Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Reagan’

Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the country (obviously), but also for the Democrat party (also obvious to most people, except a few lunatic celebrities).

Bernie Socialist Sanders, on the heels of his 9-point lead over Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, is now LEADING IN IOWA also.

A new Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday morning shows Bernie Sanders at 41 percent and Hillary Clinton at 40 percent in Iowa – a virtual tie. <Yahoo News, link>

Priceless.

I am beginning to wonder if we might have a Trump versus Bernie general election matchup…

And then I wonder if we might see this again:

1984 Election Map Result

Yes, we can dare to dream.

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 »

All of life on earth ebbs and flows. This is the rhythm of the place, and human history can be explained as a series of movements back and forth between various extremes. Sometimes these swings take decades and sometimes centuries, and although we may feel as though we are living in a stable time, the good fortune of any era can never be taken for granted. The urgent truth is that the glorious American experiment is in trouble. How did we get here?

As Americans, our particular good fortune is that the Founding Fathers created a system of government that fostered a kind of golden mean of human societal organization and management: not too loose (the Articles of Confederation decentralized power to a fault) and not too autocratic (no sense replacing the deposed King with another one).

They realized that the pendulum usually swings too far in both directions, and that more often than not, it swings to the autocratic and dictatorial side (even in the great historical republics, which inevitably sunk into fascism).

But even they were not counting on the rise of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan and their attendant two world wars, all of which caused the United States central government to grow, and grow, and grow.

The Pendulum Swings

And so in answer to the question, how did we get here? I offer a recent history of the United States in a few simple pictures.

Pendulum of Government Regulation

As you can see, party affiliation is of little consequence: Republican presidents are in a few surprising places, and so are Democratic presidents.

Beginning in the late 1960s, the pendulum stands at one end with stifling, sclerotic government regulation of industry and its attendant economic contraction — Lyndon Johnson (Great Society) / Richard Nixon (wage and price controls) / Jimmy Carter (triumph of bureaucratic indecision). Beginning with Jimmy Carter’s deregulation of the airline industry in 1978 (one of Jimmy’s rare achievements) and continuing in earnest with the election of Ronald Reagan, it begins to swing back towards the middle, creating an era of economic liberation and growth yet still within the bounds of reasonable regulatory oversight. After Reagan, the pendulum begins to swing too far the other way, particularly during the two terms of the Bill Clinton presidency. Mr. Clinton, along with his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, abolished the Glass-Steagall banking law that had protected the American financial system from crises for 60 straight years.

Let me repeat this last fact, as it is occasionally forgotten (blocked out?) in Liberal circles: Bill Clinton (D) and Robert Rubin (D) repealed the Glass-Steagall banking law and allowed investment banks to once again co-mingle investment banking, commercial banking, and proprietary trading all under one too-big-to-fail umbrella.

Likewise, Barney Frank (D) and his fellow Democrats in Congress chose to ease the regulatory burdens on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 1990s and 2000s despite innumerable calls for greater oversight, leaving these institutions to ultimately hang themselves and all the nations of the earth in the 2008 economic catastrophe from which we are still trying to recover.

If you are a Democrat, or a Liberal, you may be feeling a kind of cognitive dissonance when faced with these facts, but this is a good sign: it shows that enough of the truth is getting through to you to cause you some discomfort, and how can you not be upset? I am upset with my own party and have been on many occasions: Richard Nixon (R) imposed wage and price controls, a fact that gives me quite a bit of cognitive dissonance, as such controls are the ultimate expression of anti-American central planning. Likewise, George W. Bush (R) is on one of the extreme ends of the pendulum swing above, and he must share the blame for not doing more to stop the momentum bequeathed to him by Clinton. So let us not be blinded by the Democrat and Republican schism in American politics and focus more instead on each leader and what he actually did and did not do.

To return to the narrative: as the world economy entered free-fall in 2008, the American electorate wanted the pendulum to swing back the other way and was ripe for a Manchurian candidate who would usher in a “change” in America.

But the pendulum always swings too far.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, a man who was raised in Indonesia by parents and friends who espoused an anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, and anti-American set of philosophies and principles that in fact are wholly outside of the normal ebb and flow of American political and economic principles.

He has used the failures of capitalism as an excuse to plunge us into socialism and fascism, just as Karl Marx and Nikita Khrushchev foretold.

The Pendulum Breaks

Pendulum of Govt Regulation swings to Obama fascism

A short but potent list of his actions while in office is sobering, and alarming: He has effectively nationalized health care through the imposition of a punitive tax regime on businesses and citizens to be (selectively…) enforced by the IRS, particularly against those who are young and healthy; He has, through Obamacare, created a new star chamber of federal bureaucrats (the IPAB) who will become the unelected politburo for decision making around health care for the elderly (for those who think the term “fascism” is over-reaching, I urge you to read about the IPAB, and about selective enforcement of byzantine laws, as starting points);  He imposed drilling bans on federal lands and in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill, damaging further an already devastated region of the country; He has initiated selective, unilateral changes to existing laws in direct violation of the Constitution, including those involving health care, immigration, and energy regulations; and he seeks to dramatically weaken the second amendment to the Constitution, again using crisis events as an excuse to expand state power.

The cherry on top of this sundae du merde is that Barack Obama chose NOT to re-regulate Wall Street after the crisis; he chose NOT to prevent Wall Street firms from paying bonuses with tax-payer money (they didn’t miss even one year of bonuses); he chose NOT to push for prosecution of financial crimes.

At first this seems hard to understand, until you remember that Barack Obama does not want to save capitalism, he wants to destroy it utterly and completely (break the pendulum, once and for all) for the purpose of creating a permanent state control of the economy.

Leaving banks as Too-Big-To-Fail, which, to this day, they very much are, constitutes a doubling down by Barack Obama on the reckless endangerment Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times has written about ad nauseum.

Failure of whole industries allows central government fascists the opportunity to walk in and take over. For example, here is what just happened in Venezuela, where a decade of fascism and socialism have destroyed private businesses and led to shortages:

(CNN) — When you’re running low on toilet paper and getting desperate, what do you do?

If you’re the Venezuelan government, you take over a toilet paper factory. On Saturday, Vice President Jorge Arreaza announced the “temporary occupation” of the Paper Manufacturing Company’s plant in the state of Aragua. The aim, he explained, is to review the “production, marketing and distribution (of) toilet paper.”

“The … People’s Defense from the Economy will not allow hoarding or failures in the production and distribution of essential commodities,” the vice president said. By the “People’s Defense,” Arreaza was referring to a government agency created on September 13 by President Nicolas Maduro to “defeat the economic war that has been declared in the country,” according to a report from state-run ATV. This group is charged with looking at inefficiencies across various industries in the nation, including foods and other products, and taking action presumably in the South American nation’s best interests. <source>

This example is almost too perfect: a government fascist, Hugo Chavez, nationalizes whole industries in his country (in the name of the “people”), which of course plunges the economy into economic ruin. Then, when shortages occur, as they always do and as they soon will in American health care, the central government “temporarily” takes over a private company in order to “ensure supply” against a paranoid fantasy of plots to under-supply the market, further demonizing private industry and glorifying the government bureaucrats…

So what did Barack Obama do to repair the financial industry, and our country, and insulate it against another financial crisis?

Nothing.

And what do you think Barack Obama will do when another major bank is on the brink of failure?

Conduct a “Temporary occupation.”

This is fascism, brought to America via a man who expertly and cruelly used the sentiments of so many citizens who wanted nothing more than the pendulum to be made to swing back the other way.

If you voted for Barack Obama, you must now confront the truth, which is that a world-class demagogue used you in order to do something quite different, and something he is accelerating on in every possible way.

Soon he will ask you for your vote in the mid-term elections so that he can remove the final obstacle (Republican control of the House) to the achievement of the full extent of his vile ambition. Will you be sympathetic to his siren song, now that you know the truth?

In Summary

The pendulum is always swinging between too much, and too little, government regulation.

We cannot afford the sclerotic and stifling central planning of LBJ/Nixon/Carter.

Neither can we afford the anarchy of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

And we most definitely cannot afford the fascism and central planning of Barack Hussein Obama, a man whose formative years had nothing whatsoever to do with the American experience.

We must elect leaders who will set a course toward the golden mean, as Reagan did, and as Teddy Roosevelt did when he broke the trusts in the early twentieth century to curb the abuses of capitalism so that he could save capitalism.

And we must survive the malignant reign of this man, Barack Obama, who operates not in any way to preserve capitalism, but instead to destroy it and all that we hold dear in the American civilization.

May God save the Unites States of America these next three years, and may a plurality of voters make the right choice in 2016.

Read Full Post »

Barack Ebola has once again showed explicit disdain for the progenitor and great ally of the United States.

The US is to send distinctly low-key official representation to Lady Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday…While Barack Obama was invited, he has opted to send a presidential delegation comprising no serving politicians. <source>

This is highly unusual and a show of blatant hostility towards the UK.

Many Liberals insist to this day that Obama’s ejection of the Winston Churchill bust out of the Oval Office was not the symbolic rejection of the West, but the evidence is substantial and cannot be denied.

Margaret Thatcher helped Ronald Reagan break the back of the USSR, and for that alone she is a Goddess.

And so it is not surprising that mr. Obama would snub the Iron Lady: his lust for feudal systems of patronage, corruption, and degradation of the common man under the heel of petty bureaucrats, ensures that he harbors only ill will for people like Thatcher and Churchill.

My favorite summation of this latest disgrace is from Frontpage Mag <link>:

As for Obama. The man who had no room for Churchill in the White House would certainly have no time to take a break from his umpteenth golf game to pay tribute to a woman who represents everything that he is working to destroy.

One final point: in reviewing what Tags I should include for this essay, I typed the following string of names:

Thatcher, Reagan, Churchill, Obama.

Let us observe that there hasn’t been a crash, from soaring heights, at the end of a list such as happened in this one in the history of human literature.

Read Full Post »

I stumbled across a no-nukes website and read an essay lamenting the “lost opportunity” of the 1986 Reagan/Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik. Such wrong-headed or blind-spot interpretations of Reagan’s actions must be corrected, and so I commented as shown below. 

Your analysis erroneously and dangerously compartmentalizes the proceedings in Rehkjavik as though an agreement of bilateral disarmament was the only thing in play.

The patterns of force that were being exerted in Reykjavik went far beyond the question of what to do with nuclear missiles, and contrary to your characterization, Reagan’s pushing away from the table at Reykjavik was perhaps his most powerful, non-violent, and devastatingly effective shot at the heart of the evil empire, then still intact as the USSR.

Disarmament was not a reasonable goal in 1986, and so the summit was used to achieve a more achievable one: the declaration, face to face, that the USA would not yield and would not stop being an unrelenting counter-balance to the dark designs of the totalitarian state known as the USSR.

By showing an unyielding stance on what Reagan bluffed as a technology-based super weapon (SDI), he showed the power structure within the USSR, via Gorbachev, that continuing to oppose the United States militarily and otherwise was a hopeless cause: we would outspend them, and outgun them.  Reagan’s energy and countenance — call it a performance, it doesn’t matter — was essential in pressing the winning hand, again, without firing a shot.

Thus did Reagan bring about the demise of a regime that cruelly deprived and tortured hundreds of millions of people in Russia, its subject states, and all of Eastern Europe, for decades.

Reykjavik was no failure.  It was one of the great victories for freedom loving peoples the world over.

I await the author’s reply, which I suspect will include — if not an outright defense of the Soviet Union — a litany of crimes committed by the United States.  The no-nukes crowd has always distinguished itself by its insistence that the USA and USSR were moral equivalents. Such malignant ideas are slow to die, and I have a feeling that my comments will spur the author to thaw this one in the microwave of his mind as he prepares to serve it up again, one more time. 

Read Full Post »

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, famously volunteered that he and his fellow billionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. Right on cue, the radical Marxist currently occupying the White House embraced Buffett’s class warfare and self-immolating guilt and announced a “jobs” bill that calls for higher taxes on billionaires.

Oh — wait a minute: Obama replaced the “B” in billionaire with an “M” for millionaires…

Or is it on all those making more than $200,000? Yesterday we had a columnist named Bruce Bartlett featured in the FT praising Obama’s embrace of the so-called Buffett rule. In it he cites the following nonsense:

The September 20 Gallup poll found 2-to-1 support for higher taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year to pay for his proposed jobs bill. <source>

I can only imagine the pollster trolling for vulnerable people when asking this question.

The real travesty going on here is this migration from lust for car-jacking billionaires to shaking down families earning more than $200,000; this is the Liberal mind in all its ugliness. It is the essence of the fascist centralization of power by a government determined to rid the country of its wealthy in favor of the “non-wealthy”, and pretty soon “wealthy” will be defined by fascists as those with any job at all. If you are a Liberal and that sounds good to you, you might find great joy for yourself in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. He has been ruthlessly pursuing similar policies and the “rich” are very much on the run — a Liberal blood sport!!

Bartlett humiliates himself further with lines like the following:

The Republican party position argues that low tax rates are essential for economic growth. But growth was much more robust in the 1980s and 1990s, when both their average and marginal rates were higher. <source>

This kind of economic writing is the sloppiest kind of drivel and is a kind of intellectual abuse of its readers. Not only is it wrong, it seeks to make analogies in the wrong ways and in all the wrong places. Ronald Reagan famously cut the high marginal rates of taxation dramatically, leading to one of the greatest economic expansions in history. But the beauty of it was, the mega-wealthy ended up contributing more, not less, of the total taxes collected:

…in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. <source>

Note how Bartlett erroneously compares the marginal tax rates under Reagan to the top rates now: the truth is, marginal rates at the end of Reagan’s second term were LESS than they have been since (since Bush 41’s abominable betrayal on Read My Lips, followed by Clinton’s tax increases).

But back to Reagan: the relevant point is that he hugely cut the top marginal rate and tax revenues actually climbed by leaps and bounds.

Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989... <source>

Class warfare of the kind Buffett and Obama (and Bartlett) are pursuing is not only built on specious arguments, it is also un-American. The USA was founded on freedom and opportunity, not on resentment of those who have done well and have more than others. And equating families earning $200,000 per year with billionaires is absolutely asinine.

Read Full Post »

Mr. Obama is still at it, trying to name-drop the greatest Presidents in history as if he stands among them. A few months ago he was dropping Ronald Reagan’s name all over the place, and now he’s stuck his foot in his mouth and compared his travails to those of Abraham Lincoln, saying — can you believe this? — that he has it worse now than Lincoln did then:

President Barack Obama said yesterday in Decorah, Iowa, that he absorbs more political criticism than Abraham Lincoln, the assassinated 16th U.S. president, attracted from his Civil War critics. <source>

This absurd comment has to make you wonder if the guy is losing his mind. But it also lifts the spirits as he continues to weaken his chances for reelection. And then there is this interpretation:

Criticism of Lincoln in his day “was even more vitriolic than what you see about Obama,” said Eric Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian at Columbia University. “Obama is a guy who has a thin skin and does not take criticism well.”

Correct.

The beauty is that no amount of Obamagoguery can hoodwink Americans into believing that mr. Obama belongs in the same conversation as immortals like Reagan and Lincoln.

So go ahead, Profane Obama, and keep on name-dropping way above your station. Such delusional turds of oratory amount to nothing more than delusions of Obama, which may as well be delusions of amoeba, what with how far below Reagan and Lincoln you are.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »