Thursday, July 23, 2015
With over a dozen Republican presidential contenders vying for the White House in 2016, it's almost like going to the ice cream parlor--there's a lot of flavors to choose from; but do you stick to what you like, or do you try something new? Among the so far 16 choices there's one flavor sticking out from the rest that is tempting; even though the fat content might have you regretting your decision the next day.
Conservatives, Moderates, and or Establishment/RINO Republicans make up this motley clutch of contenders. Naturally, a dyed in the wool Conservative interested in real job creation and restoring America's dignified, respected, and in certain cases, even feared place in the world is what most of us want--and what this country needs if it is to get back on track.
George W. Bush was not a Conservative, but ran as if he was, and won two elections for it. Since then, the GOP has continued to push Moderate/Establishment types masquerading as Conservatives as their guy, and both times (McCain and Romney) they lost. Clearly, voting in the first black president was an historic event, and an easy win. Unfortunately, said president intentionally threw a beautiful opportunity into the garbage, opting instead to set the country back some 50 years in a bid to recreate the 1960s all over again. So, after the Democrats raping of the Constitution, and disregard for what the three branches of government actually mean, they inadvertently gave Republicans full Congressional control in 2014. With no sign of following the laws the president himself signed off on, the radicals currently ruining the country are on track to essentially give the Republicans the White House in 2016 on their treachery alone. Sadly, the Republicans are on track to once more snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
We're two weeks from the first Republican debates and the GOP show signs of preferential treatment for yet another Moderate--in what seems to be, despite failing at this schtick twice in a row, another example of history hellbent on repeating itself.
However, considering we are currently re-living the 70s and Jimmy Carter's single-term disaster (but with an even more damaging second term on top of it), we should be on course to experience an eight year oasis brought about by another Ronald Reagan (*cough* Ted Cruz *cough*).
Still, a kink has been thrown into the chain of candidates, and that kink is in the form of businessman, pop culture personality, and all-around rich guy, Donald Trump.
The current GOP presidential pool makes up the following: you've got Conservatives (for small government, lower taxes) on one side; Establishment Republicans (for big government, Democrat-Lite) on the other; and in the middle you've got the enigma that is Donald Trump.
At the moment, Trump is leading in the polls, well ahead of other, far better presidential contenders. Interestingly enough, the media is seemingly obsessed with Trump and the controversy he's brought with him. For a Democrat, this sort of outrageous behavior would be celebrated (Bill Clinton's sex scandal; Joe Biden's lapsing mental faculties and vocal missteps) or even swept under the rug (Hillary's laundry list of scandals). It's difficult to ascertain whether or not the Left-dominated media is trying to take Trump out with all the attention, hoping he'll eventually crash and burn; or if they're trying to use him to destroy the Republican Party--which will save Obama a lot of trouble for the remainder of his term, allowing him to focus on the continuing transformation of the country into something Mao or Che would approve of.
Meanwhile, over in the Republican Party, Trump is being viewed as an embarrassment. It's reminiscent of the GOP attacking and undermining the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, the movement that got them landslide victories in 2012 and 2014; only they did that in veritable autonomy--with Trump, they're not hiding their disdain.
Admittedly, Trump is turning the presidential race into a sideshow with each passing day, but it's not without its advantages (or disadvantages depending on your point of view). Trump has managed to do something no other candidate has done up to this point, which I'll point out in just a bit.
The Don has "stepped in it" a few times with his inarticulate, unorthodox method of speech. Only the brown on his boots has been cleanly wiped away each time. Still, many say Trump is hurting the party while many more are rallying behind him for the very display he's putting on. It should be obvious to the non-stubborn on the Right, that after 7 years of a do-nothing, Liberal lap-dog GOP, Republicans don't need Trump to damage them; if anything, the GOP needs to learn from Trump and grow a pair--since the Left won't let them have their balls back.
Over a month ago, The Don was rolled over the coals by both the Left and Right for comments he made regarding illegal immigrants. Trump stated that, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
It didn't take long till many in the media began shouting the Left's favorite Trump card, the Race Card. The Don's comments were deemed insensitive, stupid, racist, inaccurate, etc. The long knives were pulled out from all directions: the Right because they became terrified their party was in jeopardy, and the Left because their precious illegal base are key to their re-election campaigns. Despite the backlash, Trump refused to back down. Like clockwork, another useful piece of the Lib arsenal was brought out--the boycott. Say something the Left doesn't like and petitions begin surfacing like product on a conveyor belt. Basically, the brash billionaire had to be bullied into submission. Businesses associated with Trump began dropping him one after the other. It appeared the first GOP candidate was on his way to being taken out. But that's not what happened.....
Undeterred, Trump STILL did not back down. He displayed defiance in the face of this FIRST backlash, all the while reiterating a number of times how rich he was (the Left hates the rich even though a large contingent of the wealthy are democrats), and his pompous disinterest in how many businesses cut ties with him.
Amazingly, he stayed the course with his illegal immigrant comments. Of course, his remarks were not inaccurate, and their veracity was reinforced--using one example--when a young San Francisco woman was shot dead, in broad daylight, by an illegal immigrant who'd been deported some five times prior. Now, the media, corrupt and in the Administration's pockets as they are, were forced to either cover this, or move on to something else. By sticking to his guns, Donald Trump had turned the tables on the mainstream, Left-wing dominated hierarchy, throwing their attacks back in their faces. Had it been anybody else, most likely they would have relented--as normally is the case--apologized and begged for the media masses forgiveness; and those without journalistic integrity would have moved on to the next target.
Trump's defiance and "reality" show theatrics have thus far remained the central focus of the Republican presidential race. The media is absorbed in Trump mania. Even when interviewing other candidates, reporters instead place great emphasis on Trump. They show no interest in their policies, or what they intend to do if they get into the White House. They only seem interested in what other candidates think of Trump. Truth be told, the mainstream media has never been interested in what Republicans and Conservatives think; the sole intention is to take them out. There is even a conspiracy floating around that Trump is a Democrat plant working with Hillary to split the party, while ensuring a clear path for her since her cold, robotic delivery, and inability to tell the truth is proving to be a hindrance. But unlike the very wealthy Hillary Clinton, the even more financially successful Donald Trump is connecting with the average American.
The reason Trump is resonating with so many Americans is that he doesn't talk like a politician, nor does he demonize success. He doesn't have to pretend he's not rich, nor bemoan that Libocritical mainstay that the rich are somehow stealing from the poor. He flaunts his success and wealth. He talks like one of us laymen would talk. His lingo takes the form of every bit of frustration the country has felt these last several years; and not solely relegated to the lawlessness of this Administration, but the impotence of the Republican Party; especially since they were given overwhelming voter support to stop Comrade Obama and his cohorts from further mutilation of the Constitution. Further, it is the GOP's fault that they have a Trump on their hands right now. Had they done what we the voters had elected them to do, we likely wouldn't have The Don taking up vasts amount of airtime right now. Moving on....
Things certainly looked bleak last week when the Don further fanned the flames of controversy on July 18th, 2015 leveling condescending remarks towards 2008 Presidential contender, Senator John McCain. Citing his preference for war heroes who weren't captured, Trump stirred the ire of most of his Republican colleagues despite McCain firing the first shot with his "crazies" comment. McCain may have served admirably in Vietnam, but he's shown himself to be no ally for the Conservative base.
While we're on this subject, it's of interest to point out the blatant Libocrisy from 2008 when the Left attacked McCain's war record during his own presidential bid. But I digress....
The general consensus was that Trump and his abrasive wordplay wouldn't get out of this one unscathed. Yet again, Trump emerged with no damage done to his image. The Don's next stunt would surely be his undoing, right?
Lindsey Graham, closet Liberal, big government, GOP presidential hopeless, referred to Trump as a "Jackass" in lieu of his fiery statements. Trump responded in kind by calling Graham an "idiot", and giving out his personal cell phone number in front of a crowd in South Carolina last week. Personally, the giving out the phone number was taking things too far, treading into juvenile territory. Needless to say, nobody cares about Lindsey Graham so this bit of business has been largely ignored in comparison. Trump's unstoppable momentum continues to roll on.
Take Trump's visit today to the US-Mexican border for example. A reporter from the far, far left "news" channel, MSNBC tried to throw a curve ball at Trump regarding his comments on what the reporter referred to as immigration. Trump quickly shut him down proclaiming, "No, no, no, we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration.... That's a typical case of the press with misinterpretation. They take a half a sentence, they take a quarter of a sentence, and they put it all together... you're finished."
Moreover, Trump's tactics are worrisome. How far will he go? How far CAN he go? It should be noted that, while the Right has never had a boisterous candidate like Trump before, the same has been discovered about Obama. The United States of America has never seen such a radical president who, after seven years of destructive policies, has nearly sunk the country both socially and economically. The difference between the two is that Obama had to hide who he really was to get elected. Trump has always been loud, abrasive, and ego-centric. It remains to be seen if Trump's outlandish propensities continue to serve him with the public. Other than vocalizing voter vexation, he hasn't even laid out what his policies would be.
For the time being, his popularity is growing. For every blowhard statement Trump makes, his followers cheer and applaud that much louder. As specified above, it's as if the silence and complacency of the GOP towards the administration's continuous Constitutional violations has created a vacuum by which Trump has become the People's Champion. He speaks like them. He acts like them.
In 2012, the Divider in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, shockingly declared to his followers that they should vote for revenge--"voting is the best revenge". Trump's curious rise in the polls and preference by the people is, in essence, a revenge vote. The president has failed the country. The GOP has failed its voters. For all the calamity this dangerous president has wrought and will bring for two terms, Trump represents all the frustration the populace has rightly felt over the government ignoring the rule of law, while picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and bullying those who disagree with them. The country doesn't need a revenge vote. It needs leadership.... something that has been lacking for far too long. Wild card Donald Trump may quickly lose his flavor like a stick of gum; or he may end up surprising and shocking a great many people by providing that leadership that has been conspicuous in its absence these last seven years.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
There was a time I used to give the New York Times a small amount of credit for occasionally posting a story that seemed to lack the usual media bias, or outright fabrication--what Rush Limbaugh refers to as a "random act of journalism". These days the Times has virtually lost any credibility they had, joining the ranks of other heavily biased and extremist propaganda sites such as The Daily Kos, Raw Story and Media Matters. You could lump a number of columnists at The Huffington Post into this category as well.
Last week it was reported that Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the NYT, would be leaving Cruz's book, 'A Time For Truth', off their Bestseller list; the reason being an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases"; by that, the Times assessed the publisher, HarperCollins, hired thousands of Americans to purchase the book to get it on the list--which is an utterly stupid claim considering this suggests thousands of books were essentially given away. Perhaps some of the 50+ million raised for Cruz's presidential bid was used to replenish HarperCollins' coffers? *sarcasm*
When pressed by Ted Cruz's campaign for the Times to produce evidence, none was forthcoming. That's because there was no evidence, nor had Cruz and Company engaged in any "strategic bulk purchases". That, however, didn't stop extreme-leftist websites like Salon, Daily Kos, and Politicus (billed as real liberal news!) from running with a "story" too good for radicals to pass up. Note the headlines and the wording of the articles. If you're among the low info cognoscenti, or a water carrier of the Left, you'd think Cruz and his publisher had been caught Red handed. However.....
Back in reality, both Amazon and Barnes & Nobles disputed Murphy's claims, citing that no bulk purchases had taken place. The NYT was then pushed for an apology if they couldn't provide proof that the sales had been manipulated--when in actuality, it was THE TIMES who had performed the manipulation. Expectedly, an apology never came.
What did come was 'A Time For Truth' on the Bestsellers List. Not counting its first week in release, it placed in the 7th slot for its second week. In true liberal fashion, Murphy flimsily attempted to save face by claiming the book only rated in 7th place because of a surge in individual purchases brought about by Cruz's public debacle with the paper!
Incidentally, Eileen Murphy continued to stand by her stance that her initial lie was in fact the truth. She was quoted as saying, "The notion that we would manipulate the bestseller list to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous"; further noting that conservative authors such as Glenn Beck (who, aside from eight #1 spots, has had his own issues with the Times Bestseller List) and Bill O'Reilly, both well known political figures, have had their books rank high on the Times list.
It's worth mentioning this isn't the first time the NYT has been involved in questionable practices in regards to the listing of a Conservative work--Dinesh D'Souza had similar problems around the same time in July of 2014.
Now, to delve deeper into the Left's refusal to ever take it on the chin, some left-leaning news sites like The Washington Post (which, for the moment, still has some credibility despite their bias) took some subtle shots at Cruz's book by comparing his first week sales with that of Hillary Clinton's 'Hard Choices'--released June 10th, 2014. At that time, BuzzFeed reported her book sold 85,721 copies its first week of release. Cruz's book was released June 30th, 2015, and amassed 11,853 in sales its first week. In their attempt to downplay the blatant mendacity of the NYT's in regards to Cruz's book the Post left out the fact that Clinton's book was ultimately a massive bomb. Simon & Shuster, the publisher, paid Fraulein Clinton a bloated $14 million to pen a tome that, by its first month, had only managed to sell approximately 161,000 copies--a sad number considering her previous book, for which she was paid 8 million, sold over a million copies.
It's a fair assumption that this sort of unscrupulous activity was done, in whole or in part, because of Cruz's current run for the presidency; and that he isn't a well known commodity in the mainstream.
It's telling that the Left will protect presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, a woman submerged in scandals and insurmountable lies (not to mention being the absolute worst Secretary of State in recent memory); yet they'll gleefully postulate a scandal of their own making to denigrate an opposing presidential contender who, at this point and time, has proven invulnerable to the typical Left-wing attacks. With the Left thus far unable to find a weakness in Cruz's armor, and with seemingly no skeletons in his closet, Ted Cruz continues to show that now is certainly A Time For Truth.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Out of all the lies, the usurpation of laws and abuse of constitutional authority of this administration, one of the biggest disgraces is president Barack Hussein Obama recently comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. It's not the first time he's done it--having done so at various times throughout his wrecking ball of a presidency by using Reagan's name to beef up a speech or justify an action--generally an Executive one.
Back in the 80s, the Left hated Ronald Reagan--and they still do; nowadays it's morphed into a bizarre love/hate relationship. Fully aware of Reagan's place in American history, the Left, on occasion, will invoke his name depending on which way the wind is blowing for whatever scheme they're pushing. It's also telling that, despite numerous attempts from fallacious, far-left websites to denigrate Reagan's legacy (that he was voted the #1 greatest president in Gallup polls in 2001, 2005, 2011, and 2012 no doubt enraged them), the man's extraordinarily successful two-terms of office is clearly not lost on this overbearingly corrupt administration. He won two landslide victories--carrying 44 states in 1980, and winning an astonishing 49 of the 50 states in 1984. Upon his Oval Office exit in 1989, a CBS/New York Times poll showed Reagan held a 68% approval rating.
Regarding any comparison between them, the only sane way in which to compare the two is that both encountered recessions as they entered office; only the mess left by single term Jimmy Carter--with his double digit inflation and unemployment--was far worse than what Obama encountered. Additionally, both Reagan and Obama were transformative, yet in diametrically opposing ways. And that's where the comparisons end:
- Reagan limited the size of government to keep it out of people's lives while Obama is increasing it to control people's lives. Reaganomics provided the perfect example of a free market society at work while Obamanomics exemplifies a slave mentality with sweeping regulation and a government takeover of the healthcare industry. For the most part, Reagan actually did what he said he was going to do despite dealing with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives (they hold the purse strings) during his two terms. He reduced both taxes and government spending while Obama did the exact opposite. It's worth pointing out that Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress--both House and Senate--his first two years (they took control in Bush's last two years of his presidency), so there was no one to stop whatever nightmarish legislature he signed off on. Not that anyone has stopped him since two landslide mid-term elections that saw Republicans take the House in 2012, and full control of Congress in 2014.
- Under Reagan, Americans prospered from more money in their pockets via lower taxes and a robust supply and demand economy. Under Obama, Americans have not prospered at all with less money from his higher taxes and regulatory strangulation of the free market system. The 80s recovery boom saw, among other positives--a decrease in poverty levels, an increase in economic growth, and an 18% per capita increase in disposable income for working class families. Under Obama, poverty has increased to levels not seen since the Census Bureau began recording the numbers. Disposable income is down, and dropping with the devastating tax hikes wrought by Obamacare--recently ruled as Constitutional by a corrupt Supreme Court system; this despite the architect of the Healthcare disaster, Jonathan Gruber, blatantly stating numerous times what the bill really is, and that it only passed because of the stupidity of the American voter. The working class now has to use their extra cash for health insurance forced upon them or pay a fine that increases over time. Interestingly, it was said at that time that this massive downturn in the American economy was endemic and could not be reversed. It was. Flash forward to the Obama Years, and this lethargic growth is referred to as the new normal... and there's been no reversal in sight.
- Reagan was a fantastic speaker; quite possibly the most quotable president in history. An idealist and unifier, he could fire off quips with rapidity and back up his words with action. Obama is a good speaker as well (when there's an accessible teleprompter), yet his speeches--the ones disguised as optimistic--are some sort of code in that the exact opposite applies; except for when he's at his most comfortably divisive--like the time he stated his intention to regulate the coal industry out of business while wasting hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on failed green energy. Reagan spent eight years uplifting people with witty, soaring speeches with references to 'our' and 'we'. Obama has spent the duration of his presidency (along with his wife, Michelle) dividing the populace through social and racial barriers with numerous uses of the words 'I' and 'me'.
- Reagan's economic growth (over 16 million jobs created in eight years) vs. Obama's economic stagnation (over 45 million on food stamps and counting). Reagan encouraged Americans to be self-reliant while Obama goes out of his way to ensure as many people as possible are reliant on government entitlements. By stripping an individual of independent thought and purpose, they are easier to control. Reagan had Carter's much bigger mess cleaned up within three years, never once mentioning Carter in relation to the shape he put the country in. Meanwhile, Obama has yet to get the broom out of the closet to clean up a mess, that, by seven years into his 2nd term, is one of his own making. He spent the first several years of his presidency publicly blaming Bush for virtually everything. The Bush Blame Game has finally gotten old, yet the narcissism continues as the president publicly blames whoever is within reach. Common sense dictates that when you begin cleaning up after someone else, the result isn't the mess gets bigger.
- The American Left has always dominated the media and entertainment industries. That Reagan was able to strike the chord he did with the public in those pre-internet days is remarkable. CNN was founded in 1980, and along with the three major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), there was no Right-leaning outlet to voice opposition. Fox News Channel emerged in 1996, and, with the addition of talk radio, has managed to surpass (in terms of viewership) the decades long dominance of Democrat controlled media. Naturally, since they no longer have a monopoly on the news media, this has driven the Left insane in the ensuing years. Obama frequently blames Right Wing media for his failures when he's not blaming someone else. Instead of leading a country, Obama leads on the golf course with over 200 games wedged between the hardships of being in perpetual campaign mode for the entirety of his presidency. His repetitive, interchangeable speeches make it sound like he's just entering office for the first time. Reagan was able to accomplish much of his agenda by being able to work with both Left and Right while Obama has this petulant 'my way or the highway' mentality; and what he can't get passed he just whips out that pen for some Executive satisfaction.
- Reagan promoted individualism--making one's own way, if you so desired, through hard work and perseverance. As Reagan, formerly a Democrat, stated in October of 1964, "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'". Furthermore, in 1988, Reagan would say, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives". Obama, on the other hand, pushes collectivism--jettisoning individual liberty in favor of governmental control--that an individual's success isn't by their own volition nor their self-reliance. In contrast to Reagan, Obama said in 2012, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business--you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." The great teacher, the references to a 'somebody', is government. Yet it is WE who invested. It is our tax dollars--the working class--who entrust these politicians on the state and federal level to do the job they are voted in to do.
- Reagan emboldened America's place in the world with a strong military presence by way of 'Peace Through Strength'. Reagan used the phrase in 1980 during his presidential bid (and eventual landslide victory) against then president Jimmy Carter--espousing that weakness invites aggression against America and its allies. In light of current events, this certainly holds true; and to deny it is a clear, blind devotion to ideology. Obama's recycling of Carter's weak attributes resulted in, among other things: Vladimir Putin's takeover of Crimea, Iran set to obtain nuclear weapons, and the creation of ISIS. You don't stop a bully from taking your lunch money by giving it to him--you stop a bully by standing up to him.
To further codify the so-called comparison between these two presidents, Reagan's statement that "governments don't produce economic growth, people do", is yet another striking dichotomy to Barack Hussein Obama's strident affirmation that government is the answer to all your problems--when in fact, it is the SOURCE of all your problems; the catastrophe that is Obamacare being the elephant in the room--or in this case, the jackass in the room. Another major, oft-repeated problem of this bloated government is job growth, or, more specifically, a lack thereof.
Just last week, the Left and the mainstream media have been hyping a 5.3 unemployment rate, yet those who have given up looking for work are still not counted.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Participation has reached a 38 year low at 62.6 percent--a level not seen since 1977, during Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency--the former president whom Obama should be comparing himself to. Interestingly, you could take any number of magazine articles from that time (I have some of them), republish them, and nobody would know the difference.
Moreover, the civilian labor force declined by 432,000 in June, so this cancels out the 223,000 jobs that were allegedly created last month. How do you consider losing twice as much as you gain an accomplishment worthy of celebration?
No doubt a few weeks from now these "job creation" numbers being touted will be revised down like those of previous months.
Unless you're a Socialist, a Communist, an anarchist, or radical revolutionary, there is nothing "progressive" about 90+ million Americans out of work, an unsustainable, near 20 TRILLION DEBT--half of which this president has amassed all by himself--and an outsized government that thinks it can run your life better than you can.
"...Man is not free unless government is limited. There is a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." -- Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11th, 1989
Out of all of Reagan's pertinent, timely quotes, this one above certainly rings true today.
Reagan's presidency obviously wasn't perfect. But there's no denying the positive effects his two terms had for 10+ years after he was out of the White House. There is no comparison between Ronald Reagan and Barack Hussein Obama.There is no comparison between Limited Government and Big Government. Conservatives want their economic prosperity returned. Liberals want to tax and spend while applauding government imposed regulations. And with the continued damaged being done by, thus far, seven years worth of out of control taxing, spending, and regulating, it should be glaringly obvious by now that more government is not the answer.