The Truth About Obama

th (11).jpg

It is always difficult to discuss a recent President objectively. If he is a Democrat they would like him because he pursued the liberal agenda and if he is a Republican they would like him because he pursued a conservative agenda. He would then be hated by the other party for the exact same reason. When I write that Obama was a terrible President, I say it not because he pursued a globalist agenda which I am against, but rather how he pursued his globalist agenda.

Once you observe the various agreements Obama pursued you can see the general pattern he uses to strike major landmark deals. He would pick an issue and then give so much benefits up front while requiring so little back that the other party that they would have to be stupid not to agree. To make the deal defensible there would be some sort of commitment the other party would have to make in the far future but the US would have no way to force the other party to comply. After all the benefits have already all been given up front. In essence all of the landmark deals he made were just to improve his image while providing no benefit to the United States.


Let us go thru some of his agreements to see Obama in action. The most popular would of course be the Paris agreement on climate change. The fact that he did not go thru the senate already makes this suspect as it would be easily cancelled.

As everyone knows Paris was supposed to get a commitment from all its signatories on how much they can reduce emissions every year. Once you take a look at the actual commitments you will realize one thing. The United States is one of the very few countries that actual put forth a meaningful commitment and is sticking to it. If you look at countries like Germany, India, and China they are actually increasing emissions not decreasing. The US is one of the very few countries that are actually decreasing its emissions.

In effect Obama pushed for a deal which limited US industry and promised billions to developing countries. In return he got a commitment which countries had no incentive to keep.  Of course getting that many countries to agree to free money looked good to the press and got good coverage.

Iran Deal

The Iran deal returned billions of dollars the US froze to Iran, allowed Iran to continue enriching Uranium, and promised to lift economic sanctions in the future. In return Iran agreed to inspections from the UN. Inspections that they will be forewarned about from a organization that has a vested interest in giving them a clean bill of health to keep the peace.

I don’t think I have to explain any further about how this was another deal which America paid a lot for but was just a way to generate positive coverage for Obama.

Compare this with the carrier deal for President Trump. Yes it did generate positive coverage for him and yes incentives were given. But those incentives are contingent upon maintaining a certain level of employment in the state of Indiana. If carrier reneged on the deal they would not get the incentives. If Iran reneges on this deal we are not getting the billions back.

A good leader makes decisions that may be unpopular now but is necessary. Take Truman and the nuclear bomb for example. He knew he may be condemned by history after he used the bomb but he still made the choice to do so because he wanted to save American lives that would be thrown away in an invasion of the home islands. On a personal note I think this may have saved Japan as a country as well. Resistance like they showed in Okinawa and Iwo Jima would not have left enough Japanese afterwards to continue having their own country. You can even see this trait with Trump. There would be nothing easier than to join the rest of the country in condemning Russia. The media and all the politicians would all join together in praising him. Yet we would ruin our relationship with Russia and Trump knows we would need them as leverage on China in the future.

It is not a coincidence that the democrats lost the greatest number of seats they ever did under Obama.


Republicans V Democrats: The Difference

th (10).jpg

One of the most interesting things to see is the difference between the reactions of Democrats and Republicans to Trump and Obama. The reaction shows why one side has been successful, managing to reduce the Democrats to their lowest level of power since the 1920s, and the other side has been flailing.


The republican reaction can be exemplified with the famous quote of Mitch McConnell. He said he would make sure that Obama would be a one term president. Liberals and Democrats hated that but in reality Republicans are supposed to help other Republicans win. This is doubly true for the majority leader who is supposed to increase the size of his coalition.

By acknowledging that Obama would be a one term president Republicans acknowledged their loss and prepared for the next election. They did an autopsy to find out what was wrong and attempted to win enough other races in other levels to increase the size of their coalitions. Please note that the autopsy was dumb and came to all the wrong conclusions but at the very least the attempt was made. A defeat for the Republicans would have been the Democrats winning the elections 4 and 8 years after Obama was elected.

There was a small faction of Republicans, which Trump was part of, which did not accept the loss and tried to have Obama removed before his time with the birther issue. The fact is they were a small faction without any political power. The ones who were actually planning the strategy of the party had accepted the loss.


Democrats have still not accepted their loss to Trump. Having been told their whole lives that demographics is destiny and that Republicans would never win again without cheating they have not been able to emotionally process losing to President Trump. This prevents them from looking at the events of 2016 objectively and creating an autopsy like the Republicans did. Since they have not accepted the loss they focus on short term objectives like removing Trump from power as opposed to long term ones like restoring their party to power.

We are not talking about a small faction like the birthers in the Republican party but rather the entire party. This means that all political strategy only looks at short term effects. Every scandal has to be played up as the one that will finally impeach Trump exhausting the populace and the credibility of the media. A loss for Democrats is if Trump makes it to the next election as the President. The danger is that by next election the Democrats would have exhausted their outrage machine by so much that no one will listen to them.

One side uses cold calculation and logic while the other uses mass hysterics and we can see the results.

4th of July: The Hypocrisy of Hate

th (9).jpg

Another year and another celebration of Independence day. My peeve about this day is that it is the day liberals come out of the woodwork to complain about all the “terrible” things America has done in the past. I put the word terrible in quotation marks because it is precisely these actions which allow Americans to enjoy the standard of living they do now.

Liberals hold America to an impossible standard. Particularly when you consider the actions of other countries in that time period. If you were to actually follow the rules prescribed by those who complain about the actions of America in the past the country would have never become anything more than a minor power and would have most likely failed completely. For this article I will take a look at the two major complaints that normally come up. That of slavery and the various wars of aggression the US has engaged in.


When the subject of wars come up the first thing that gets brought up is the American Indian war and the Mexican American war. This is the best place to see the impact of these policies liberals condemn America for as the America we know today would literally not exist without them. The first thing we need to realize is that the Indian nations, Mexico, and the early form of America made up of the initial colonies were distinct countries. Each with their own diplomacy, interests, economy, and people. The Indians and Mexicans were not Americans. The Indians just happened to live in the same continent.

Without these wars of expansion America would have never extended beyond the original colonies. The rest of the continent would not have remained vacant. A combination of Mexican, Indian, or Canadian interests would have taken over. Instead of one great nation spanning from sea to shining sea we would have 3 to 4 nations of equal strength throughout the continent. When we look at the history of Europe and Africa I can think of no greater evil to inflict on North America than this. The entire reason the continent has been stable and escaped the damage of the world wars is because of the relative strength of the US as compared to its neighbors.


What would this discussion be without slavery? Everyone is against it and acknowledges how horrible it was. The truth is America would not have the economic power it now does if we did not go through a period of slavery. At the end of the Revolutionary War the US was bankrupt. It had no money to pay its soldiers and most of its economy consisted of subsistence farming. The government even had to pay some soldiers with land grants because it had no money.

Without slavery there would be no cotton or other cash crops. Other countries in this time period used slave labor or some form of its equivalent with their colonies so US agricultural products would not have been competitive in other markets. Without this capital the US would have a difficult time setting up other industries. In fact it would be very likely that the country would never have developed out of subsistence farming and would have been the equivalent of yet another third world country.

Think of all the good America has done for the world. Take a look at World War 1 and World War 2 for example. Without American intervention how much longer would those have lasted? Would the allies even have won? An America that did not go thru a period of slavery and expansionism would not have had the men or materiel to send over. The most likely outcome is that it would have had its own fight with the other nations in the continent.

America is America warts and all. If you are a liberal and want an America that can take the lead in Climate Change, rescuing refugees, forcing people to acknowledge there are 30 million genders, or whatever other cause you are fighting for then it would have to be an America that went thru slavery, imperialism, and all other things that you hate. The moralist America that you preach, that never existed, would never have made it out of infancy.


Charlie Gard and Enforced Euthanasia

th (8).jpg

The debate over euthanasia has been going on for quite a while. On the one hand you have an argument that people should have the right to decide when they want to die and giving up the fight is a personal decision particularly when the fight impacts the quality of the rest of your life. On the other hand there is an argument that it is a slippery slope to murder and it would mostly affect the poor and those unable to pay for healthcare.

Both sides have valid points and are united in one thing. Both sides agree that the decision should be left to the patient or his designated representative. While we were distracted with the news media focusing on Trump and his presidency the liberals in Europe have escalated the argument.

Charlie Gard

Meet Charlie Gard. It is his picture at the start of his article. Charlie was born with a rare genetic condition which limits his ability to get energy to the muscles, kidney, and brain. As a result he is brain-damaged at his young age. His parents, the people who are legally empowered to make decisions on his behalf, want to keep him on life support and keep trying to treat the condition. The hospital disagrees. They say that prolonging treatment will only cause suffering for Charlie and have sued the parents to discontinue all treatment and move their child to palliative care.

The courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the argument of the hospital. Yes you did read that right the courts agreed with the hospital. To escalate the matters further the parents asked to bring Charlie to the US on their own dime and seek experimental treatment. All the courts denied this. The parents then asked if it was possible to bring the Charlie home, After all by filing this case the hospital has already indicated that they have given up on the case. The courts refused them as well.

Are you outraged yet?


Before we begin with the legal implications we have to be honest about one thing. The UK runs a single payer national health system. The hospital wanted to stop treatment because they did not want to pay for it anymore as it was not profitable. After all with single payer Charlie can have nearly unlimited treatment and the hospital and the government do not want to pay for that.

This case has implications beyond Charlie. Let us break down what exactly happened. The guardians of Charlie Gard made a decision regarding euthanasia for the child. The courts overrode them. Can you think of any other similar situations?

Other children under the guardianship of their parents, grandparents, or legal guardians are in the same situation. If a spouse were to have an accident or debilitating sickness his partner would be the one making the decisions for him so they would be in the same situation. Elderly people usually have their next of kin deciding for them or if they are prepared someone with their power of attorney.  In all of theses situations the European courts have declared that the hospitals can decide they no longer need to take care of you as long as they can prove that it is not likely you will recover from your illness.

Keep in mind that when your guardian or power of attorney makes the decisions it is the same as if you were making the decisions. Using this same logic the courts can use this decision as a precedent to remove your right to decide whether or not you would like treatment for a terminal disease.

This is not a simple case of a hospital refusing treatment to Charlie. It is the hospital and other healthcare providers asking the courts to let them decide whether or not to give you treatment and the European courts granting them this power.

Charlie Gard is the first victim of enforced euthanasia.




Trump is Russia’s Worst Nightmare


With the Trump-Russia narrative dying a well deserved death it is time to acknowledge reality. Despite rhetoric that is friendly to Russia, mainly because Trump is attempting to use Russia as a counterbalance to China which he views as the real threat, the policies Trump implements are actually very harmful to Russia. There really is no comparison to the previous administration where Russia and its allies were allowed to get away with murder.


The Russian economy is dependent on oil and natural gas. If the prices for these are high then Russia does better and if its low then they do worse. By encouraging American companies to drill for oil and produce natural gas President Trump increases the supply of these products in the market. The more supply of something the lower its price weakening the Russian economy.

Middle East

There are two main factions in the Middle East. The Sunni camp headed by Saudi Arabia and the Shia camp headed by Iran. Since there are always fewer Shia states than Sunni states the Sunni states that want to replace Saudi Arabia or break away from their group tend to side with the Shia as well. Historically the Sunni bloc has sided with the US while the Shia block has sided with Russia.

President Trump has given the Saudis leeway to use any and all methods to go after Iran which is why we are seeing the diplomatic situation in Qatar. Qatar and Iran share the worlds largest natural gas field which the Iranian economy is dependent upon. The Saudis and the other Sunni nations in the region have blockaded them in an effort to end that relationship crippling Iran’s economy and invalidating Russia’s principal ally in the region.

Please note that with the Iran deal Obama actually strengthened Iran and by extension Russia in the region.


Most left leaning analysts would insist that Trump has weakened Europe and Nato against Russia. These analysts refuse to acknowledge one thing that most American citizens, whether Democrats or Republicans, know. The US does not have the willpower to fight another war. Make no mistake it has the technical capability to do so. The fact is 15 years of unending war in the Middle East have driven war exhaustion so high that the public will not support any future wars. Even if we pull out from the Middle East completely tomorrow it would still take some time for public sentiment to recover.

This is not lost on Putin and other world leaders. This is why he was confident he would face no military retaliation when he went after Crimea. By forcing the European countries to rearm themselves President Trump is creating a Europe which can defend itself against Russian aggression even without US support. Even with the example of Crimea Europe refuses to prepare for this and have to be forced to do so. A strong Europe is the best deterrent against Russia.

The Trump-Russia narrative is not only fake news it does not make logical sense as Trump is weakening Russia with every move.

The Great Democrat Con


The Democratic party has run the most amazing con job in political history. For the longest time it has convinced the American public that it is the party that works for the benefit of the working class while painting the Republicans as evil tools of corporate greed. In reality every single one of their major policies have massively enriched the big business they are supposed to be railing against. Despite their demonization from the press and complete lack of effort in defending their viewpoints it is actually the Republicans who pursue efforts that end up helping the poor and middle class citizens.

Lets take a look at a few of the most popular Democrat accomplishments.


I have written about this in the past. According to Democrats this was supposed to protect the economic system from the banking industry being too big to fail and requiring bailouts. In reality it increased the market share of giant backs from 25% to 63% and increased the share of 4 banks from 11% to 43%. It has devastated smaller banks causing 25% of them to close outright and creating a period in the Obama administration where only 3 new banks opened as opposed to 100’s per year under Bush. Of course since there is no competition consumers take it on the chin as well as they have more fees to contend with.

Due to their brilliant marketing consumers still think Dodd-Frank is good for them and major Democrats like Bernie Sanders still want to continue this policy even after seeing its effects.


Obamacare was billed as a way to deliver affordable quality healthcare to every man , woman, and abortion in America. It was supposed to lower all premiums, let everyone keep the same doctor, and let people with existing illnessess benefit from insurance. The insurance companies complain about Obamacare but in reality they have more than doubled their profits under this system. In exchange for their doubled profits they have delivered massive premiums and sky-high deductibles. People were indeed covered but deductibles are so high very few people could use their insurance effectively. After all there is no incentive to provide quality insurance when the government holds a gun to your head and forces you to purchase it. In most cases you are forced to buy it from an effective monopoly.

Illegal Immigration

Democrats have always been big supporters of illegal immigration. The cynic in me says they do it for voters. Others will say because they want to help the poor citizens of South America and other places. Whatever the reason the policy depresses income for those who make the least.

Labor like anything else is a commodity. As with any commodity when there is plenty of supply its value drops. Illegal immigration increases the supply of labor massively undervaluing the labor provided by citizens. The concept is similar to plantations importing slaves in the past because they could not make the same profit paying citizens fair wages.

It is very sad that Republicans are too shy to point out these failures of Democrats enabling them to continue misleading their public about their image.



Never Forget: Democrats Incite Assassinations


I have been getting some pushback from my previous article about the connection between the Democrats and the attempted political assassination of the Republican lawmakers. Make no mistake Democrats are responsible for these attempted assassinations and they should be held responsible for it.

Let us try to look at things logically. Before we go further the first question we have to ask is are political assassinations ever acceptable? Can somebody or some group be so evil or so damaging to the world that its better to just kill him or them in cold blood for the greater good? I have something called to Hitler test to answer this question. When asked some people would say that if they had a chance to kill baby Hitler they would. Please note that you do not need everyone to believe this. The Democrat dog whistles for political assassination only needs to reach a minority of their followers for results to be achieved. All we have to do is check whether or not the Democrats have painted Trump and the Republicans to be at least as great a threat as Hitler.


Democrats have already compared Trump to Hitler and everyone supporting him to brown shirts. I could stop the article right here but lets go on.

The Planet

Not content with painting Trump and the Republicans as Hitler Democrats have actively tried to paint them as threats to the planet and life itself. Noam Chomsky one of the more prominent liberals has called the Republicans the most dangerous organization on earth.

Never mind that the United States is reducing emissions while China , India, and Germany are increasing theirs. It has to be Trump and the Republicans that are destroying the world.

And Your Little Dog too!

Not content with portraying Republicans as Nazis who want to destroy the world Democrats go one step further. According to them Trump and the Republicans want to personally remove your healthcare so you can die in a gutter.

This is, of course, despite the fact that medicare and medicaid are getting more funding that they have the year before.

Democrats have sent out dog whistles that Republicans want to destroy the planet and make you personally suffer while worshipping Hitler. It is not a surprise one of their followers picked up on this and started hunting Republican lawmakers. It is a surprise that more of them have not done this.


The Truth About the Medicaid “Cut”

th (7).jpg

I originally meant to write this article last week when the AHCA came out but things got in the way and I only managed to find time to complete it today. As always it is very important that these points come from the administration and highly visible Republicans. Independent bloggers like me only have so much time to devote to writing.

One of the most consistent talking points used by Democrats is that President Trump and the Republicans are slashing Medicaid. This is then usually accompanied by a story about a senior or some other ill person left to die by the cruel Republican.

The Truth

A quick look at the headlines will show a lot of similarities. “Trump’s budget to slash medicaid by 800 billion” or “AHCA cuts 600 billion from medicaid”. No mention about a time frame or anything like that. Just a massive cut by the greedy Republicans. In the previous year the budget for Medicaid was 378 billion and the budget for Medicare 593 billion. If you were to actually cut the 800 billion and the 600 billion from that there would be nothing left. Fake news anyone?

In reality if you look at the HHS website the budget for medicaid and medicare is increasing. In fact it will be increasing every year for the next 10 years. This continual increase qualifies as a massive budget cut to the left. What is happening is that there is a projection of how much money medicare and medicaid will need by a certain date. The amount that the budget of President Trump sets aside for it is actually similar to what is needed by medicaid for the next 4-5 years. The only time it drops off is after that. In the official estimates Medicare would need 1.19 trillion by 2027. Under the Trump budget they would be getting 1.16 trillion by 2027. That is the only difference. If you are getting medicaid or medicare you will be receiving the same services for the coming years. You will not be left to die , driven out of your retirement homes, or anything else the media would have you believe.

This is a perfectly valid thing to do. Essentially there are some experts who say that no matter what we do the number of people dependent on medicaid will increase at the same rate as they have been in the past. The Trump administration is saying that our budget and tax reforms will increase the income of all people therefore less people will require aid in the future. There is literally no risk in doing this. Budgets can be proposed every year. If after 4-5 years we find that the number of people who need aid are increasing then we can just increasing funding levels again.

What They Don’t Tell You

The experts that came up with the estimates for the money that Medicare and Medicaid would need also came up with another estimate. By 2044, less than 30 years from now, 100% of the federal budget will be taken by mandatory spending. Everything else from defense, to education, to arts programs, and school lunches will be financed entirely by debt.

Both sides agree that some sort of entitlement reform is necessary. The only true way to achieve this is to create an economy where people have more income. If we continue down the same path we are now then we are headed for some very hard choices in the future. President Trump has not only made the correct choice he has made the responsible one as well.


The Truth About the AHCA

th (6).jpg

The senate has recently come out with its version of the AHCA. Since there are still no provisions about price controls on drugs I do not support it. Despite that it is important that the truth about it be told. Democrats have said that this bill is nothing but a massive tax cut for the rich. The truth is that Democrats will always say that no matter what Republicans do. We have to take a look at the actual taxes that have been repealed to see what happened. Obamacare delayed a lot of the most harmful taxes it required to run until Obama left office so some of the taxes I list here that have been repealed have not taken effect yet. They are mostly scheduled to take effect in the next year or two. As usual it should be the Trump administration and its Republican allies doing this but since they cannot be bothered too it falls to independent bloggers like me to do so.

Tax on Retiree Prescription Drug Coverage

Remember when Democrats tell you that Republicans want to push granny of a cliff? Democrats actually removed some of the benefits seniors had to push thru Obamacare. Seniors used to be able to recoup 28% of what they pay for prescription drugs and companies used to be able to take this as a deduction encouraging them to take on more seniors. This is especially important as seniors could have unique illnesses that generic drugs would not treat. The Republicans returned this benefit to seniors.

Chronic Care Tax

There is a tax deduction available for Americans who have high out of pocket costs. In order to pay for Obamacare Democrats reduced this deduction was reduced. Wealthy people are less likely to have high out of pocket costs. They would already have very good insurance that covers them. It is poorer people that have worse insurance that have the potential to get bigger costs. President Trump and Republicans returned this benefit to them.

HSA Withdrawal Tax

Democrats doubled the penalty to withdraw money from Health Savings Accounts for non-health related expenses to 20% from 10%. The AHCA bill restores the penalty to 10%. Wealthy people would have other sources of funds to draw money from instead of the HSA as that is already going to cost a minimum of 10%. The only people who would need to use this are those who have lower income. Trump and the Republicans return this to 10%.

Tax on Prescription Medicine

Over and above the reduced deductions for seniors the Democrats also levied a tax on prescription medicines. As mentioned seniors and others may have needs that generic medicines cannot fill so this is a direct tax on them. The truly wealthy would also have very good insurance which would probably cover those things already. Republicans have lowered this tax on the poor and middle class.

Surtax on Investment Income

This is the only thing that can be truly considered a tax break for the wealthy. At this point I would ask you to remember that Trump has already proposed that investment income from people who invest for a living be treated as income tax instead of capital gains tax. That already represents a massive increase in the tax liability for investment income. This is something that Republicans proposed not Democrats.

Medical Device Tax

Democrats levied a tax on medical devices to pay for Obamacare. The entire premise behind Obamacare is that when hospitals are given a cost. Like the uninsured packing emergency rooms they would then pass those costs on to the public. Using the very same logic Democrats used to justify Obamacare then this would be a tax on the public as the hospitals pass the costs on to the final consumer. Republicans have repealed this tax.

Medicine Cabinet Tax

As part of their suite of taxes to pay for Obamacare health saving accounts and flexible savings accounts were restricted from purchasing non-perscription over the counter medicines. Health Savings accounts are not limited to the very wealthy. Most of the people who use them are middle class. By limiting their accessibility to medicine Democrats have made healthcare more expensive for them. The Republicans have repealed this.

Individual Mandate

This is the biggest tax on them all. A tax on all people who do not have insurance. Who is more likely to have insurance a rich person or a poor one? Who is more likely to pay this tax? I think everyone knows the answer to that. Republicans have repealed this and instead rely on insurers to provide competitive options to attract customers.

Employer Mandate Tax

At first glance removing this tax only seems to benefit employers with more than 50 employees. When we take a closer look we see that the number of employees insured from work did not increase after Obamacare took effect nor did the companies pay any new taxes. The companies were already offering health insurance before or were structuring their new hires in such a way that they would not need to be offered health insurance through work.

As you can see most of the taxes that are repealed help the middle and lower income classes. The one thing that does help the rich has been addressed in tax reform. Democrats and their allies in the media hope that everyone is too lazy to look up what taxes have actually been repealed and instead rely on them for the information.


On Leadership: Trump and Obama

th (5).jpg

There has been a lot of comparisons on the leadership capabilities of President Trump and Obama. Before the presidency it was hard to draw a comparison between the two as they are from different worlds. I waited for a while before commenting on the subject as I was waiting for a good area to draw some examples from. The middle east presents a good opportunity for this as both parties were able to implement their strategies relatively free from partisan interference.

Active and Passive

One of the hallmarks of leadership is that they would like the initiative to remain with their team. This allows them to control the situation and gives them the opportunity to act for their benefit.

Obama is actually terrible in this regard. His main solution to the problems of the middle east is the Iran deal. It essentially gave Iran a huge amount of money and allowed them to resume their nuclear tests in exchange for regular inspections. In addition to the nuclear issue it was supposed to build better relations with Iran and normalize their standing with the international community. This deal gave all the initiative to Iran as all the benefits, the cash and recognition, was given to them up front. It is them dependent upon their goodwill to continue the terms of the agreement in the future.

Trump is the polar opposite. He gave the initiative to our allies in the region. Saudi Arabia and our other allies were given free reign to deal with the threat of Iran in the region with our support. All barriers were removed to give them more options to deal with the threat. Whatever happens in the region will depend on the US and its allies as opposed to Iran.

Permanent and Temporary

A leader would seek for permanent solutions to problems instead of temporary band aids.

In this regard Obama fails as well. The Iran deal empowered Iran at the cost of our allies in the middle east. There is a delicate balance of power in the middle east which have endeavored to stack in favor of our allies. Moving this balance the other way causes more problems in the future as both sides fight longer. In effect the Iran deal is a tribute to keep Iran quiet until the end of Obama’s term requiring his successor to deal with it.

The solution proposed by President Trump has the potential to solve the problem for good. By giving the Saudis carte blanche to deal with the shia muslims they have the potential of breaking the power of Iran for good. We already see initial moves in this game with the diplomatic isolation of Qatar. For all intents and purposes Qatar is the lifeline of Iran and the most friendly Sunni state to it as it shares the worlds largest natural gas field. Forcing Qatar to remove this cooperation would cripple Iran’s economy.

Good leaders work to get things done themselves and thru their allies and solve problems permanently. Trump is a good leader. Obama is not.