
The one thing that both right-wing camps have in common with Trump’s maiden UN speech is they are both praiseworthy. Therefore, without having seen the speech, I’m going to take that as the truth.
But the critical skeptic of any politician in me says, “Remember, it was only a speech.” Words mean absolutely nothing if they are not followed by policy that is consistent with the rhetoric in the speech.
Considering the following:
- The wall is still not built.
- Hillary is still not locked up.
- The Iran deal is still in effect with Secretary Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, and General Kelly all in favor of keeping the deal with changes.
- And DACA isn’t repealed.
It would be a completely honest and fair assumption that it is highly probable that nothing good that Trump said in his UN speech will see the light of day. I will be skeptically praiseworthy and happily proven wrong, but only if Trump stays true to what he said in the speech.
Now, about those Trumpists who think this speech makes him the next reincarnated Winston Churchill. And the Evangelical Trumpers, I’m ashamed to admit, are the worst offenders at falling for this Churchillian trap.
I have a private island I’d like to sell you.
Yes, it is true that Churchill gave some great, awe-inspiring speeches. But the speeches are not what made Churchill the leader that he was during World War II. What made Churchill… well, Churchill… was the leadership he displayed in moving his nation, the West, and the world towards actions that won a World War, and help build the military and economic strength of Western civilization.
In other news…
The Republicans and President Trump have decided to engage in a last ditch effort to pass a faux-repeal of Obamacare. It’s faux because they repeal the individual and employer mandates (great), but they leave in place the regulatory and pre-existing core elements of Obamacare. And they claim it’s “federalism” because of the so-called block grants and state waivers.
The problem with the Graham-Cassidy plan is that it keeps what made Obamacare the most expensive takeover of one-sixth of America’s economy in this nation’s history. The block grants do in fact give states more flexibility, but it’s flexibility is limited to how to distribute federal taxpayer money. It is still at the same cost of Obamacare. The Republicans just changed who the middleman is between the government and the insurers.
You might be asking, “But doesn’t the state waivers of some regulations allow the states to essentially repeal Obamacare?” And risk losing federal tax dollars? Why would a state waive Graham-Cassidy’s Obamacare regulations and lose federal funding? Ohio Governor John Kasich railed against Obamacare regulations and subsidies, and then when push came to shove, he accepted the federal money.
If you think 2017 is going to be any different, then I have another private island I want to sell you.
As much as I hate the individual and employer mandates, and they should be repealed, those mandates were keeping premiums and costs down (relatively speaking, considering premiums and costs still dramatically increased). The skyrocketed premiums and costs are primarily caused by the Obamacare regulatory structure and pre-existing condition requirements.
Therefore, Graham-Cassidy keeps Obamacare in place without the mandates. Keeps the federal spending, but shifts it to a different middleman. And premiums and costs are going to still rise exponentially. There is absolutely nothing remotely vote worthy about the Graham-Cassidy bill. It should be opposed.
I have yet to hear a solid argument why this is “better than nothing” or that “Graham-Cassidy saves us from BernieCare,” also known as single-payer “Medicare-for-all.” What Graham-Cassidy does is saves the GOP from annihilation into the ash heap of history by letting their politicians go back to their constituents telling them they voted to repeal Obamacare. And the corrupt status quo of the two-party system will live on thanks to Graham-Cassidy.
It also allows Bernie Sanders and the Democrats to say, “Hey, the Republicans tried to reform and fix Obamacare, it’s now our turn. Our ‘Medicare-for-all’ single-payer system won’t cost you anything at the doctor.” Sure, the Republicans will hem and haw, and rail against “BernieCare” at townhalls, but then they’ll cave and accept it as inevitable.