Archive for the ‘Ronald Reagan’ Category

Many of us remember a scary day in 1983 — the height of the Cold War — when the Soviets shot down a 747 passenger plane in cold blood, killing all 269 aboard.

Korean Airlines flight 007 strayed off its course and into Russian airspace and a military fighter jet fired a missile at the defenseless aircraft, causing it to crash and kill everyone.

The Evil Empire: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The Evil Empire: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

My internet search for stories on the incident returned an amazing article written about a year ago — long before the current Russian surface-to-air missile destruction of another passenger aircraft, this time in Ukraine. It was written by Thom Patterson of CNN, and it starts like this:

(CNN) — The idea that Soviet fighter jets would shoot down a Boeing 747 airliner seems shockingly unbelievable. Two-hundred sixty-nine innocent people died in a largely forgotten Cold War attack that took place exactly 30 years ago this weekend. <CNN, link>

Remember, Patterson was writing these words last year, before the current infamy.

This comment of his mirrors my own feelings at the time: he lists a series of events that demonstrated the escalating tensions between the USSR and USA in 1983, and then says the following:

But it was the downing of KAL 007 that opened many eyes to the Cold War’s widening wave of darkness, its increasing uncertainty and its growing threat to peace.

Exactly — it was a feeling that if the Soviets could order a military fighter jet to down a 747 full of civilians, then they were capable of any atrocity, and who knew what they might do next.

The Soviet pilot who took the fatal shot had this to say in 1998:

“I could see two rows of windows, which were lit up,” Soviet pilot  told CNN in 1998, describing the 747’s telltale double-deck configuration. “I wondered if it was a civilian aircraft. Military cargo planes don’t have such windows.”

He was ordered to shoot it down anyway.

But as we all know, we and the rest of the free world had Ronald Wilson Reagan in the White House, a man who had spent much of his adult life fighting Communism and its evils and who, as President, was facing down our violent enemy in a direct and fierce manner.

Patterson goes on to say the following, and it made me laugh:

Then, something amazing happened: The Cold War ended. Somehow, the world had made it through.

YES, Thom, something “amazing” happened — Ronald Reagan.

And NO, Thom, the world didn’t make it through “somehow”; it made it through on Ronald Reagan’s iron back and spine.

Savior of the United States, and the world.

Savior of the United States, and the world.

His bold American defense buildup, opposed by many Americans who had become accustomed to living in fear and without belief in our moral superiority as a nation, and his posturing that we would build a missile defense shield that would tip the scales of mutually-assured-destruction in our favor, caused the USSR and its leadership to crumble from within as its economy failed to keep pace with our own.

And so here we are in 2014.

Ronald Reagan is long gone, may he rest in peace, and today we have Barack Hussein Obama hurriedly digging America’s grave. Commentators are lately saying that mr. Obama is disengaged and mentally “checked out”, but look a little closer and you can easily see the truth: he is as busy as ever smashing the foundations of our nation, including our role in the world, our military, our economy, our national balance of accounts, our sovereignty, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself.

As shocking as it was that Reagan could actually end the Cold War, liberate all of eastern Europe, and bring about the physical collapse of the Berlin Wall, it is equally shocking that a man such as Barack Obama could ascend to the presidency without any qualifications and then do such terrible things that the Cold War would actually come back to haunt us and the world.

How do we know the Cold War is back?

The Russians just shot down another civilian airliner:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that the evidence indicates that a Russian missile was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 <Yahoo News, link>

And so here we are in 2014: the Russians just killed 298 innocent people and are being led by Vladimir Putin, a man with no fear of the likes of Barack Obama, what with his toothless “red line” in Syria and his “leading from behind”.

If you voted for Barack Obama, the destroyer, in 2008 and / or in 2012, I ask you now whether you honestly believe the world would be falling apart the way it is had Mitt Romney been elected president.

As for 2016, we must dare to dream that the American electorate will recover its sanity and elect a candidate who loves his country, at least.

Obama playing golf again while America burns


Read Full Post »

By some miracle (for himself), Barack Obama has convinced Pope Francis to meet with him this week.

The Vatican is appropriately skeptical of this man:

But the Vatican — aware that Mr. Obama has far more to gain from the encounter than the pope does, and wary of being used for American political consumption — warns that this will hardly be like the 1982 meeting at which President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II agreed to fight Communism in Eastern Europe. <source>

I just love that paragraph because it invokes another time — a time of greatness — when an American president who loved his country and what it stands for (instead of hating it and being ashamed of it) joined forces with the Catholic Church to pursue the end of Communism.

That is, OVERTLY pursue the end of Communism, which is a known and proven form of subjugation and torture of whole societies by a power elite. Reagan and Pope John Paul II chose sides in a global conflict — chose the USA and its freedom-loving and freedom-promoting ethos over the Soviet Union and its central power fascism.

How times have changed, with Barack Hussein Obama, a Marxist and a hater of the United States of America, actively undermining the cause of freedom every hour of every day.

I guess from this point of view, we can’t fault Obama for failing to choose sides — no, the fault is that he has chosen the wrong side, and yet there he is, occupying the White House and using all the levers of power to ruin a great nation and the great beacon of freedom on planet earth.

Read Full Post »

A recent puff piece about “presidents on the phone” featured many photographs of presidents, during the last century, on the phone. But being that the source of the article was Yahoo News, a left-leaning rag, the piece was mostly a PR drain pipe for the Obama White House, which sought to portray Mr. Obama as “working the phones” a lot lately. The article would have us believe that mr. Obama conducts important business in the Oval Office, but we know that this is not true.

Let’s contrast a few presidents and what they were chatting about while on the job:

Kennedy on the phone

Reagan on the phone

Obama on the phone

Read Full Post »

PS: Why is Alec Baldwin curling his upper lip as if he's wearing pantyhose?

PS: Why is Alec Baldwin curling his upper lip as if he’s wearing pantyhose?

Yes, I occasionally listen to Alec Baldwin’s podcasts (titled “Here’s the Thing” on WYNC Radio) and yes, I enjoy them, for the most part. Baldwin’s format is entertaining and he generally steers the interviews in good directions.

His interview with Joe Stiglitz (“….nobel prize winning economist…”) yielded some of Baldwin’s usual misguided Ronald Reagan-bashing (there is no other kind), and I cannot let it stand. This is an easy demolition for us, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be entertained along the way…

Baldwin asks Stiglitz what “Reaganomics” meant to him (his interpretation of it), and this is how the interview progressed [link]:

AB: When Reagan comes in people view this as this watershed in that area, that- that- about smashing government regulation… what did Reaganomics…mean to you then…and what does Reaganomics mean to you now?

Stiglitz: I saw Reaganomics as perhaps another act in a long-standing battle about the appropriate balance between markets and government and Reagan came in and tried to put his hand on one side of that balance and say “Let’s get rid of government, let’s just let markets rip”.

AB: Why, do you think?

Stiglitz: I think it was just ordinary greed.

At this point in the dialog, let me intervene and point out that

(A) Stiglitz starts off with a reasonable premise, as Liberals often do, before they go right over the cliff into nonsense: in this case, his reference to a “long-standing battle about the appropriate balance between markets and government“. He is right to frame the issue in this context, which is all the more disappointing when he then allows his politics to distort his analysis to the point of failure.

(B) Ronald Reagan never said “let’s get rid of the government”. He was not an anarchist, or a Libertarian. But when people build specious arguments, as Stiglitz is doing here, they often push an opponent into an extreme position that he never occupied so that the coming knock-down is easier (especially if there is no protest, and no, Alec Baldwin of course offers no objection).

(C) No, Ronald Reagan, unique among many Presidents, was not motivated by “greed”, for himself, or on behalf of the industries he sought to deregulate. Instead, he was motivated by a vision of America that was economically at its best for all citizens, and when the pendulum swings too far towards regulation, the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are hurt the worst (see: toilet paper shortage in Venezuela) and it must be made to swing back the other way.

The interview continues, and takes an embarrassing turn:

Liberal Fantasies of Reagan and Clinton...

Liberal Fantasies of Reagan and Clinton…

Stiglitz: …the belief that, if we got rid of the regulations, that we could make more money. There was one other argument that, in a way shows the naiveté of the reasoning. In the decades after Glass Steagall, which was this law that separated investment banking from commercial banking and that had tried to put restraints, avoiding some of the conflicts of interest that had marked the past…in those decades after the passage of these whole series of laws in the Great Depression, the country had been remarkably stable; there had not been a financial crisis, and because there had not been a financial crisis, they made the wrong inference. They said financial crises are a thing of the past. But they were a thing of the past only because we [AB: …instituted Glass Steagall] had the regulations!

To this, I ask the following multiple choice question to Joe Stiglitz, and Alec Baldwin, and to all Liberals who indulge such insane fantasies in their minds in order to hold on to unjust and immoral hatreds of great men like Ronald Reagan:

Which President signed into law the repeal of Glass Steagall, the law that, as Stiglitz rightly pointed out, had protected the U.S. financial system for 60 years?

a) Ronald Reagan (Republican)
b) George HW Bush (Republican)
c) Bill Clinton (Democrat)
d) George W Bush (Republican)

Tick tock….tick tock…tick tock….

While you Liberals are mulling this over, I will ask a SECOND multiple choice question:

Which President signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, in which a legal marriage was defined explicitly and only as the union of one man and one woman (that is, no homosexual marriage is allowed as a matter of federal law)?

a) Ronald Reagan (Republican)
b) George HW Bush (Republican)
c) Bill Clinton (Democrat)
d) George W Bush (Republican)

Tick tock….tick tock…tick tock….

The answer is the same for both questions:


Not Reagan, and not Republicans.

Bill Clinton and his Democratic party member Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, and in Clinton’s second and final term in office (meaning he did not need to repeal Glass Steagall as a matter of political expediency — he did it because he wanted to, and it paved the way for the 2008 global financial crisis).

I’m sorry I had to shout there, but Liberals are selectively deaf and blind, which makes them occasionally dumb, though their brains are usually not dumb (which is to say they get in their own way, even a prize winning economist).

So in the Baldwin / Stiglitz interview, the lesser informed will most certainly be led to believe that Ronald Reagan repealed Glass Steagall, but he did no such thing.

The Reagan crusade was for the course-correction of regulation, in which the pendulum had swung too far to the regulatory side.

Stiglitz started out with a nice articulation of the pendulum, but when asked “why” Reagan pursued a policy of deregulation (begun by Jimmy Cart no less!!), he defaults to Hollywood Liberalism and offers “greed” as the answer.

This is the right answer, in pictures.Pendulum of Government Regulation

Pendulum of Govt Regulation swings to Obama fascism

Read Full Post »

Every day we are finding more and more evidence in the Obama proposed budget of his hatred for a citizen’s ability to care for himself instead of relying on a central planning government regime.

Yesterday’s focus was his destruction of the mortgage interest deduction.

Today’s focus is on his abuse of tax-deferred retirement savings accounts — you know, the accounts that were created by federal legislation in 1986 under Ronald Reagan for the purpose of alleviating the burden of retirement on future generations by getting people to more easily help themselves.

What does Barack Hussein Obama think of people helping themselves?

Tucked deep inside President Obama’s budget proposal to Congress is an innocuous-sounding provision that would cap the amount of money you can accumulate in IRAs and other tax-deferred retirement savings plans at $3 million. <source>

Notice the classic Communist mind at work: set the limit at a high-sounding number so that the average citizen will imagine that it won’t affect him, all the while knowing that the law of unintended consequences will wreck more of the capitalist system that has made the United States the most free and wealthy nation on earth.

Here is one such result:

But VanDerhei points out that the cap would also be an “administrative nightmare” for small-business owners and could discourage them from offering retirement savings plans to their workers. Small-business owners can contribute much higher amounts to their tax-deferred retirement accounts than their employees—up to $56,500 in 2013. If their contributions are capped, they may have little incentive to set up a plan for their employees, the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries says.

What an appropriate phrase for just about anything Obama touches: administrative nightmare for small-business owners. He must smile when he reads reviews like this.

The man hates small business owners and their allegedly filthy stinking rich income levels, and he is not going to stop until he squeezes every last breath out of them.

Barack Hussein Ebola is on the loose, and we had all better run for our lives.

Read Full Post »

American Power

I don’t know about you, but American power turns me on.


Read Full Post »

Dr. Benjamin Carson, who eviscerated Barack Obama and his policies at a recent National Prayer Breakfast (with the Obamas sitting right there for the public humiliation), is rising fast in the wake of his recorded performance. I wrote about his keynote address here: Self-made Neurosurgeon Lectures Obama on Taxes, Obamacare, and what made America a Pinnacle Nation.

Here is the latest from a weekend appearance on ABC, in which he is asked to respond to all the accolades from Conservatives, including a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “Ben Carson For President”:

“I don’t think it was particularly political,” Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, told ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl during an interview for ” This Week.” “You know, I’m a physician. I like to diagnose things. And, you know, I’ve diagnosed some pretty, pretty significant issues that I think a lot of people resonate with.” <source>

Oh is he a wily one…Liberals must be quaking in their boots about now (and no doubt digging into his past in order to “Herman Cain” him, which is to say stop a credible African American man with an invented scandal). Note how he delivers rhetorical bombs against Liberal ideology during his speech (including a politely mocking indictment of Obamacare), and then smoothly says it wasn’t “particularly political”…

In his roughly 23-minute address, Carson called for a private health care savings plan and a flat tax for all Americans. His address has since gone viral, racking up more than two million views on YouTube.

Dr. Carson’s portrait of balance and restraint in the midst of espousing hard-core Conservatism is exactly the kind of thing we need to re-take the country from the Orren Boyles of the world.

Dr. Ben Carson, Truth Teller

Dr. Ben Carson, Truth Teller

Here is a funny line from the article I’m linking to:

On Sunday, Carson criticized some of President Obama’s policies but also called him a “very talented politician.”

Note how even an ABC reporter, who is no doubt Liberal, is taken in by Dr. Carson’s fake praise of mr. Obama, as if calling him a “very talented politician” were a compliment (note the phrase by the reporter “..but also called him”, setting it up as a positive remark, when in fact it is an insult in this context).

Dr. Carson goes on:

“There are a number of policies that I don’t believe lead to the growth of our nation and don’t lead to the elevation of our nation,” Carson added. “I don’t want to sit here and say all of his policies are bad.”

That’s right, Ben, keep it smooth: not all of his policies are bad, just the top 20, and 99 out of the top 100. Keep speaking the truth in your relaxed, yet devastatingly effective way.

Let’s hope he can stay slow and steady and not get caught in the meat grinder that is modern politics.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »