Tonight the slimy filth will return to the scene of the crime. Chicago.
Tonight Barack Obama returns to the scene of the crime. We are not talking about this month’s crime of black racists who imprisoned and attacked a mentally impaired white man and forced him to repeat their anti-Trump anti-white people rants – in Chicago. We are not talking about the crime of the thousands of people, many black, shot and killed every year the past eight years – in Chicago. The “crime” we refer to is the filthy pool of slime that nurtured Barack Obama – Tony Rezko’s – Chicago. Chicago, the “toddling town” that unfortunately “Billy Sunday could not shut down“. Chicago – the filthy slimy political Hellhole that gave rise to the corruption, the abomination called Barack Obama.
As documented so well by Newsbusters, Big Media has “drooled” every time Barack Obama opened his mouth. Newsbusters’ big failure is the lack of a Judith Warner mention as she masturbated herself in the New York Times with fantasies of sex with Barack Obama.
What Barack Obama will say tonight does not matter. We only commemorate this last “farewell” excretion by him as an opportunity to gloat and laugh at the boob that failed. Proof of the totality of failures by Barack Obama can be found today in Washington D.C. as Senator Jeff Sessions appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. In the following days more hearings will take place as the Trump triumph takes shape and the Obama failures are wiped away.
Barack Obama failed in all his goals. For a while Obama divided America and for a while Obama appeared anxious to destroy America – but Obama failed.
Tonight, in the corruption known as Chicago, Barack Obama will excrete more verbiage, diarrhea logorrhea, to try to explain his failures and disguise the failures as successes. Only the stupid or corrupt will believe anything Barack Obama says tonight.
Farewell addresses by former presidents once had a purpose larger than themselves. The two most important ones are from the first president, George Washington, and from Dwight Eisenhower who like the current President-Elect never held elective office before becoming president. Both of these farewell addresses are pertinent to the challenges about to be faced by President Trump.
George Washington’s Farewell Address sounds very much like Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign:
In his farewell Presidential address, George Washington advised American citizens to view themselves as a cohesive unit and avoid political parties and issued a special warning to be wary of attachments and entanglements with other nations.
The entire 32 page Farewell Address by Washington should be read to fully understand the challenges about to be faced by Donald J. Trump. Much of what Washington wrote will resonate for those that followed the Trump campaign and watch the new administration take shape.
Donald J. Trump ran for president on an “America First” platform and promised to “Make America Great Again – For All“. Trump also often mocked the very political party whose nomination he sought. In one debate he took particular glee in attacking the policies of the last Republican president whose brother he defeated during the primaries. Trump not only demolished the Bush family of Republicans. Trump also demolished the Clinton family and exposed as the failure he is, Barack Obama.
As pertinent as the first president’s farewell address is, the 34th president’s farewell address is even more pertinent.
We’ve seen President-Elect Donald J. Trump already begin to take on the power players President Dwight David Eisenhower warned about. Consider what President Eisenhower said and Donald J. Trump statements on his doubts about the so-called “consensus” on anthropomorphic climate change. Here’s President Eisenhower:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
What Eisenhower warned about has come to pass. Judith Curry:
[autoplay video removed]
She excelled at pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. Given the thoroughly politicized nature of climate science her efforts to clarify what is known and unknown by climate science caused her to be pilloried as “anti-science” by other researchers who are convinced that man-made global warming is leading toward catastrophe. In her blog annoucement Curry explains her resignation:
A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).
Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn’t identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn’t know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.
As relevant as Eisenhower’s warning about the potential corruption of scientific research by the power of government is, it is Eisenhower’s warnings about the “military-industrial complex” that most resonate today:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little resemblance to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Donald J. Trump, to much mockery from Big Media, has warned major arms makers such as Lockheed Martin and the Boeing Corporation. President-Elect Trump has also made clear there is much to be reformed in military procurement to stop the massive waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money:
WASHINGTON Pentagon leaders and thousands of military contractors across the country might be wondering just what President-elect Donald Trump has in store for them.
In two tweets this month that sent shockwaves through defense companies and their lobbying firms, Trump criticized the spiraling costs of building a new Air Force One and a fleet of F-35 fighter jets. [snip]
“He’s going to encounter a Pentagon bureaucracy that will instinctively say ‘no’ to most reforms he proposes,” said Todd Harrison, a former defense lobbyist and retired Air Force Reserves captain who’s now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. [snip]
“They don’t scrutinize the original bids carefully enough, so contractors come in with a low bid while understanding that they’re not going to meet it,” Hartung said. “And then the Pentagon will add requirements and new features along the way. Eventually the costs get out of control.”
By the time that’s evident, however, inertia keeps the program going. “Once they put a certain amount of money on the table, they’re reluctant to end or dramatically scale it back,” Hartung said.
Whether Trump will be able to change that culture is what experts in Pentagon procurement are watching. [snip]
The pre-inaugural meetings with the defense firm bosses give Harrison some grounds to hope. The meeting is in keeping with Trump’s penchant for the unconventional approach.
Afterward, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg pledged to get Air Force One built for less than the $4 billion budgeted. Lockheed Martin’s CEO Marillyn Hewson was less committal, pledging only that her company is dedicated to “delivering an affordable aircraft to our U.S. military and our allies.”
“I think he will be less likely to listen to the bureaucracy,” Harrison said of Trump. “What we’ve seen so far is that he’s more self-confident and he’s willing to say things and do things that buck the establishment. He almost takes joy in it.”
President Donald J. Trump will need to fight hard against the military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower warned. On December 15, 2016 it was revealed that the Pentagon tried to hide a report that documented one out of four dollars, $125 billion, of the Pentagon budget was wasted.
You can be sure that Barack Obama will not mention the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted by himself. Throw in the many failed Obama policies at home and abroad and the waste by Barack Obama amounts to trillions of dollars and eight full years.
So total are Obama’s failures that for the next eight years (yes, eight!) President-Elect Donald J. Trump will Make America Great Again with relative ease. When you go from the bottom of the barrel, Barack Obama, to the towering figure of Donald J. Trump, the future can’t come soon enough.
The future begins on January 20-17.
On January 20-17, President Donald J. Trump should read and be enlightened by the farewell speeches of Washington and Eisenhower. President Trump can use Obama’s farewell nonsense to fuel the fireplace in the Oval Office.