Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

More Government Control, Less Parental Voice
By Ramblin’ Rose

At a campaign rally at Clark-Atlanta University, a historically black college, the night after the Democrat debate in Atlanta, Georgia, Powerful Parent Network protestors, predominantly black, chanted “Our children, our choice!” Pro-choice at that moment did not advocate abortion, rather school choice. Elizabeth Warren claimed in her speech that she wants good schools for all children and therefore must increase spending for public schools and completely ban for-profit charter schools, nor would she support expansion of charter schools, according to her aide. Warren would also direct the Internal Revenue Service “to investigate nonprofit charters that are run by for-profit entities or operate with the assistance of for-profit service providers.”

But school-choice advocate Sarah Carpenter challenged Warren: “We want the same choice that you had for your kids because I read that your children went to private school.” Warren denied the reports, saying, “No, my children went to public schools.”

Warren’s claim was not completely accurate. While, technically, she was probably not lying, only covering up “the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” her communications director Kristen Orthman clarified the next day that the candidate’s daughter did attend public schools and her son did as well—until 5th grade and then attended an expensive private school—tuition is currently $18,000 a year—Kirby Hall School in Austin, Texas, where the student/teacher ratio is 5:1. Her daughter attended Anderson High School, a public school ranked as one of the best in the country per U.S. News and World Report. Neither school would fit the profile of the schools represented by the attendees of the rally in Atlanta.

Nor does her personal wealth reflect that of middle America—Forbes listed her personal wealth at $12 million. Warren is adamant about giving away other people’s money…and now for schools.

Unfortunately for Warren, the data do not support her plan. The 2019 NAEP Report confirmed claims of failure but also pointed out that enormous amounts of taxpayer money have not closed the achievement gap. In fact, the gap is widening. The Trump administration advocates more parental choice.

Education Secretary DeVos reacted to the October 30, 2019 release of the Nation’s Report Card with these words:

“Every American family needs to open The Nation’s Report Card this year and think about what it means for their child and for our country’s future. The results are, frankly, devastating. This country is in a student achievement crisis, and over the past decade it has continued to worsen, especially for our most vulnerable students.

“Two out of three of our nation’s children aren’t proficient readers. In fact, fourth grade reading declined in 17 states and eighth grade reading declined in 31. The gap between the highest and lowest performing students is widening, despite $1 trillion in Federal spending over 40 years designated specifically to help close it.

“This must be America’s wake-up call. We cannot abide these poor results any longer. We can neither excuse them away nor simply throw more money at the problem.

“This Administration has a transformational plan to help America’s forgotten students escape failing schools. By expanding education freedom, students can break out of the one-size-fits-all system and learn in the ways that will unlock their full potential. They deserve it. Parents demand it. And, it’s the only way to bring about the change our country desperately needs.”

Time to check out the data…at least a part of the problem relates to the number of people in the public schools and who they are. According to the findings of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the number of administrators in K-12 schools has increased 2.3 times faster than the number of students in the last 20 years. Since 1950, that increase in administrative positions has grown by 700%. In 1970, the student/teacher ratio was 22.3/1 in public schools. In 2015, it had dropped to 16.0/1. So smaller class size has not produced higher test scores. More administrative staff didn’t produce higher test scores, either.

Once again, candidate Warren has been trapped by deceit and lies—her ethnicity, her firing for being pregnant, her children attending public schools.

Even ABC News reported the event as an attempt to pander to black voters—a focus on black issues at a black institution with a DJ playing Drake and DMX songs and introduced by Pressley (one of “the Squad”) who is the first black woman from Massachusetts serving in Congress.

At least at this event, the candidate found opposition to her propensity to fund federal program with other people’s money. This time, the people resisted her push for fewer parental choices for their children in attending schools other than the publicly supported ones dominated with progressive programs of indoctrination.

There’s no question whether Elizabeth Warren stirs passion with her followers. Sen. Warren’s followers aren’t her problem. She’s her own worst enemy at times. A perfect example of this happened when Sen. Warren explained her Medicare-for-All plan. There’s no doubt about whether she’d like to have this part back:


Saying that you’re putting people in the insurance industry through a major transition (that’s if you’re lucky) in Des Moines, IA, isn’t too bright. Sen. Warren’s plan includes eliminating private health insurance. Think of that statement to be the equivalent of Hillary making this statement:

Sen. Warren thinks about herself first, last and always. It isn’t surprising that she expects health insurance experts to just accept her edict. From a policy standpoint, Sen. Warren’s Medicare-for-All plan stinks. There’s no way to pay for it. From a political campaign standpoint, Sen. Warren’s campaign manager must’ve cringed when Sen. Warren told people living in the insurance capitol of the United States that they’re destined for pink slips if she’s elected president.

That’s like telling Iowa farmers that you hate corn and pigs. That’s like a Wisconsin politician telling tailgaters at Lambeau Field that he/she hates the Packers. It’s political suicide.

Recently, Joe Biden has struggled with Iowa. This incident won’t put Biden over the top in Iowa but it’s a great opportunity for him to sound like the sane candidate in Iowa. Frankly, it’s a gift to his campaign. The comparison isn’t flattering to Sen. Warren. I’m certain that this isn’t a coincidence:

Joe Biden raised $5.3 million through a surge of online contributions in October that rolled in after President Donald Trump launched unfounded attacks against the former vice president over his son’s Ukrainian dealings.

The swell of cash came from 182,000 donations, with $28 being the average amount given, according to figures provided to The Associated Press by the campaign, which did not include money that Biden raised through big-dollar fundraisers. It comes after his internet fundraising operation stumbled over the summer, leading critics to suggest he lacked grassroots support.

This helps, too:

Actress Alyssa Milano will co-host a fundraiser next month for former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, Variety reported.

Sen. Warren just committed an unforced error. What’s still TBD is whether Biden can take advantage of Warren’s mistake.

Now that Shepard Smith left FNC, it’s time to get rid of Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, in that order. This morning, Wallace interviewed Acting WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about the confusion over his ‘admitting’ that President Trump connected military aid to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens. I get it that the media loves stirring up controversies where they don’t exist but this is ridiculous.

First, Mulvaney said that governments engage in quid pro quos all the time. While I haven’t heard him say it this way, I’m confident that Mulvaney meant that reporters are getting hung up on the phrase quid pro quo rather than asking the important follow-up question, which is ‘was the quid pro quo corrupt? Or was it innocent?’ Quid pro quo simply means “this for that.”

Imagine this: every time you buy something in a store, you’ve committed a quid pro quo. You exchanged financial considerations for a product, aka this for that. If that’s illegal or corrupt, shopping malls are filled with criminals.

Of course, everything in DC gets overhyped. That’s how this story went from being a big nothing to being the biggest story this side of the other nothing story, aka the impeachment nothing story. This is utterly predictable. Without conflict, ratings would tank. Without misleading headlines, there wouldn’t be the clicks. Conflict drives ratings and attention.

That’s why I don’t pay attention to those tricks. I want to gather information. I don’t care about the latest hot stories. Rest assured that the content that you find here is important to people and is reliable. I don’t buy into the gamesmanship that the networks employ. They’re always telling us that this or that event is super-important before turning into a non-event.

I pay attention to political rallies because they tell me whether voters are fired up. If they aren’t, that’s an automatic disadvantage to that candidate. This year thus far, Trump holds the advantage over most of the Democrats, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren being the exceptions — sorta. Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing best but they still can’t match Trump’s crowds and enthusiasm.

This article highlights the difference between the Trump campaign’s cutting edge media strategy and Biden’s strategy:

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video’s claims had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden campaign’s demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies. At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million times.

Chris Wallace is going the way of the dinosaur. Fox Nation is a great option because it’s more of an on-demand option. Why go old-fashioned when you can customize?

I can’t say that Marc Thiessen is President Trump’s most diehard supporter. What I’ve known for quite awhile, though, is that he’s a fair-minded man who’s written some good stuff that supports President Trump. For instance, this article is outstanding.

Thiessen opens the article by saying “With three polls showing her in the lead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., may soon eclipse former Vice President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That’s great news for Republicans, because Warren has a problem: The central message of her campaign is that the economy is working for the very wealthy but it is not working for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for her, ordinary Americans disagree.

Next, Thiessen empties both barrels of the heaviest artillery:

A Marist poll asked voters whether “the economy is working well for you personally.” Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an economy that’s working for tons of people. That doesn’t sound like an economy that’s just benefiting millionaires and billionaires. That sounds like an economy that’s benefiting pretty much everybody in pretty much every geographic part of the US. Then there’s this:

The only groups who disagree, Marist found, are progressives (59 percent), Democratic women (55 percent) and those who are liberal or very liberal (55 percent.

That figures. Those groups are filled with sourpusses.

There is a good reason for that. Unemployment is near a record low, and the United States has about 1.6 million more job openings than unemployed people to fill them. Not only are jobs plentiful, but wages are rising. And The New York Times reported in May that “over the past year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases.”

It isn’t surprising that Democrats opened their debate talking impeachment:

Old-fashioned Democrats had an economic agenda that appealed to people from time-to-time. Today’s Democrats aren’t persuasive because their ideas sound like they’re from outer space. They couldn’t sell ice-cold Gatorade in a desert if their lives depended on it. Bernie Sanders brags that he’ll raise everyone’s taxes. Elizabeth Warren’s evasive replies prove that she’d raise taxes, too, though not as much as Bernie. Think of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Bernie Lite.’

The other way to think of Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas is to think of them as destructive to this fantastic economy. Their policies wouldn’t make life better for families. Their policies are just plain stupid.

After tonight’s debate, the pundits’ consensus was that, thanks to impeachment, the race would essentially remain a 2-way race between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. After the debate, though, that conventional wisdom appears to have gotten shattered. The oldest candidate in the race suddenly became the most appealing choice to young people:

At least three members of the “Squad” of far-left freshman members of Congress will reportedly endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders for president. Fox News has learned that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., will appear with Sanders on Saturday in Queens, N.Y., at a “Bernie’s Back” rally designed to generate excitement for the senator’s campaign following his recent heart procedure. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., will also endorse the candidate, Fox News confirmed.

In addition, CNN reported that Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., will endorse Sanders as well. It was not immediately clear if Omar and Tlaib will appear at the same Sanders event.

This will be fascinating to watch. First, will this change the trajectory for Elizabeth Warren, who has been climbing since late summer? Next, will this stop Bernie’s recent slide and reposition him firmly amongst the frontrunners? Third, does this essentially end the race for the second-tier candidates?

The endorsements would be a significant blow to the campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who like Sanders has been representing the party’s progressive wing. Word of the endorsements also followed Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Ohio, where Warren was under attack from multiple candidates after rising in the polls in recent weeks.

This is a potentially big moment from the standpoint of attracting young voters. It also denies Sen. Warren a big victory. Bernie can now point to this as proof that the heart attack didn’t stop him from being a force. How many points this will be worth in the next round of polling is unknowable but there’s little doubt that his post-heart attack slide just stopped.

Whether that’ll catapult him in Iowa or New Hampshire remains to be seen, too. What isn’t disputable is whether Saturday’s official endorsement will breathe new life into Bernie’s campaign. It certainly will.

The other thing that this sets up is a situation that tests whether the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is big enough to defeat the not-quite-as-crazy wing of the Democrat Party.

The disparity between House Democrats and Senate Majority Leader couldn’t be more different. Sen. McConnell’s pro-growth economic agenda stands in stark contrast with Speaker Pelosi’s all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda in the House. Monday morning, Sen. McConnell sat down for an interview with the folks from CNBC’s Squawk Alley on his economic agenda. One of the things that Sen. McConnell talked about was the USMCA:

The argument for USMCA is very, very compelling, you know: 176,000 new jobs, $68 billion increase in gross domestic product, we have 12 million jobs already related to our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico. So I think it is going to be pretty hard for her not to take it up, even though voting for a Trump trade deal, I gather, is a bitter pill for them.

It’s difficult enacting many bills when you hate President Trump. Things would be so much easier if Democrats put our nation first instead of putting the Resist Movement first.

Let’s highlight the obvious. The economy is being held back by the trade war with China but it’s still growing at a faster pace than anything that Obama achieved or that Sen. Warren’s policies would achieve if enacted. If you think that puts Sen. Warren or President Obama in a favorable light, the average person whose wages have increased and whose 401(k)s are much healthier disagree.

Here’s what Sen. McConnell said about the Republicans’ economic agenda:

What I want to do is spend our time accomplishing things for the American people. USMCA, as Leader McCarthy and I pointed out in The Wall Street Journal today, is something we can agree on, something we ought to do. It makes a difference for the American people. The House spent the last three years harassing this president, and I gather we’re going to get another chapter of that with the impeachment episode. But we need to find other things that actually make a difference for the American people and try to accomplish as much as we can. That’s what I want to do, and that’s what we’re in the process of trying to encourage the House to do by taking up USMCA.

That’s something that the Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t paid attention to. This batch of Do-Nothing Democrats have wasted too much time chasing their ridiculous impeachment nightmare. What’s frightening is that the Democrats’ presidential candidates sound just as nuts. Here’s the entire interview:

This weekend, the NYTimes ‘reported’ that “a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at [Deborah Ramirez], prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.” Here’s how the NYTimes article opens:

Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn’t prepared for what she’d find there. A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little. She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing. In the summers, she worked at Carvel dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she’d bought with babysitting earnings.

At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds. Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools. They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior that Ms. Ramirez, who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night, lacked.

During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

After that article ran this weekend, virtually all of the Democrats’ presidential candidates called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Sen. Hirono, one of the Democrats who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee start an impeachment investigation into the matter. This was a big story this weekend.

This morning, “The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.” According to this article, “The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.”

Suffice it to say that the NYTimes and the Democrat presidential candidates have egg on their face this morning. Ditto with Sen. Hirono. They were so willing to pounce on this story because they saw it as the perfect opportunity to take down Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump with a single story. Now the NYTimes is apologizing:


It said “Also, a tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive. We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved.”

Here’s Elizabeth Warren’s tweet:


The nomination wasn’t rammed through by any stretch of the imagination. What happened was that Democrats brought forth tons of unsubstantiated allegations once they knew Justice Kavanaugh would be confirmed. These allegations weren’t substantiated. Democrats panicked because they were certain that Kavanaugh would be part of the 5-4 ‘Republican majority’ that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, “Let us never forget what courage looks like.”

Let’s never forget what dishonesty looks like:

Salena Zito’s latest column highlights what I think will be one of the biggest issues of the 2020 election cycle, in both the presidential election and in congressional races. The title of Ms. Zito’s column is “The crackers and frackers could hold the keys to 2020”. I’ve said for awhile that I think they will be one of the biggest issues in the race.

Democrats are in a difficult position. If Democrats side with Tom Steyer and AOC, they’ll lose the people who used to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, the industrial unions like the Pipefitters, the UAW, the USW and other major unions. If Democrats side with these unions, Tom Steyer stops writing checks for their campaigns.

Republicans don’t have such conflicts. They can support fracking without hurting their standing with other interest groups that support the GOP. The great news is that Republicans can boast how they support great-paying blue collar jobs that are helping rebuild close-knit communities in major battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

All Darrin Kelly wanted for the energy workers in Western Pennsylvania was that the Democratic presidential hopefuls would talk to them before going to war against shale. That opportunity slipped away last Friday when Elizabeth Warren joined Bernie Sanders in calling for a total fracking ban. “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil-fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking — everywhere,” Warren tweeted.

“It is disappointing that any national candidate would not come in here and want to talk to the men and women of this area first before unilaterally making that decision,” said Kelly, a charismatic Pittsburgh firefighter who is also the head of the powerful and influential Allegheny Fayette Labor Council. They represent workers stretching from Pittsburgh to the borders of Maryland and West Virginia.

It isn’t just Bernie and Warren that’ve abandoned blue collar America. Joe Biden ditched them, too:

Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.

“There you have it. Blue Collar Joe just said that he’ll stop the fossil fuel industry. Then there’s this:

Trump’s magic came in rural and post-industrial counties such as Luzerne and Erie, but most importantly in the populous counties around Pittsburgh, where shale is king and fracking is seen as the second coming of the steel industry.

They may look like ordinary construction cranes to someone unfamiliar with the history of this region. But if you’re from here, they look like something different. Building the ethane cracker plant, each of these cranes looks like a new colossus rising from the ashes of yesterday’s despair.

Building the plant has brought in 6,000 good-paying jobs, with more to come. Ultimately, there will be 600 permanent jobs at the plant, with industry analysts predicting triple that amount in supporting industries.

Jobs postings are everywhere touting opportunities, no matter the skill level — high school education, trade school certificate, chemists, engineers, IT, labor. If you reliably turn up for work, there is likely a career for you in the oil and gas industry.

Let’s remember this: In 2016, then-candidate Trump promised he wouldn’t forget their communities. In 2020, he’ll return with the campaign slogan of promises made, promises kept.

The rebuilding isn’t complete but it’s been started, thanks to President Trump’s policies. President Trump identified the Obama administration’s anti-coal regulations as one of the things killing the energy industry. Thanks to the Republicans’ use of the Congressional Review Act, which they used 16 times, and the Trump/GOP tax cuts, communities are rebuilding. Under Obama/Biden, those communities were forgotten.

This SCTimes Our View Editorial is a total cheap shot on their behalf. They start their editorial by saying “If it seems like we just wrote about this a few weeks ago, it’s because we did. Following the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured at the beginning of August, we (as well as millions of Americans) called upon lawmakers to enact common-sense regulations to help reduce these horrifying events. And as you likely know, nothing was done.”

That’s bad enough. Still, it’s infinitely worse when they said “Then, on Aug. 31, another mass shooting occurred in Odessa and Midland, Texas. Eight people, including the shooter, were killed and 25 people, including three police officers, were injured.”

The obvious inference was that Congress had dropped the ball by not coming back early from their annual August recess and immediately passing gun control legislation. I’d love hearing the SCTimes explain what they’d recommend. Here’s what they said:

And again, as we said earlier this month, it’s time for our elected officials to try some common-sense rules when it comes to guns:

  1. Require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows.
  2. Do more to regulate high-capacity weapons, like in-depth background checks, mandatory training and even liability insurance.
  3. Ramp up resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that gun sellers are reviewed more often and with more scrutiny.
  4. Fully fund comprehensive mental health care. More resources for mental health care could help prevent mass shootings.

I’d love hearing the Times explain what they’d do when they ran into things like priorities like preserving doctor-patient confidentiality statutes. Is the Times recommending the erosion of another our rights? Or is it that they just didn’t think this through?

This is an unbelievably complicated issue. What’s worse is the fact that we’re dealing with protecting our civil liberties (the Second Amendment and HIPAA protections) while attempting to protect people from suicidal maniacs. Trying to do that when everything is calm is difficult enough. Doing that while everyone is looking over our politicians’ shoulders expecting them to pull a miracle out of their hat at the snap of their fingers. Good luck with that. This video, mostly featuring Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, exposes the Democrats:

In the video, Sen. Warren said “Today, if it’s an average day in America, 7 children and teenagers will die from gun violence. Won’t make headlines, most of them. It’ll happen in neighborhoods that won’t get covered in the news. It’ll fall particularly hard in neighborhoods of color.” Later in the video, she chalks this up to corruption. I’d agree with that. The Democrat media isn’t interested in highlighting gang violence in Chicago. It happens virtually every weekend. That doesn’t get covered. The Democrat MSM won’t cover it because it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative.

It used to be that the TV motto was “If it bleeds, it leads.” That’s ancient history now. Today’s motto is more like ‘We don’t cover it if it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative du jour’. It isn’t brief or catchy but it’s the truth. If a story blows the Democrats’ narrative apart, it won’t get covered. I didn’t mean it might not get covered. I said it won’t get covered. But I digress. Back to the Times’ Our View Editorial.

It’s disgusting that the Times says nothing has gotten done. They know that it’s a complex issue. The Times (and the Democrats) know that this is an issue that can’t be fixed through demagoguery.

The only thing that demagoguery will do is drive the 2 sides further apart. The Republicans, for the most part, have acted like adults. They’ve talked about the limitations Congress has thanks to the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision. You can’t wish those away. You can’t ignore HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules out of existence.

What can be done is make sure that shooters don’t get ignored like they were at Parkland. That was totally preventable but we don’t talk about that because that hurts the Democrats’ narrative. Also, the Democrats don’t want people to notice that deputies acted like cowards and the sheriff pinned the blame on the NRA instead of on himself and his deputies.

There are steps that will make us safer. Unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that they don’t work or they don’t like guns in schools.

This article makes it emphatically clear that Democrats, especially those in the media, have a recession obsession. The Q2 GDP was 2.1, down from 3.1 in Q1. For historical perspective, the average GDP during the Obama administration was about half that of Q2.

Back then, when economic growth was pathetic, the MSM didn’t talk about the possibility of a recession. The MSM talked about things like consecutive months of job growth as though that was a miraculous accomplishment. Here’s a hint for the MSM: The default of the US economy is to create jobs. That isn’t a miracle, except if you compare it to European countries. By their standards, the US default is miraculous.

By comparison between administrations, economic growth during the Trump administration is significantly better than economic growth during the Obama administration but the Trump economy is getting the negative press.

What’s upsetting to me is that we’re talking about a slowdown at this point, which is a distant cry from a recession. The fact that we’re in a full-fledged trade war with China, the next biggest economy in the world, and our economy keeps growing should be a point of confidence. If we’re going through all this and the economy is still growing at twice the rate it did during the Obama administration, shouldn’t we take note of the Trump economy’s durability?

During the Clinton administration, economists worried about tough economic times in Asia. Back then, economists rightly worried about what was then called “the Asian Flu.” They worried that the Asian Flu would trigger a recession in the US. All that happened was that the US economy slowed down. Years afterward, the economists concluded that the Clinton economy was fundamentally strong, which helped it weather the storm.

Maria Bartiromo nailed when she said that the media that’s predicting a recession is the same media that predicted President Trump’s impending impeachment from the Russia collusion illusion:

I think the broader picture is that the media continues to have an incredible amount of influence in terms of explaining to the world what is going on. When you go back to the fact that we just came off of the 2 years of collusion delusion where the media was all about President Trump colluded with the Russians, et cetera, et cetera. You know, “Sunday Morning Futures,” my program right before this program was every week poking holes into that narrative for 2 years and I got slammed in the media as a result of the fact that Congressman John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes, the congressmen who actually saw the redacted document, the people who were there interviewing the FBI officials and they knew the story better than anybody…

Then she finishes that flourish with this:

The media’s responsibility is to report the truth and seek the truth, but Howie, how many programs do you hear the media saying the unemployment rate is at 51-year low, how many media outlets are you hearing saying we had 4 plus percent growth for one quarter last year, 3.1% in the first quarter and 2.1% in the second. A recession is two quarters of negative performance, meaning negative, not positive. We are only seeing positive readings, so the fact that we are talking about a recession being on the horizon and not even talking about the facts reminds me of editorial meeting that took place at New York Times two weeks ago where the editor there said, well, for two years we were putting all of our resources into Russia collusion, the story changed on us. The story didn’t change, Howie, the story is the same story, but they put all resources in collusion and now they decided that they will put all resources on racism.

KA-BOOM! That’s delivering the boom like a true economist should. First, consumer spending represents two-thirds of the GDP. That’s up 0.7% over last month. The Trump-GOP tax cuts have put hundreds of billions of additional dollars. Unemployment is at a historic low. What part of that sounds like a recession is right around the corner?

Thad McCotter was right when he wrote about “The Left’s ‘3 Rs’: Russia, Racism, & Recession.” He was exceptionally right when he said that “the Democrats were missing the 4th R: Reality.”

Amen, Thad. Democrats are indeed missing that. I don’t anticipate Democrats finding that missing ingredient anytime before the election, especially if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. It’s obvious that Democrats, especially the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, is hoping for a recession. They’re practically begging for that recession. Bill Maher didn’t hide it. He explicitly called for a recession to get rid of President Trump.

Democrats have a recession obsession. Unfortunately, they don’t have an obsession for reporting the facts. To paraphrase Al Gore from the 1992 campaign, when he said “Everything that’s up should be down and everything that’s down should be up”, everything that Democrats should be for, they’re against and everything that they’re supposed to be against, they’re for. Democrats should be for a booming economy but they’re praying for a recession. Democrats should be for sealing off the border but they’re for decriminalizing illegal immigration.