Friday, November 18, 2016

Protesting Paranoiacs

One can only wonder what it would have been like in 2008 and 2012 if disappointed people vis-à-vis Obama’s election had taken to the streets like those disappointed about Trump’s election are doing in a few cities across the country.  What’s happening with these people furnishes a window into what the socialist-oriented think about this country.  

This is different from 2000, when the Supreme Court of Florida attempted to steal the election from George W. Bush.  That was an official, albeit illegal, action by a government, settled quickly by the Supreme Court of the U.S.  What’s happening now is a protest meaning nothing since it’s not an official undertaking by any group.  Hopefully, it will not eventuate in criminal activity but that possibility is real.   

If there had been a protest movement in 2000, the protesters would probably, as now, be largely black, teens and twenty-somethings.  This means disaffected ethnics and public school and university/college students in the main, another way of saying immature and ill-informed, especially in the universities, in most of which the faculties are far-left (progressivists) and prone to indoctrinate young minds with their socialist agendas.   

With the blessings of the current establishment figures in both federal and large-city governments, protesters have understandably been encouraged to make disruption of the freedoms of others as a tool to effect their agendas, the devil take the hindmost.  This was graphically illustrated by Obama’s DOJ (AG Holder) when it went after an innocent policeman in Ferguson, Missouri, a while back to try to wreck his life.  It was illustrated later when the Baltimore mayor indicated that protesters should have their “space” to do their thing such as attacking people and burning other people’s properties and/or destroying their businesses/livelihoods.   

This involves a third- or fourth-world mentality, to wit, that matters are settled in the streets and not at the ballot box.  It has been encouraged by Obama since it involves displacing one dictator with another, i.e., rule by a monarch.  Obama has repeatedly tried to govern by executive order, as a monarch would, disregarding the legislature and the courts despite the mandates of the U.S. Constitution.   

This is the socialistic approach favored by both Obama and Hillary Clinton, elitists who would hand the government over to a small band of oligarchs to work their will, gaining power and immense wealth, all at the expense of the little people.   Theirs is the something for nothing propaganda—the mythic level playing field—on which the government makes every decision, whether personal or institutional.  

The best example: Obamacare. This act was designed to fail at best or through ignorance at worst. Based on payments by insurance companies, which exist to make profits and not necessarily for public benefit, the pattern was to eventuate in single-payer mode, notwithstanding that Medicare couldn't even be managed by government and had to be turned over to insurance companies for its administration.  

MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, paid at least $400,000 for Obamacare-design, apologized before Congress for referencing the public as stupid, the notion being that the great unwashed would never catch-on to actual provisions, and he was right. In fact the democrats, who passed the legislation (no republican in House or Senate voted for it), didn't bother to read it but probably couldn't have understood it anyway.  

This may explain the plight of the protesters, who may actually believe the result of the election can somehow be overturned. This is tin-horn-dictator stuff. In Venezuela, street protests might work (or not) if they become violent enough, as has been seen in Muslim countries like Libya, Egypt, and Syria recently. In fact, Obama joined the protesters in Libya by siccing the U.S. Air Force on Qaddafi.  

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: