In case you still, at this late date, had any doubts that the Most Equal Comrade's agenda was one of planned decline and not good intentions paired with misguided policy, consider the facts as laid out in this IBD editorial. Key line: "Delusional doesn't begin to cut it." Well, that and the line toward the end that I have put in boldface:
Granted, most of the post-American cattle-masses still don't like economic malaise, deliberate or otherwise.The same day the 0.5% GDP growth came out, President Obama is quoted in the New York Times saying the country has done “better” than “any large economy on Earth in modern history.” Delusional doesn’t begin to cut it.The only real problem with the economy, as far as Obama is concerned, is that he hasn’t been selling his successful policies aggressively enough.“We were moving so fast early on that we couldn’t take victory laps. We couldn’t explain everything we were doing. I mean, one day we’re saving the banks; the next day we’re saving the auto industry; the next day we’re trying to see whether we can have some impact on the housing market,” he told the Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin.Never mind that Obama didn’t “save” either industries. Obama’s only contribution to GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy process was to protect union interests at taxpayer’s expense. Dodd-Frank didn’t save banks; in fact it’s killed multitudes of community banks. His stimulus was a massively expensive bust.The rest of Obama’s boasts aren’t on any firmer ground.Obama talks about 14.4 million new jobs since 2010, without noting that working age population grew by 15.8 million over those same months.He touts the 5% unemployment rate, but fails to mention that it would be more like 10% if millions of Americans hadn’t given up looking for work altogether.Obama does admit the recovery has been sluggish, but when he isn’t blaming Republicans he says blames the “wrenching financial crises,” saying it inevitably lead to unusually slow growth.Obama might think that, but a Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta analysis concluded that “U.S. history provides no support” for such a claim.Even Sorkin, who is clearly trying to help Obama burnish his economic legacy, notes out that Obama’s two biggest legislative achievements — ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank — hurt economic growth. He also pokes Obama for his green energy policies, noting that the heavily subsidized Florida battery factory where Obama recently gave a speech is 100% foreign owned and losing money.More remarkable is the disdain for the public that Obama unintentionally reveals in the Times piece. Basically, he thinks that people can’t be trusted to form their own opinions about the economy based on their own experiences.In that sense, Obama is like Chico in the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup, who when caught red handed in a lie said: “Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
So, it would stand to reason that they would be focusing on which of the presidential candidates has the clearest understanding of how to reverse all this damage. Wouldn't it?
Alas, with Cruz still not sealing the deal in his upcoming Alamo primary in Indiana, that appears not to be the case. You are an LITD reader. You know that none of the others has even a foggy, faint glimpse of what economic liberty is and how it is the only economic model that can remedy our situation.
Hopefully, adding Carly to his arsenal can turn that around, but I full understand that I may be hoping against hope.
No, the front-runner in the party that ostensibly stands for economic liberty, as well as a foreign policy based on an understanding of the indispensable role of the United States in preserving the West, not to mention ostensibly being based on Judeo-Christian values, is a guy who, no sooner than he engenders consideration of the possibility that he might have a subatomic particle of seriousness in his makeup with his foreign-policy speech, turns around and obliterates that possibility with this:
Yes sir, all the tough guys endorse him.During one of his abrupt verbal asides on the political stump Wednesday night in Indianapolis, Donald Trump proudly noted another endorsement from the sports world.Mike Tyson.The former heavyweight champion, of course, has a history in Indianapolis. It was here where he was convicted of raping beauty pageant contestant Desiree Washington in 1992 — and subsequently spent three years in prison."Mike Tyson endorsed me," Trump told the crowd. "I love it. He sent out a tweet. Mike. Iron Mike. You know, all the tough guys endorse me. I like that, OK?"But Mike said, 'I love Trump. I endorse Trump.' And that's the end. I'm sure he doesn't know about your economic situation in Indiana. But when I get endorsed by the tough ones, I like it, because you know what? We need toughness now. We need toughness."Trump was a supporter of Tyson's after the conviction, saying that "to a large extent" he was "railroaded." Trump had a financial interest in the case because Tyson's fights made money for his hotels.In an NBC News interview from Feb. 21, 1992, obtained by Buzzfeed and posted recently, Trump described the case this way: “You have a young woman that was in his hotel room late in the evening at her own will. You have a young woman seen dancing for the beauty contest — dancing with a big smile on her face, looked happy as can be.”
Tell it to Greg Garrison, Indianapolis talk show host and former prosecutor. He came to national attention as the guy who sent Tyson away for that rape, and he was pretty steamed and disgusted on his show the other day.
Speaking of talk shows, in a recent post here at LITD, I discuss how I am fed up with talk-show hosts assuming the pose of the oh-so-objective analyst when discussing Trump, when by definition they are in the business of opining, of taking definite stances.
Rush Limbaugh was up to this again yesterday, when, at the end of an overly-long, vacuous buildup, he came to what he sees as the only relevant line of Squirrel-Hair's foreign policy address:
Of course, what he's saying is that rank populism - disdain for "pointy-headed wonkery and theory" - has supplanted fealty to conservatism among the crucial crucial mass of Republican voters.But as usual there's just way too much analysis. People overanalyze this and apply their own biases, prejudices or whatever to what Trump is doing, and there's just really one takeaway. If you want to know whether or not Trump's speech yesterday was a hit with the voters that he has energized, all you have to know is Trump said the following: We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. That's it. Everything before and after is irrelevant. That line made the speech one of the greatest ever.That line, as far as Trump supporters are concerned, was all they needed to hear. That was awesome. That was right on the money. We're gonna take it to 'em. We're not gonna play second fiddle anymore. We're not gonna sell American interests out. We're gonna put America first. We're gonna get rid of the globalists. And I guarantee you that's all they needed to hear.
Mona Charen, at a Townhall column column today entitled "Reaganism Is Dead," comes to the same conclusion, but she doesn't try to be the objective analyst about it. She laments it openly:
Republicans are not voting on issues; they are voting on personality and attitude, and thus revealing themselves to have fallen for one of the worst errors of the left: the progressive belief that all will be well provided the "right" people, the "best" people, if you will, are running the government.
"This is the end of Reaganism," former Sen. Tom Coburn, a conservative hero, told me. The three-legged stool of strong defense, small government and conservatism on social issues has been smashed. Republicans, or at least a plurality of Republican primary voters, no longer distrust government per se; they simply distrust this government. They dislike Obama and the Republican leadership. But they're ready to believe that an outsider will be able to bring his annealing touch to the economy, to the culture and to national greatness. If a Republican politician today were to tell the joke about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" -- a reliable punch line in the Reagan repertoire -- he or she would be greeted by incomprehension. This is a signal victory for the left: the triumph of faith in the state. Trumpites are reprising Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" with a new lead.This is why I have recently openly expressed my doubts that this nation still has God's blessing. The one obvious way out of our grim state of affairs is not only getting its typical short shrift, it's disappearing.
We are truly on our own.
We always were on our own, one on one with God. How many saints (and I'm not talking about Reagan) would be considered prosperous in the eyes of the world? It's OK I guess to think that, like Noah or like Lot, that you and yours alone will be the only just ones found in a nation He will destroy. Make sure you don't look back. But perhaps you're Job and He's only just begun. Keep da faith and pet the clueless cattle you see grazing.
ReplyDeleteI think I detect a point in your comment and I agree with it: We actually always have been on our own, one on one with God
ReplyDeleteA lot of the moo cows amongst us will be remembering a time of prosperity, i.e., the Clinton Years I & II when it at least seemed we were mostly all on the same general page, unless they were molesting them in Congress (like a coupla Repubs). We, my dear bloggie, are going to save your bacon from Trump. Moo!
ReplyDeleteA Trump win or a Hillary win are equally horrible outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware you were a Hill enthusiast. That is what the "we" is about, correct?
I am a Hill enthusiast only so far as she will defeat Trump and I'm already certain I'm gonna help her in my own small way to do it. How can it be that bad? Things were largely good under her husband (can't speak for the interns and other gals though). It was a time of peace, prosperity and impeachment. People liked it so much they cast more votes for his Veep than for Bush II. Hell, Cheney wouldn't have dreamed of running in '08 such was his pillorying in the popularity polls. Hill will fill the bill vs. The Donald, like a breath of fresh air next to a bunch of bully bombast.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bill and Newtie were really operating under a head of legislative steam until the dream burst with Bill's immature and unpresidential fiddlings with his cigar during those quiet hours on a Saturday eve at the top, where it likely gets lonely. What did they call that, a Pact, but Gingrich too got in bed with both Clinton and another woman not his wife too. Those were the days.
ReplyDeleteHillary is a committed leftist, whereas Bill's main motivation for a political career was to meet girls.
ReplyDeleteUnder a Hillary administration, we'd get such tyranny as paid family leave, higher minimum wage, continuation of the regulatory stranglehold on fossil fuels, and such debt-increasing and personal-responsibility-destroying measures as "free" college. Middle Eastern tyrants and jihadists would play her like a cheap fiddle, as would Putin and Xi. She'd get several SCOTUS picks, ensuring the final death of the Constitution.
Management guru Peter Drucker said that providing free higher education to so many Americans changed the world by creating the modern knowledge economy.
ReplyDeleteHistorian Ed Humes agrees.
HUMES: The scientists and engineers and teachers and thinkers who brought in the information age, who took us to the moon, who waged the cold war, you name it - all those men and women were educated through the GI Bill.
Read more at http://www.marketplace.org/2009/10/06/economy/how-gi-bill-changed-economy
Hillary and Bill also know and have worked their way with and around international leaders. Trump and the thinking man's Trump are mere imposters on the international level. Tough talkers but it's quite doubtful anywhere near enough voters will want them with their fingers, long or short as they may be, on the button.
ReplyDeleteHastert and Foley were turning pages and violating them between the covers as they attempted to prosecute Slick Wille who at least kept it within the realm of the acceptably biblical if cats like Solomon & David were doin' it right.
ReplyDeleteAnd watch out for your obstructionism or the voters might vote enough of your ilk out to allow Hillie to proceed with universal single-payer. If not this cycle, then perhaps at the mid-terms. Who knows? I am not foreseeing any grave darkness like you do though, certainly not a torrent of God's ire like you have foretold, but He might be holding-off on reopening the San Andreas or, Heaven forbid, the New Madrid faults until after election day.
ReplyDeleteTrucker and Humes are talking about a gesture of the nation's gratitude to a those who served in militarily at a particularly dangerous time. You can't extend that to some kind of idea that it should be provided to everybody, for several reasons: For one thing, what did Joe regular Citizen do to deserve it? As I say, the Founders did not envision government being in the business of providing services. For another, we couldn't afford it. It's like that single-payer model for health care you mention. It entails a much higher tax rate. The whole thing is raw redistribution, using the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force to take citizens' money in order to meet the specific needs of other citizens. Again, the opposite of what our Founders envisioned. Now, if you argue that "Well, everybody needs health care and education, so it's not just meeting some persnickety needs of a few citizens in some other location," I go back to the point that government - a government fit for a free people - is not in the business of providing services.
ReplyDeleteWhat do Hastert and Foley have to do with the subject at hand?
ReplyDeleteWhy should I watch out for my obstructionism? My whole life as an engaged citizen is about obstructing tyranny and planned decline always, everywhere, tirelessly.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, Billy Jeff the Zipper and Hillionaire have indeed "worked their way with and around international leaders." Taken big bucks from many of them through the vehicle of their foundation, which is a shell organization that exists to make those leaders beholden unto them.
ReplyDeletePlease explain how Ted is an imposter.
ReplyDeleteDid I say Cruz was an imposter? I think I implied he has no foreign policy experience and he doesn't. Only beware of obstructionism if it becomes apparent all you are doing is throwing monkey wrenches into the works, that's all. I, for one, am tired of a Congress that merely naysays. Not sure why I blog here with all the negativism, other than to work out and solidify my own thinking and writing. Thanks for the safe forum to do so. The Clintons do know foreign policy and have proven that world leaders cannot throw them around. They may not drop the big one, sorry.
ReplyDeleteHastert and Foley are hypocritical. They were prosecuting Clinton's indiscretions while theirs were worse. Newtie's were similar. All this during another national spectacle in the collective courtroom and.....they lost.
ReplyDeleteJust as you are going to lose your legal battles vs. Clinton on the emails and Benghazi. Wicked lawyers v Wicked lawyers, that's the way it works and you lose again.
ReplyDeleteWhy you think it is great that Hillary lied to the families of the four guys killed in Benghazi, and had classified information on her private server, is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteAnd the way your ilk always cries about Israel really turns me off. You'd think that is your country and a wretch like Nettie is your fearful leader instead of our freely elected one. Always crying about how we now hate Israel here too and that is not at all true. We hate intransigence and we do try to talk peace, but that makes us wussies and clueless cattle.
ReplyDeleteWe don't cry about Israel. We recognize its essential role as the only Western nation in the Middle East. And Israel-hatred is a real thing, with many universities and even the Presbyterian Church signing on to the Boycott and Divest movement. And Netanyahu loved Western civilization and the Most Equal Comrade hates it.
ReplyDeleteNow, would you care to explain why you think it's great that Hillionaire lied to the parents of the Benghazi four and kept classified info on her private server?
ReplyDeleteHer entire tenure as Secretary of State was a complete fuckup, from the way she embarrassed herself and post-America in front of Sergei Lavrov with the reset button to calling Assad a force for stability in the Mideast to the way the Arab Spring turned out, particularly the way Libya became a failed state in which various warlords and jihadist groups vie for power, to China's cyberattacks and aggression in the South China Sea
ReplyDeleteIs this a Blog sight or a personal chat line?
ReplyDeleteI just see that, as during the Clinton I and II administrations we have peace and the Cheneys and Rummies of the world are rendered impotent as I indeed hope Netanyahu is one day. Soon. Bye bye, Nettie.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you expect me to expect anything but fuck-ups in the Middle East you're wrong. Fuck-ups all the way, ever since we backed Israel in the Middle East. There is no sane response to terrorism, but I guess that's why you like Carpet Bomb Ted. Yes I know he qualified those remarks so it is clear he can and will back down too, given enough pressure. It ain't over till it's over, but it's over for Cruz Tuesday. I can tell he is really trying to be more likeable, but a case of too little too late.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon, what are you wearing?
ReplyDeleteRegarding your dismissal of her as Secretary of State, I think the judgment of history will be other wise. And don't think she as any other human being did not learn from her mistakes. Trump does not seem to care to do that, and he and his are huge mistakes waiting to happen. Such is your grand old party.
ReplyDeleteMan, there's one assertion in your second-to-last comment that can't be characterized as anything other that dark and sinister - that it was a fuckup to back Israel.
ReplyDeleteJust wow.
Please offer some evidence that she has learned from her mistakes. Also, please offer some positive accomplishment she has ever had.
ReplyDeleteDo not forget that the first WTC attack happened in 93, on Billy Jeff the Zipper's watch. As did the Kobar Towers attack, the two attacks on US embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole.
ReplyDeleteGod bless Judicial Watch for not giving up on exposing the truth about this criminal.
ReplyDeleteNo sane response to terrorism? Oh, okay. We just lie down, expose our belly and let ISIS claw it out.
ReplyDelete