U.S. debt

A review of my article on Donald J. Trump written on the eve of the 2016 U.S. election, previewing this one

I shall attempt to briefly review the article I wrote on the eve of the last U.S. presidential election in 2016, and see how my expectations of candidate Trump compare with president Trump. It was difficult to understand why I titled it "There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...". However, it didn't take me long to realise that I was in the phase of titling all my articles after Bible quotes. That didn't last long, sadly, but I might well pick it up again.

The quotes seem to have been directed at the U.S. bishops, for their attempts to muddy what should have been quite a clear option between a candidate who professed a preference for very many good things and had no intrinsic evils in his campaign platform, and one who promised all sorts of intrinsic evils in her campain, with none of the goods that Trump had.

Everything I wrote about Hillary Clinton applies equally to Joe Biden, except with Biden we have the extra scandal of him being Catholic. He is, of course, not Catholic in any meaningful sense, but as he has not been excommunicated and was baptised Catholic, we have to live with the fact that he can identify as such, as indeed can Bergoglio. That is what makes both Biden's and Bergoglio's preferences for perversions and evils that much more condemnable, and damnable.

In the article was a list of top 10 reasons to vote for Donald J. Trump. He won the elections, as it turned out. I rather expected him to do it, and truth be told I am even more confident that he will win it this time, once again defying the polls which seem even more fake this time than they did the last. As little enthuasiasm as there was for Clinton, there virtually none for Biden. At least she had the novelty of being the first female presidential candidate. With Biden, all they can muster is "At least he's not Trump." I do not dismiss that those who hate Trump do it fervently, but it is difficult to see how it translates into waiting in line possibly for hours, and possibly in the rain, in order to vote for a man one more than likely finds distasteful. In just over a day or so, we shall see if the disgust for Trump among the anti-Trumper's translates into votes for creey Joe and his ghoulish running mate.

For full disclosure, I must preface this by writing that I am not a particularly big fan of Donald Trump, though I do find him amusing. I am definitely not a NeverTrumper, but nor am I an AlwaysTrumper. I am, however, a NeverBiden, and cannot fathom what would ever possess me to vote for a man as morally distasteful as Biden. In other words, I think I can offer a relatively dispassionate analysis of Trump's record.

So, what will follow is a walk-through of my 10 points with grades on how right I was compared to Donald Trump's actual record. Given Trump's erratic nature and lack of interest in details, it can be difficult to know just how much blame or credit we can give him for his record. Still, he appoints his underlings and signs off on the checks, the bombings and the priorities. His record belongs to him, and if nothing else, it allows us to see where his priorities lie, whether he has met success in his endeavours or not.

The points will be in bold text, with the score next, and the analysis below. Mind you, this is an analysis of how I predicted, or thought I understeood, candidate Trump's versus how president Trump has actually done. Of course, my analysis has do do with his campaign pledges, so it cannot be entirely divorced from what he actually pledged, but still, it is not a grade of how president Trump has succeeded versus some impeccable standard of perfection.

1. Donald Trump  is not a career politician. He is a man who has built a fortune on hard work and taking risks, and done a good job at it. In fact, he has managed doing what I would argue 99.999% of the world wants to do in a much better way than 99.999% of the world has managed. (7/10)

More of a statement of fact than anything else and hardly gradeable. I would define a career politician as someone willing to do anything and rid himself of any principle to get to the very top, regardless of whether it is good for his country or not. That would score a 0, so 7/10 means I think Trump has not behaved as a career politican would. Sadly, however, on many of the big decisions - big banking, military-industrial complex, continuing wars - he has toed the line of the political schemers.

He has still managed to incur the wrath of many of the right people, and often by being unconventional, so I'll give him a pretty high grade and conclude that I was right in claiming that he didn't behave as a career politican.

2. The man seems genuine. When he speaks, one gets the impression that he means what he says, and not that he is saying it because pollsters told him it would be good to do so. (5/10)

If Trump had not shut the country down in March, he would probably have got an 8 on this point. However, shutting down a country on account of a 'pandemic' he obviously did not believe was going around simply because he thought it more politically expedient to do so will in many ways come to become his defining moment - at least of his first term, if he should lose the re-election bid.

The one good thing about Trump is that he is not a particularly convincing liar when reading off a script. It has therefore been quite easy...

Chronicling several months of Bergoglio and U.S. roguery - Sunday 27th of January to Saturday 29th of June

Yes, I know: I have been atrociously bad at doing my weekly reviews. I wish I could guarantee an improvement, but I so dislike making empty promises that I can't bring myself to even attempting an assurance of that. In any case, I had been considering going away from weekly reviews towards shorter more pointed articles but since I had started on this 'weekly' review at the end of January, I thought I woudl extend it. First it was for a month towards the end of February, but as fortune would have it, it ended up covering several months and now covers the end of June.

My site was hacked in the meantime, which set me back a while. Most things are back to normal but the update has messed up my tagging system so I am limited to about a 5th of the tags I used to have and I haven't found a way around it. At the same time the browser I use (Firefox) seems to have experienced a problem on the operating system I use (Ubuntu Linux) and so I have not been able to use the content editor. Fortunately I realised that the content editor might work on other browsers, and I am now writing this article on Brave - a browser I can recommend to anyone. Not everything works though - hyperlinking to links doesn't, for instance - so I can't link to anything from within the article and I have to rely on the links at the bottom of the article instead. That is more than likely problem with my CMS (Drupal) than with my web browser.

I don't mean to bore you with all this nonsense, but to point out that I can come up with excuses like the best of them. In other words, it is not out of a lack of excuse-making that I refuse to jump on the "it-can-be-read-in-an-orthodox-way" bandwagon so popular among Bergoglio's enablers and defenders. Yes, I could come up with about 500 reasons why I haven't done my weekly reviews, and some  of them might even be valid, but there is really only one which counts: I have simply not taken the time to do it. It has certainly not been due to a lack of material. However, since this piece covers such a long period, I shall only be able to hit the highlights, or lowdarks, as it were, in both the secular and ecclesiastical world.

The best news is that it's been 5 months, which means I am 5 months older, which means Bergoglio is 5 months older, which means we are 5 months closer to the end of this horrific pontificate, or pseudo-pontificate, or whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

Right off the top of my head I can list any number of offences against the faith, and that's even without going back on my links. There's the appointment of McCarrick's closest friend as camerlengo, to take over when he retires. Then there is the Cardinal Wuerl replacement for Washington DC, who is really Cardinal Wuerl, with all his vices and then some, except a darker shade. While it is always exciting to see a black bishop in the U.S. considering that so few black people in the U.S. are Catholics, the man chosen to replace Wuerl is a disappointment in any measure, save for one which places perversion as a positive, which of course, is the scale Bergoglio seems to like most. Then there is Bergoglio choosing not to meet Matteo Salvini on account of Salvini not having the same fetish for kissing Muslim feet as he does, although Bergoglio put it in another way, obviously. We must also not forget the Abu Dhabi document, which I believe was signed during these past 5 months, and if ti wasn't doubtless there was a similar assault on the faith.

What we have not been treated to is another monsignor been arrested an account of a drug-fueled party at the Vatican, or a bishop openly converting to Talmudism, or wicca or some such. So I suppose it could have been worse, although I wonder if it would not be better for many of these NOChurch bishops to openly declare the religion to which they adhere because much of the time it is obvious that it is not Catholicism or even any of its heretical offshoots.

Bergoglioism is not a one-man religion though and on the face of it sometimes it seems like the world's fastest-growing religion - among ecclesiastics anyway. We have, of course, been treated to the horrendous Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazon synod, in which the authors seem to be declaring in all but name the official abandonment of the Catholic religion by NOChurch. Gone at least is the discussion of having the Eucharist in other matter than wheat - the only valid one. However, in are all manner of things, both pagan and protestant. Apparently instead of converting the Amazonian tribes, we are not supposed to learn from them how to be better in harmony with the world., and of course there is the issue of ending clerical celibacy which seems to be the whole point if this sham synod. 

You know what I can't understand? These people - Bergoglio and his minions - spend half their time talking about how we mustn't be dogmatic, how protestantism - in any of its 100,000 sub-domains - is equally good to Catholicism, how atheists go to Heaven, how everything is going to Heaven actually according to Bergoglio in one if his 'magisterial documents' (which one eludes me and frankly my brain cells are better not wasted on that). However, when it comes to the Amazon synod, then we are all of a sudden treated to the realisation that the Eucharist is important, that priests are important, and in fact so important that it is worth giving up all our doctrines and dogmas in order to provide priests for the Amazonians, without whom they might not your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine. The document does...

Pages

Subscribe to U.S. debt