I Told You So, Now Trump Must Go

Fellow conservatives: except for a very few instances, I’ve been rather quiet on the new administration because I wanted to give it a chance to do right, and to carry the mantle of strong, traditional, foundational, home-and-hearth, middle American conservatism, rooted in both strength and humility, and most importantly, in the Word of God. I wanted Trump to succeed despite all the warning signs I saw and articulated to the contrary. Only four months in, and I’ve run out of all patience already. Enough!

The only substantial things he has done right were to choose Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and James Mattis for Defense Secretary. All due credit there–somebody advised him well. However, all else has been a self-destructive circus sideshow and continual food source for the growing gaggle of stinking, howling, snarling, flea-bitten left-wing hyenas pouncing from every direction.

As you know, the greatest part of the reason I voted third party, and not for Trump, is because I did not trust him. His chronically and contemptibly immoral personal character (adultery, abusive personality, countless lies, etc.), wanton dishonesty, and faux-populist pandering to the least common denominator, were transparent as can be to me. As an old city-street rat, I’ve been around the block and can spot a con man miles away…and that’s exactly what he is. But some of you did not believe me.

I was on to his con game from the start (post from January 21…of last year!). And the true colors are showing. Instead of getting a swamp cleaner, he has become part of the swamp. He is a poser and a sellout, even more so than Obama was for some of the left-wing causes the latter championed before the 2008 election, then hypocritically abandoned.

Worse, Trump is going to hand our government over to the radical-leftist, tax-loving, debt-growing, social-engineering, Constitution-hating, moral-anarchist freakazoids, on a shiny silver platter, for decades to come, if he isn’t removed from office, and soon. This essay, “Donald Trump, Establishment Sellout“, articulates that fairly well. Excerpt:

    As a populist he’s a paper tiger, too lazy to figure out what policies he should champion and too incompetent and self-absorbed to fight for them.
    …he’s at war with the institutions that surround him because he behaves consistently erratically and inappropriately and dangerously, and perhaps criminally as well. Or perhaps not: All of this may still not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. But the conservatives rising to his defense need to recognize that there is no elite “counterrevolution” here for them to resist, because there is no Trump revolution in the first place.

As I predicted! And here we are, witnessing the most embarrassing, undignified, destructive, outrageous circus of incompetence the Presidency has seen, which is no small feat.

The sooner we conservatives realize that we’d be far better off with Pence in and Trump out, the better…if nothing else, to stop the hemorrhagic blood loss and temper damage to our cause for the future. I am not jumping off the Trump train at all–because I never was on it, and you know this. I’m simply stating: “I told you so.” That’s right, I told you, even before he took office and right after the election, that Trump was betraying you already. Excerpt:

    Instead we’ll get Trump’s own brand of banana-republic tomfoolery, which has begun in his highly disappointing selection of fringe nutjobs, Washington political insiders, and Wall Street oligarchs — the very people he seemed to oppose throughout the process. Trump is betraying you already, fellow conservatives who voted for him, and don’t say I did not warn you of this.

…and that has continued.

Now let’s encourage Congress to rid the Oval Office of this scourge once and for all, by either invoking the 25th Amendment (though there are good arguments against that) or impeaching him. Drain the biggest monster in the swamp, fast, before it consumes our once-great Republic!

Scattershooting 170513

Scattershooting while wondering what happened to the SHIFT key on many Internet users’ keyboards…

It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of so-called “Impact Based Warning” text statements, given their purely and entirely reactionary origins in the Joplin tornado event, their objectively unproven socioeconomic contribution, and their implementation without thorough and extensive social-science vetting (by that, I mean rooted in a priori formally published research specifically justifying them). Instead IBWs were hurried to use in order to put on a show, yes, a show, that something — anything — was being done about focusing on “impact” as well as the weather itself. Or to put it concisely: reactionary window dressing. Then recently, assorted peanut-gallery commenters in social media whined that a watch in a “high risk” outlook wasn’t buzzed PDS (“Particularly Dangerous Situation”). Obviously such complainers are not cognizant enough of the outlook/watch process to realize that a watch in an outlook area can be (and was) for a different, earlier, not-as-dangerous part of the threat evolution as what was discussed in the outlook for later in the day, despite being over some of the same geographic region. News flash: more than one round of severe weather can happen over the same area, and the threat in each can be a lot different! All that said: Chuck Doswell, thank you for saving me time in ranting about this much further, because you already have expressed essentially the same sentiments, in this BLOG entry: “Wordsmithing the watches and warnings is not the path to improvement .” I won’t even post a comment on Chuck’s site because our thoughts match so closely that I have little, if anything, useful to add. Bravo and applause…

Except on seldom occasions, for the purposes of correction and education, I almost never engage Twitter trolls regarding controversial severe-storms-forecasting topics. It’s largely a waste of time trying to convince non-experts, who vastly overestimate their own understanding, who are clearly ignorant of their level of ignorance. Like it or not, my approach is to apply a credibility filter to “feedback” about severe-weather forecasts, external or within-agency. The more scientific credentials and specialized severe-storms prediction experience on the part of the source, the more value I assign to their feedback. Don’t like that policy? Look in the mirror for the solution. Quite bluntly: gain credibility. This means years and years of dedication, effort, and diligence. Get educated and experienced. Do research. Publish papers. Forecast nationally over many years and many scenarios. If that sounds exclusive, that’s because it is. The ranks of world-class severe-weather prediction experts are exceedingly small, and most work in one office. The farther removed a source of feedback is from that level of expertise, the less and less credibility that source has.

Put your actions where your ideals are, or those ideals are just characters on a computer screen. They mean nothing more. That is a matter of principle, and many examples abound in life. To wit: At least a dozen individuals I know on Facebook, and many more of their sycophantic commenters, have supported allowing young-adult male “refugees” from Islamic-majority nations into America. Some even try to manipulatively lay the “bad Christian” guilt trip on you — as if the cafeteria-Christian left would know diddly-squat about Christian ethics anyway. And yet…and yet…not one of them (Christian, atheist or otherwise) has a combat-age male Muslim “refugee” living in his or her home. In fact, I know of none yet who have housed any Muslim “refugees”, nor personally subsidized their housing elsewhere. There you go. From that alone, and nothing else, we see the deeper truth about the (lack of) authenticity of their conviction. The real test of principle is in actions, not words.

The Exclusionary, Intolerant “March for Science”

The so-called “March for Science” happened in assorted nodes around the country today, while many of us were actually doing science instead of just talking and protesting about it. Yes, some scientists spend night shifts and weekends issuing severe-weather forecasts and doing prolific research into storms in slower-weather times, all for the goal of directly and tangibly serving the American taxpayer — including those attending assorted rallies and protests. You’re welcome.

I’m grateful and proud to be serving America this way, directly putting science to use for the public good on a daily basis, and thankful to be able to contribute scientifically and professionally to a system that unquestionably saves lives. As evident in the new bipartisan weather bill, which Trump signed into law and which Obama would have, it’s clear and heartening that even a deeply divided society and its legislative representatives can bridge the partisan chasm to come together for such a directly public-benefiting and worthy scientific cause. That’s what science should be about, above all else: serving others.

Obviously…it should go without saying, by virtue of being a published, public-facing scientist, I care about science and public service. Understand that above all else, as you read on.

As someone who is:
* A socially and politically conservative Christian who
* Partly for Biblical moral reasons, did not vote for either Hillary or Trump — the latter candidate whose victory obviously inspired this “March” (thereby guaranteeing its politicization) — and who is
* A scientist with multiple formal publications who works 8+ hours a day to apply my science directly to life-saving public safety,
I find assorted concerns about the politicization and left-wing bent of the March not only valid but resoundingly so. Please read these concerns from someone on the sociopolitical left who agrees with me that science has little to do with the March.

I also find the so-called “March for Science” to be not only unwelcoming, but outright hostile, to the minority of conservative+religious scientists. That is my perception, with abundant basis in the statements of March organizers and members. This event had potential, but failed to reach it as it should have, whether by not maintaining strict political neutrality and by not overtly welcoming the very minorities upon which it spits — and by minorities in this context, I mean conservative Christians. That includes the conservative Christians in science — and yes, we do exist. Why would that be? Amazing thing to learn, isn’t it?

The so-called “March for Science” instead looks self-serving, overtly politicized, clearly reactionary bastion of left-wing insularity. If it were about science, and only science, there wouldn’t be all this PC social-engineering blather about supposed “homophobia” and “ableism” and “marginalized communities”, and other bogus terminology representing manufactured artifices of the secular left’s cult of mass-victimhood. Instead it would remain neutral on social issues, stick strictly to support for and encouragement of science, and leave the sociopolitical statements out of the picture.

For all this talk about catering to “marginalized communities”, it’s more than a little hypocritical to marginalize a community within science, isn’t it? One thing is clear: This “March for Science” absolutely does not speak for all scientists!

To my left-leaning readers I make one request: instead of arguing with my perception (which is my reality), understand it. Practice the “empathy” and “tolerance” and “inclusion” you so often preach. Are you up to that challenge?

Next Page →