Archive for the ‘Reagan’ Category

Joe Biden insists that he’ll unite the country and heal our political divisions. I’ll believe that when he doesn’t use a teleprompter or notes and strings 3 straight coherent sentences together. It’s a myth to think that anyone can unite this nation from either political party. With Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other anarchists trying to end the US Constitution, why would anyone think that unity is possible?

I just spoke with a good friend of mine from the Twin Cities. He wanted my perspective from outstate Minnesota, which is fair because I wanted his perspective on Twin Cities things. I told him there wasn’t much of an appetite in central MN for paying for the destruction in Minneapolis because this wasn’t an act of God like a flood or tornado. This was preventable from a leadership standpoint. My friend said it isn’t clear whether the failure was Walz’s fault or Frey’s fault but that it was indisputable that there was a major failure.

Eventually, we started talking about how divided our nation is. We agreed that there’s some bumpy times ahead as the Baby Boomers get pushed aside and the next generation steps into leadership. The Boomers were known for their dealmakers. Alan Simpson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan were great dealmakers.

I told my friend that I’m certain that there are dealmakers today, though I said that the dealmakers were mostly on the GOP side. I said that that Pelosi and Schumer weren’t dealmakers. Neither is Omar or AOC. I said that it’s indisputable that Trump is a dealmaker. Specifically, I cited how Kim Kardashian reached out to the White House on criminal justice reform. Trump listened to her ideas. The next thing you know, Ivanka is part of the discussion. Before you know it, the First Step Act is getting signed into law.

Ms. Kardashian didn’t care whether Trump got a political victory. She just wanted to make life better for the Alice Johnsons of the world. That same mindset is present with Tim Scott, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy. This video shows why Tim Scott is respected amongst moderate center-left Democrats:

The last half of that interview is especially inspiring, though the entire interview is good stuff. Democrats will regret rejecting debating on Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act. According to Sen. Scott, they’ll debate the House bill while adding amendments to the House bill. That will force Democrats to vote for each of the provisions in Sen. Scott’s bill.

That eliminates the Democrats’ ability to say that they didn’t vote for Sen. Scott’s legislation because they didn’t like this or that provision. Each amendment will be a distinct provision. It’s a straight up-or-down vote on each provision. Forcing Democrats to defend each of their votes on the various amendments puts Democrats behind the proverbial 8-ball.

Until Democrats develop a group of good faith dealmakers, their calls for unity will be mostly mythical. As a society, we need voters who emphatically insist that politicians fix problems rather than saving issues for the campaign. Here’s what’s really encouraging. My Twin Cities friend is an old-fashioned, center-left Humphrey-style liberal.

Within the course of our conversation, we figured out a path forward for fixing Twin Cities policing, education and homelessness. The key with us is that we’re both low-key activists. It isn’t difficult to get things done when your highest priority is fixing things rather than worrying about getting re-elected.

For the past 2 weeks, Democrats have passionately insisted that the U.S. has a problem with “systemic racism.” I don’t believe that but let’s stipulate that for the sake of this experiment. If that’s true, the logical reaction to that would be to attack that system. The target, therefore, would be the white power structure and white privilege.

While later reaction included looting of the iconic Macys in NYC and other iconic symbols of white society, the initial reaction was to burn down minority neighborhoods. Saying that that’s illogical is understatement. There’s nothing in the initial reaction that suggests activists were speaking truth to power. The rioters and looters seemed far more interested in causing mayhem and spreading fear in minority neighborhoods than they seemed interested in uprooting the white power structure. Let’s ask some important questions. Let’s start with these:

  1. How does destroying a minority neighborhood uproot the white power structure?
  2. Does destroying minority-owned pharmacies and grocery stores make things worse or better for minorities?
  3. Doesn’t demolishing the neighborhood deli or neighborhood hardware store trash the hard work of minority business owners?
  4. When these ‘neighborhood institutions’ get demolished, how many years back does that set the entire neighborhood?

These aren’t trivial questions for the survival and prosperity of neighborhoods. They’re central to the survival and prosperity of neighborhoods.

I’d argue that the rioting and looting sounded more like a turf war between rival gangs than it sounds like another painful chapter in the civil rights movement. This isn’t about reclaiming neighborhoods. It’s about looting and vandalism. Ben Carson’s story is something to be examined. He didn’t get ahead by latching onto one government program after another. Dr. Carson got ahead because his mother taught him to spend tons of time reading.

Certainly, a major portion of his education came in schools but another major part of his education came from investing time in reading. That’s the blueprint that’s needed to change minority societies and neighborhoods. It worked once. It’ll work again if it’s tried.

Let’s further stipulate that this is a political issue. Robert Davi outlines it in this interview:

This isn’t a Democrat-only or Republican-only problem. It’s a problem that country club Republicans and limousine liberals have avoided for generations. For all of the nasty things said about this president, he’s been interested in solving problems. Let’s bring people of color together from both sides of the aisle at the White House. Let’s see President Trump bring together leaders in the Cabinet Room or somewhere prestigious inside the White House. Let’s have this discussion. Let’s put solutions on the table. Then, let’s establish timetables to accomplish those goals. It’s more than possible.

This is the United States. When we put our best minds together, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish. That’s only possible if we work together in a good faith fashion. That means not inviting Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer to this meeting. It means inviting Dr. Carson, Bob Woodson, Jack Brewer, Bob Johnson and other who are willing to put their differences aside to make minority lives better.

Ronald Reagan believed that the victories he got credit for were won first by the American people. Finally, let’s stipulate that We The People will always drive the most essential societal changes. That’s how it’s always been. MLK didn’t change society by taking orders from the government. Ditto with President Reagan or President Trump. They changed societies because they won over the people. They didn’t make an impact by forcing things down people’s throats.

During President Reagan’s administration, Dutch coined a phrase that Democrats should consider adopting. Dutch’s phrase was (pretty close, though not verbatim) ‘It’s amazing how much you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets credit for doing what.’ President Reagan’s battles with Speaker Tip O’Neil were epic. Still, they figured out ways to accomplish big things despite their oft-heated relationship. They passed the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that energized the US economy after 4 years of malaise under Jimmy Carter. They worked together to rebuild the US military after Carter’s budgets hollowed out the military, both in terms of personnel and in terms of parts for military hardware.

The point was that Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan figured out a way to work together. They worked together because Tip O’Neil put a higher priority on improving Americans’ lives than he put on resisting. They worked together because President Reagan put a higher priority on fixing the US than he put on winning the next election.

That doesn’t fit into the Democrats’ strategy. Today’s Democrats don’t put a high priority of giving a little and getting a little. Today’s Democrats don’t give. Instead, they insist on getting everything they want without giving Republicans anything that they want.

It’s time to coin this new phrase: ‘It’s amazing how a handful of nutjobs can demolish a pro-American agenda’. Does anyone seriously think that we’ve only got 12 years left on this planet? Does anyone seriously think that opening our borders, then giving illegal immigrants free health care and virtual citizenship is wise?

Americans face a choice. The best thing for Americans would be for Democrats to cooperate with Republicans where both sides get things that they want. If Democrats don’t cooperate with President Trump and House and Senate Republicans, that puts the blame for substandard public safety, out-of-control human trafficking, aka sex trafficking, and not participating in building a robust economy. If that’s the option Democrats choose, which increasingly looks like their choice, then the American people face a choice of whether they’ll re-elect a bunch of Do-Nothing Democrats next November that’ve done nothing to make Americans’ lives better and who haven’t kept any of their 2018 campaign promises on health care or the economy or whether they’ll elect GOP majorities in the House and Senate to work with President Trump in building a prosperous, safe United States.

Democrats need to ask themselves if they want to be Americans first or Democrats first. If Democrats opt for the latter, then they’ll deserve a butt-kicking. Unfortunately, I’m betting that the Democrats opt for the latter. There’s certainly more proof that they put a higher allegiance to their party than to this nation.

When Republicans cut taxes in Trump’s first year in office, all House Democrats and all Senate Democrats voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Couple the Trump/GOP tax cuts with the regulations that Republicans removed and you’ve explained why the economy is so strong. Every Democrat voted against prosperity as part of the Resist Movement.

That’s why Democrats must be defeated next November. They literally don’t have any accomplishments since President Trump took office. It’s impossible to point to any problems that the Democrats have solved. Why keep people in office if they don’t solve problems? A little less than 4 minutes into this interview, Kevin McCarthy went through the Republicans’ priorities if they their House majority back. I think it’s quite the appealing agenda:

Doesn’t that sound much better than just resisting? Isn’t that better than what the Do-Nothing Democrats have done lately?

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.