Archive for the ‘Reagan’ Category

If you want to know the biggest difference between the Democrats’ presidential candidates and President Trump, it isn’t difficult to identify. The Democrats’ presidential candidates aren’t peddling the truth. They’re peddling doom and gloom. Whether it’s Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg or Bill de Blasio, they’re peddling a message that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t solve climate change or they’re peddling a message that blue collar families are getting screwed because ‘the rich’ are ripping everyone off.

Voters won’t flock to a political party that insists the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s message is simple and two-fold. One part of President Trump’s message is Promises Made, Promises Kept. The other part of President Trump’s message is Keep America Great. They work hand-in-hand. President Trump’s speeches often start with him talking about how strong the economy is, especially for minorities and women, then talking about all the great judges that’ve gotten confirmed by the Senate, followed by talking about criminal justice reform.

Just like you can’t beat something with nothing, it’s true that you can’t doom and gloom yourself to the White House. You have to uplift people. Right now, Democrats don’t have a Reaganesque Happy Warrior. The Democrats’ candidates are angry and pessimistic. Think Bernie, de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren and Gillibrand. These are candidates that specialize in anger and pessimism.

Back in the late 1970s, it was fashionable for supposed intellectuals to talk about how the presidency was just too big for one man. The political science professoriate talked about the need for a co-presidency. That professoriate even talked about changing the Constitution so that the president would serve a single 6-year term. That was during Jimmy Carter’s single 4-year term in office.

That fashionable talk disappeared the minute President Reagan took over and got the economy hitting on all cylinders. In October, 1983, the US economy created 1,100,000 jobs. I’ve got to think that’s the single-month record and that it’ll never be eclipsed. It wasn’t that the presidency was too big for one man. It’s that it was too big for that man, aka Jimmy Carter.

During his final months in office, President Obama ridiculed then-candidate Trump, saying that you’d need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing jobs during this townhall:

Twitchy has noticed Republicans, especially Donald Trump Jr., ridiculing President Obama and his “magic wand” statement:


Just like with Reagan replacing Carter, we’re seeing the same robust economic growth increase from the turnover from Obama to President Trump. The comparison is striking. President Reagan cut taxes dramatically, especially capital gains, while pursuing deregulation, especially in the energy sector. President Trump is following the same path to success, virtually to a T.

At this week’s Democrat presidential debates, Democrat presidential candidates criticized President Obama for not being sufficiently socialist enough. By the time Democrats pick their nominee, which might not be determined until their convention, President Trump will join in the criticism of President Obama. It’s just that President Trump will criticize President Obama for not being sufficiently capitalist enough.

It’s entirely possible that President Trump will win a decisive victory, though I can’t predict him winning the 525 electoral votes that President Reagan achieved in 1984. Talk about deja vu all over again.

One of the most underreported movements is the #Walkaway Campaign. According to my Google search, there are just 2,620 articles on the subject. The first article listed in the news search was this article from the Daily Caller. The title of the article is “OPINION: A Big Civility Gap Between The Left And Everyone Else, Say WalkAway Democrats.”

The opinion piece starts by saying “The ‘WalkAway’ campaign, started by Brandon Straka, is about exiting the Democratic Party. We studied the videos on the movement’s official YouTube channel, including 150 people who walked away. A large majority report a civility gap between the left and the non-left. Fully 70 percent suggested that the left is less civil than Republicans and others.”

There are lots of Establishment Republicans who don’t deserve our loyalty. Still, it’s clear that Democrats won’t tolerate people they slightly disagree with. With the hardline progressives, the slightest ‘infraction’ is enough to reject a person. That isn’t what made America exceptional. What’s made this nation exceptional is the ability and willingness to make a deal that’s a combination of mild disappointment and extreme satisfaction. This video must’ve struck a nerve:

The #WalkawayCampaign published this video on Jul 14, 2018. It already has almost 850,000 views. It’s attracted over 22,000 comments. It’s been approved or liked over 74,000 times while attracting less than 1,000 disapprovals in a year. Any political video that has a 75:1 approve-to-disapprove ratio in the comments section is astonishing.

The point I’m making is that the #WalkawayCampaign isn’t attracting much attention from the MSM. It should be. This isn’t insignificant. The opening page of the #Walkaway website tells what they’re doing:

The #WalkAway Campaign is a true grassroots movement, founded by former liberal, Brandon Straka on May 26th, 2018. The #WalkAway Campaign encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today. We are walking away from the lies, the false narratives, the fake news, the race-baiting, the victim narrative, the violence, the vandalism, the vitriol. We are walking away from a party driven by hate. We are walking toward patriotism and a new, unified America! We are the future of this great nation!

Rest assured that these patriots aren’t just abandoning the hate-mongering Democrats. They’re running towards the new patriotism and a new, unified nation. It’s apparent, too, that the #WalkawayCampaign intends on influencing the 2020 election.

It’s difficult to measure a freshly minted grassroots’ movement’s impact prior to the next election. This one, however, seems distinct from past grassroots organizations. This time, it’s apparent that Democrats have played the division card thousands of times too many. It’s like the Democrats’ chief strategy is to divide, divide some more and divide the nation even more.

That isn’t the America that the Founding Fathers envisioned. That isn’t the “Shining City on a Hill” that President Reagan envisioned, either:

Today’s Democratic Party doesn’t seem capable of envisioning President Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill. Today’s Democratic Party seems only capable of division, propaganda and encouraging illegal immigration.

When Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats talk about America’s principles, they’re talking trash. Based on what we’re seeing in the #WalkawayCampaign and in the Trump movement, Biden and Pelosi couldn’t identify America’s principles if their lives depended on it.

I don’t have a problem with the SCTimes publishing this LTE. What I’ve got a problem with is the liberal stupidity in this LTE.

Liberal stupidity, aka DFL stupidity, is on full display when the author says the “problem with Jerry Relph and his Republican colleagues in the Minnesota Senate is that they completely ignore what income and wealth Minnesotans are creating and simply assume that none of us can afford to pay anything more in taxes.”

That’s BS. I wrote several articles over the weekend stating that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to raise taxes when there’s a surplus well in excess of $1,600,000,000 and there’s $2,523,000,000 in Minnesota’s Rainy Day Fund. Further, revenues are rapidly increasing. Further still, the DFL hasn’t lifted a finger to look into the money that fraudsters have ripped off out of the CCAP program or that the idiots at MnDOT have pissed away on rest stops.

While it is true that many Minnesotans have not had a real increase [inflation-adjusted] in wages in many years, there are some that are reaping huge rewards from our collective efforts.

Some blatantly argue “tax the rich.” I’m not saying that. I’m saying don’t assume that no one has made money from our state when some have made a lot. Look at who is making money and make them pay their fair share in light of what they are making. When Republicans like Jerry Relph refuse to make wealthier Minnesotans pay their fair share, it unfairly burdens everyone else.

Clearly, this idiot was taught economics by Bernie Sanders or one of his stooges. Ronald Reagan’s economy created tons of jobs, 22,000,000 to be precise. In Oct. of 1983, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. Wage growth exploded. GDP that quarter jumped. President Reagan famously said that you can’t be pro-jobs if you have employers. The DFL hates employers.

The DFL hates employers by imposing high taxes and unreasonable levels of regulations while suing pipeline companies that play by the rules. No wonder wages are stagnant. No wonder why manufacturers have left Minnesota. What idiot would put his/her capital at risk with such policies in place? The guy who wrote this idiotic LTE should’ve watched this video first:

If he’d watched this video first, he might’ve prevented himself from making such a fool of himself. Then again, the odds of preventing DFL socialists from looking like DFL socialists are exceptionally high. DFL socialists are extraordinary economic illiterates.

The common theme amongst Democrat propagandists, aka Resistance journalists, is that the economy isn’t nearly as fantastic as people know it is. Take Juan Williams latest article, for instance.

Williams writes “After almost two-and-a-half years with Trump in the White House, including two years with Republican control of both houses of Congress, the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp. The rich got their Trump tax cut. GDP looks good. And the stock market is doing great for people with money to invest. But it is only the rich who get the big rewards in Trump’s economy. What about the middle class?”

Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, has an explanation for Williams in this interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal:

Incomes keep rising, with the lowest incomes growing at the fastest rate. Minority unemployment is the lowest in history. The unemployment rate for women is the lowest it’s been in 50+ years. Paychecks are bigger, partially because of the rising wages, partially because of the tax cuts. Disposable incomes are rising, too. Williams’ spin that “the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp” is fiction.

The average family making $75,000 saved $2,300 in taxes last year. How is that like “getting squeezed to a pulp”? If that’s Williams’ definition of getting squeezed to a pulp, sign me up. Lost in all of this is the fact that wage growth for people in the bottom quintile are rising at a 6.4% rate, almost doubling the wage growth overall, which is at 3.4%.

I don’t know what Williams is talking about when he asks “What about the middle class”? Does he automatically trust everything that Media Matters feeds him? Listen to this BS:

Wages remain stagnant. Trump’s trade wars are hurting farmers. Coal mines keep closing. Teachers in several states have been on strike.

That first sentence is utter BS. That isn’t my opinion. That’s what the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) is reporting. Further, people that’d left the workforce are returning to the workforce.

Further, President Obama’s trade deals had already been hurting farmers. At least with President Trump, there’s a strong possibility that they won’t be hurt in the future. As for coal mines closing, the markets are determining what’s happening; with newer power plants switching to natural gas, the switch was inevitable. With the Obama administration, they simply attempted shutting down the entire coal industry through regulations.

Do people who watch the markets agree with Trump? Not Rick Newman of Yahoo Finance. He wrote in his column last week:

“If Trump deserves credit for a roaring stock market then Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan do as well. In fact, all of them presided over more total highs in the S&P 500 than Trump so far.”

Certainly, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan deserve credit for robust economic growth. President Obama can’t take credit for robust economic growth during his time in office because economic growth during his administration was pathetic. Stock market growth the result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, not President Obama’s economic policies.

When President Trump took office, economic growth was pathetic, wages were legitimately stagnant and people were leaving the workforce in droves. President Trump got rid of the Obama administration’s policies and replaced them with pro-growth economic policies. Since President Trump’s and the GOP’s policies have kicked in, economic growth has doubled, consumer confidence and small business confidence have hit all-time highs and people are returning to work. If Williams thinks that President Obama deserves part of the credit or that it’s purely coincidental, he isn’t paying attention.

There’s no doubt that Democrats will cave on building President Trump’s wall. The only question is when it’ll happen. Democrats have already admitted that what’s in effect isn’t working. Further, Democrats can’t hide the fact that they’ve voted for border wall funding previously. In fact, rather prominent Democrats have voted for the wall, including President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein. In fact, that quintet voted to spend much more than the $5,700,000,000 that President Trump is asking for right now.

How can these Democrats continue to say no with this information floating around out there? Let’s remember something important about President Trump’s election. Voters signaled that they were tired of politics as usual. They demanded politicians that actually got things done. Thus far, Democrats have sounded like obstructionists.

President Trump has made counter-proposals. Democrats haven’t. They’ve just repeated their mantra that they’re for border security, too. I’m not saying that Republicans have done the right thing. They’ve failed, too.

Byron York’s article highlights the Democrats’ hypocrisy:

In 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which mandated the construction of multilayer pedestrian fencing along about 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed with big, bipartisan majorities: 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate. Some top Democrats who are still in the Senate today supported the fence: Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, and Sherrod Brown. Just the next year, Congress made clear it didn’t really mean what it said. The new law was amended to make fence building optional.

In 2013, Congress got back into the fence game. The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill included something called the “Southern Border Fencing Strategy.” It called for 700 miles of at least single-layer pedestrian fencing along the border. It wasn’t a standalone measure; the fence was to be part of a broader package of border security measures alongside provisions that would create a process by which the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would ultimately gain a path to citizenship.

It’s just a matter of time before Democrats are forced to cave. They’ve been dealt a difficult hand despite what the MSM has written. At some point, they’ll have to do something that will upset their base. They can’t continue to play to the Democrats’ worst instincts.

When Democrats listen to their hard left wing, they lose bigtime. Democrats will lose because they’re liars. It’s painful to listen to this particular liar:

I just read President Reagan’s final speech from the Oval Office. Despite what Ms. Pelosi said, President Reagan never once mentioned the Statue of Liberty in that speech. That’s why I won’t trust her on border security.

When Johnny Carson interviewed Ronald Reagan on the Tonight Show With Johnny Carson in March, 1975, Reagan told Carson about a study called “The Demography of Happiness.” According to that study, which cost taxpayers $249,000, young people are happier than old people, healthy people are happier than sick people and that people who earn more are happier than people who earn less.

Reagan summarized by saying that it didn’t take a government study to figure out that people “who are rich, young and healthy are happier than people who are poor, old and sick.” I can’t argue with that statement.

Reagan said something else during that interview that I thought was profound. In fact, I’ve remembered it literally for more than a decade. Reagan said “If the American people would take a little inventory and take a look around, if you triple our troubles and were better off than any other people on earth.”

Let’s be honest. Despite all the whining from leftists, Americans are far better off than most nations. While it’s true that the rich in our nation make more than the poor, it isn’t because the poor are in terrible trouble. It’s because our top income-earners are that well off. Put differently, our poor would be considered rich in many industrialized nations.

Further, the truth is that many industrialized nations’ systems hold people in place. They don’t let lower income people rise. It’s explained in Friedrich Hayek’s classic book “The road to serfdom.” In that book, Hayek explains that “the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning.”[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual.”

I suspect that Reagan would’ve agreed with most of Hayek’s thoughts. That’s because President Reagan wasn’t afraid to see what he’d seen.

Last night, Juan Williams was on Fox News @ Night to talk about Friday’s GDP report. Something he hinted at, which isn’t a first, is that the Trump GDP numbers are a continuation of the Obama recovery. Let’s be clear about things. First, it’s indisputable that the recovery from the Great Recession started early in the Obama administration. People arguing otherwise just aren’t telling the truth. Second, anyone that thinks that the Trump economy’s growth is based on a continuation of Obama-era policies simply isn’t informed.

From Day One, President Trump and the GOP Congress have done their best to sweep aside the Obama administration’s policies. That’s why people elected President Trump. They wanted a Disruptor-in-Chief. They didn’t want a Stay-the-Course administration.

One of the first thing the Trump administration was to unleash the energy sector, starting with green-lighting the Keystone XL Pipeline and increasing fracking for oil and natural gas. They stopped in its tracks the war on coal, thanks in large part to the rolling back of regulations put in place late in the Obama administration through the unprecedented use of the Congressional Review Act. Time and again, that was used to rid ourselves of the anti-mining regulations that the Obama administration put in place.

Those things alone would’ve helped the economy soar. But that’s only part of the story. The highest profile legislative victory of the Trump administration is the passage of the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Those tax cuts are working and everyone knows it. Are they enough to push growth into the stratosphere? I’ll say it this way: they’re opening up new opportunities for entrepreneurship. President Trump has unleashed the animal spirits of this economy. That term was first used by John Maynard Keynes. Here’s what he said about animal spirits:

Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits—a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.

In other words, good things happen when people are optimistic. There’s no greater salesman of economic optimism than Larry Kudlow. Sandra Smith’s interview of Mr. Kudlow has me believing that robust long-term economic growth isn’t just possible. It’s likely. Watch this interview:

The only other guy who rivals Mr. Kudlow in terms of economic optimism is his old partner in crime in the Reagan administration, Art Laffer. One thing that I don’t want to overlook in the interview is what Kudlow said about the fundamentals in place. Regulations are reasonable. Taxes, which leads to capital formation, which leads to job creation, are low. The energy sector has been unleashed. Consumer confidence is high. Capital that spent its time on the sidelines during the Obama administration is rushing back into the United States in the hopes of increased return on investment. During periods in the Obama administration, investors were sometimes happy with a return of its investment.

Early in the interview, Mr. Kudlow summed things up beautifully by saying “My hunch is that it’s going to go on for quite awhile.” This of things contributing to this strong economy that Mr. listed was fairly lengthy. Anyone mistaking the Trump economy with the Obama economy isn’t paying attention. The differences are night and day differences.

While it’s still best to be cautiously optimistic about achieving a lasting peace between North Korea and South Korea, it’s indisputable that optimistic signals keep getting sent from the Korean Peninsula. This time, the signal comes in the form of “the South Korean government said on Sunday that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, had told President Moon Jae-in that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States agreed to formally end the Korean War and promise not to invade his country.”

It’s best not to get too giddy until this initiative gets fleshed out more. The devil is still in the details. Still, it’s another hopeful development in negotiations between North Korean President Kim Jung-Un and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea.

Further, “In Washington, Trump officials spoke cautiously about the chances of reaching a deal and laid out a plan for the dismantling of the North’s nuclear program, perhaps over a two-year period. That would be accompanied by a ‘full, complete, total disclosure of everything related to their nuclear program with a full international verification,’ said John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s new national security adviser.”

Pundits have questioned whether President Trump would get hoodwinked by Kim Jung-Un, possibly because they still don’t think he’s capable of being president. If there’s anything I trust about President Trump, it’s negotiating abilities. If that’s what the left is worried about, they don’t have to worry. The thing that they’re forgetting is the fact that Trump studied the deals past presidents have made. That’s led to a different negotiating style this time. That’s what’s led to this:

This is still the best protocol when negotiating life-changing treaties:

I trust that President Trump and National Security Adviser Bolton will verify that North Korea is living up to its obligations.

UPDATE: Moon Jae-In, South Korea’s president, thinks that President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize “for his role in talks to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and end the decades-long war between the North and South.”

If that happened, journalists’ heads would explode. Here’s hoping it happens.

Oh, to be a government employee. Imagine a job that gives good benefits. Then imagine that job plus no accountability. Welcome to the life of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. Try as we might to force the media to hold Sheriff Israel accountable, it hasn’t happened. That’s thanks in large part to the fact that the Agenda Media is intent on making David Hogg the poster child in their latest push for gun control. This fits into the category of ‘the best defense is a great offense’. Specifically, the gun grabbers don’t have to defend their policies because they’re never questioned.

I hope that changes when people read Glenn Reynolds’ latest column. It deals with how government employees aren’t held accountable for their mistakes. It starts by saying “Law enforcement keeps failing, and people keep dying. Where are the consequences? Where is the accountability? Despite receiving a warning directly from the Russian government, the FBI failed to stop the Tsarnaev brothers from staging the Boston Marathon bombing. Despite having plenty of resources, the Charlottesville police failed to stop a car attack that left a woman dead. The FBI interviewed Omar Mateen, the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter, and considered criminally investigating him. They didn’t, possibly because his father was an FBI informant.”

These reporting omissions aren’t mistakes. They’re part of a pattern:

The FBI also missed numerous “red flags” before the San Bernardino shooting. And despite having lots of warning, the FBI, the Broward County schools and the Broward Sheriff’s Department under Sheriff Scott Israel all failed to stop Nikolas Cruz from shooting up a high school.

But I digress. Glenn Reynolds has a partner in demolishing the Democrats’ narrative. His name is Ben Shapiro:

Reynolds continued, saying:

And yet these repeated failures, among others, keep getting swept under the rug as we look for “solutions” to the problem of violence. No doubt Israel and the others whose incompetence made it possible for Cruz to kill his classmates were relieved to see our national discourse veer into questions of whether Laura Ingraham should lose sponsors for mocking David Hogg’s college-admissions failures, instead of their own failures to do their jobs. But now comes a hero to remind us what it’s really all about. Parkland student Anthony Borges, who used his body to shield 20 fellow students from the gunman, emerged from the hospital over the weekend to remind us that the shooting resulted from the failures of the sheriff and school superintendent to protect students.

Anthony Borges used his body to shield 20 students during Nikolas Cruz’s murder rampage. Borges did what Deputy Scot Peterson was paid to do. It isn’t lost that Peterson is a government worker who never will be held accountable.

It’s time for the US to realize that Ronald Reagan was right when he said this: