Tag Archives: George H.W. Bush

THE LIBERAL MINDSET

When George H. W. Bush ran for re-election against Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton, in 1992, the fact that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and Bush, the elder was a fighter pilot during World War II made no difference to the liberals. How could they applaud Bill Clinton and on the on the other side of the coin, condemn George W. Bush. What was the liberal mindset all about?

For his military obligation, George W. Bush served in both the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards. He never went to Viet Nam, even though the war was currently raging. Was he able to get lighter duty because he was a member of the revered Bush Family. During the time Bush, the younger, was serving in the Air National Guard, his father, George H. W. Bush was serving as the U.S. Representative from Texas’s seventh Congressional district, and later (1971 to 1973), as United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Did the future President of the United States get preferential treatment? I don’t know, but I would say that it was a good possibility. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the war was growing unpopular by the day and anyone who could possibly get out of serving did, using all contacts that they had at their disposal. It was what it was.

When George W. Bush decided to run for president and his less than ideal military service was made known, I said to myself, “Well the liberals won’t be able to upbraid Bush on his military service because their “boy,” Bill Clinton was an “out and out” draft dodger.

Little did I know that the left, with liberal journalist Dan Rather, would make documents from Bush’s military service available during his 2004 run for re-election. The documents were determined to be fakes, but the left continued to badger Bush for his military service. Once again, I just couldn’t grasp the liberal mindset.

After George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, I began to become aware of the disingenuousness of liberals. Seventeen years later, we’re seeing the same old disingenuousness, only more of it. They will accuse you of one thing, then do the same thing later and think nothing of it. When confronted, they change the subject in hopes of throwing you off track. When they’ve lost and they know it, they start hurling accusations at you such as racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

When I’m discussing something whether it be face to face or online, I’m a stickler about staying on subject. Not saying that I’ve never veered off subject, I certainly have. But for the most part I make every effort to keep things on track.

As I indicated above, liberals often change the subject to throw you off. I sometimes wonder, though, if they’re consciously trying to throw you off track or if they are incapable of understanding what they read. Are they lacking in reading comprehension skills? Because they have the academics in their corner, they think they’re smarter than you and me. But are they? I say no.

AttackOnDisabledYouth

Earlier today, I shared the above meme. A you can see, it’s simply pointing out that the alleged attacks and torture of a white disabled youth by four blacks yelling “blank” Trump and “blank” white people, would have a different reaction by the “tolerant” left, including the Obama administration, and the mainstream media if this had been four whites attacking and torturing a black disabled youth while yelling “blank” Obama and “blank” white people. Cities across the country would be on fire, Obama would have had multiple press conferences, the victim and his family would be invited to the White House, and people would be screaming racism and hate crime.

While conservatives are calling this a hate crime and have indicated that the four perpetrators are racists, the outrage by the right pales in comparison with respect to the outrage that would have taken place by the left had the tables been turned. By now, there would be rioting in the streets, destroying property and injuring people. Black leaders including Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have immediately weighed in and called for protests. The mainstream media would be reporting on this continuously.

Following my sharing of this meme, a friend, who claims to be a moderate, but I think he’s really a liberal pointed out that the perpetrators were immediately arrested and charged, and justice would be rendered. He also pointed out that President Obama had condemned the acts and seemed to insinuate that the right is always expressing a desire for a completed investigation before conclusions are made. While there was clear-cut evidence of the crime committed after the perpetrators had video-taped it and put it on social media, that was not the point of this meme and the person who commented on it possessed the same liberal mindset that you see day after day, sometimes hour after hour, didn’t seem to recognize that.

Because Donald Trump will be our next president, the liberals are planning all sorts of strategies to derail his presidency. Prominent Democrats, including Michael Moore and Robert Reich, are instructing the sheeple on how to react toward Trump supporters and the legislation that President-elect Trump and the Republican Congress. See my article: Challenges to Conservatism.

I’ve never seen such actions in my life as those coming from the left in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election. We have “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” college students, also known as snowflakes, requesting safe spaces where they can go and grieve over the election, liberal celebrities promoting the boycotting of the inauguration, Americans being attacked in various ways because they supported Donald Trump, ad infinitum.

Can liberals not see through themselves? I shudder to think what would have been said and done to conservatives if they had acted in a similar manner. Supposed we had openly threated to thwart every piece of legislation Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress tried to pass? Suppose we had called Barack Obama something comparable to the names that Trump supporters have been called by the left? First and foremost, we would have been called racists and accused of hating Obama because of his skin color. Plus, we would have been accused of other hateful things, and been the subject of much hate and vitriol emanating from the left.

Well, doesn’t the left do all of that now? Of course, and I don’t expect them to stop, and neither should you. I haven’t been able to figure out the liberal mindset and neither has anyone else. Will anyone?

Facebooktwitter

THE FAILED PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA – PART THREE

The following is the third part of a series in which I’m illustrating the failed presidency of Barack Obama. According to an article in townhall.com, dated August 9, 2014, the president got the following things wrong.

  • The Justice Department failed to pursue a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panthers because they were liberal blacks. Former DOJ official, J. Christian Adams quit over the case and accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
  • George W. Bush quit playing golf in 2003 because he didn’t want the mothers of fallen soldiers to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. He also said he thought playing golf during a war sent the wrong signal to the American people. Through June 2014, Obama was up to 177 rounds and is on pace to play twice as much in his second term as in his first term.
  • After promising to unite America when he was running for office in 2008, Obama has been the most hyper-partisan president in decades.
  • Despite the fact that Barack Obama claimed to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman when he was running for president in 2008, his Department of Justice asked states attorney generals to refuse to defend their states’ bans on gay marriage in court.
  • He’s responsible for the dumbing down our education system with Common Core.
  • We first landed on the moon in 2969, but because of Obama, we’re no longer even capable of space travel.
  • Barack Obama engaged in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress that helped turn that country into an unstable basket case run by radical Islamists. How bad is it? America, Libyans, and the rest of the world were better off with Gaddafi in charge.
  • Radical Islamist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan described himself as mujahedeen and yelled Allahu Akbar as he murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Obama Administration labeled that as “workplace violence” rather than admitting there was a terrorist attack on his watch.
  • He released 5 Taliban terrorists in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
  • Russia annexed Crimea while Obama did nothing of consequence to discourage it from invading. That’s not a surprise for a president who is fond of throwing out “red lines” that don’t mean anything.
  • Barack Obama unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act that Congress didn’t pass and illegally handed out work permits to illegal aliens.
  • The fence on our southern border was supposed to be completed by 2009. The Obama Administration has made it clear that it doesn’t intend to finish it during his presidency.
  • For all practical purposes, Barack Obama has already unilaterally implemented amnesty in America because at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records aren’t being deported.

As of November 2016, Barack Obama had issued 263 executive orders with at least 35 of them dealing with climate change, energy, or the environment, according to insideclimatenews.org.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016, Barack Obama moved to indefinitely block drilling in vast swaths of U.S. waters, according to cnbc.com. In invoking this action, the president used a 1953 law that governs offshore leases. This law allows a president to withdraw any currently unleased lands in the Outer Continental Shelf from future lease sales. Because there is no provision in the law which would allow a president’s successor to repeal the decision, President-elect Trump would not be able to easily undo the action. This could be challenged in the courts, but would probably be tied up there throughout much of Trump’s first term. The Republican -controlled Congress could also try to change the law.

Also, according to cnbc.com, the provision contained in the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, has been invoked in the past to set aside smaller portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, such as coral reefs or natural habitats. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton used the provision to block drilling in much of the Outer Continental Shelf, but for limited periods.  Thus, the Obama administration’s action marks the broadest use of the statute ever because it would be far-reaching in terms of the lands it would protect and come without an expiration.

On December 29, 2016, Breitbart reported that President Barack Obama had decreed two more national monuments while at his vacation home in Hawaii, taking 1.65 million more acres of western land for management by the federal government.

The new Bear Ears Buttes monument includes 1.35 million acres of Utah and the Gold Butte monument includes about 300,000 acres in Nevada. That makes a total of 535 million acres of national lands and waters that Obama has repurposed for conservation and protection using the 1906 Antiquities Act, more than any other president, according to the New York Times. More than 80 percent of Nevada and about 65% of Utah is owned by the federal government, according to National Public Radio.

Obama has used his power to create 29 separate national monuments using the Antiquities Act, but the Washington Post has reported that he is expected to create one or two more in order to match or beat Franklin E. Roosevelt’s record of 30 designations.

It should be obvious to any American that Barack Obama is not and has not ever been interested in insuring that the United States remains an exceptional nation. In fact, with his many actions, one can come to the conclusion that his goals as president of the United States were to either weaken or outright destroy the country. And he came very close to doing just that.

Facebooktwitter

HE OR SHE, WHO’S OUR NEXT PRESIDENT GOING TO BE?

The presidential election on November 8, 2016 will be the first election where I honestly have no idea who will win and become the next President of the United States. Note: I only said that this one is the first where I don’t feel like I can make a call. In all the elections since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, I have made calls, even not all of them were correct.

In 1976, I was sure that Gerald Ford would be Jimmy Carter. Who in their right mind could possibly vote for Jimmy Carter? I predicted all the following elections correctly until 2012 when I forecasted that Mitt Romney would win. Again, how could anyone in their right mind vote to re-elect Barak Obama? I predicted Clinton would win in both 1992 and 1996 and that Barak Obama would win in 2008.

In this election cycle, the polls have been all over the place, and there has been hints that those polls conducted by left leaning entities may not be telling the exact truth. However, the polls, per news sources, are tightening in favor of Donald Trump. Romney seemed to have the momentum in 2012 and was ahead in the polls, but somehow, Obama pulled it out easily. Do I think there was some fraud? Possibly. Going back to 1992, I’ve always said that while Clinton had the momentum, if the election had been held four weeks later, George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected. I almost feel the same way about Donald Trump. He’s gaining momentum and Hillary is losing momentum. Is it too close to election day for Trump to surge ahead?

While I have no idea who will be elected this year, I do know one thing is certain, not only with respect to the election, but in every aspect of our lives. “God is in control.” Yes, he is. He’s in control now, and he will be in control on the morning of November 9, 2016. This is being re-enforced in my church and in my Bible study. Christians should know this. Even though God knows who’s going to come out ahead next week and none of the rest of us do, this doesn’t let us out of any responsibilities of going to vote and praying for our country.

In his message on Sunday, October 30, 2016, my minister indicated that God puts people in positions of leadership for both blessings and judgement. According the website, Now the End Begins: “All through the Bible, we see God set up kings for a purpose, and take them down for a purpose. Sometimes God raises up a ruler to bless His people like He did with King David. And sometimes He sets up a ruler by whom the people will be judged, as He did with Saul.

Should God inflict upon America a ruler for judgmental purposes, it is still our obligation to pray for this leader and to pray for our country. It is also our responsibility to speak out against policies that are being forced upon us which will be detrimental to the nation. Because God is always in control and will always be in control, He put us on this earth for a reason. He has a purpose for us and we are to fulfill that purpose and everything we do should be to glorify God.

In closing, I encourage each one of you to spend some time reading the Bible and praying. There’s also substantial information on the Internet regarding the establishment of Kings and rulers by God. There’s only a few days left whereby we will elect a president, but there is no limit to God’s control.

God Bless…

Facebooktwitter

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTION

HillaryTrump

The presidential election of 2016 has several target implications, one being the economy. Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, has indicated that she will raise taxes on those who the government considers wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class. On the other hand, Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has indicated that he will lower taxes for everyone, including lowering the corporate income tax rate to 15%. Clinton is counting on the old liberal mantra of tax the rich, lower the boom on those evil corporations, to resonate with the American public, particularly middle and lower income individuals. Trump is hoping to make a case for a stronger economy by lowering taxes, especially on businesses, by indicating that the economy will grow rendering widespread prosperity for all.

How many times have we heard the Democrat blather stating that President George W. Bush squandered the Clinton era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich? It appears whenever a Republican proposes across-the-board tax cuts where everyone who pays income tax will get a tax cut, the Democrats always scream, “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich.” According to the Washington Times in an article in February 2010, entitled, “Bush Tax Cuts Boosted Federal Revenue,” by Ryan Dwyer, Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts.

This Washington Times article went on to indicated that in 2003, President Bush cut the dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15% each and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20% and $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs and the median household wealth increased by $20,000.

What liberal tax-cutting opponents refuse to accept as truth is that the 2003 Bush tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, Congress spent these increases on domestic programs when the tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2003 were an important cause of an economic expansion that roared for some 50 months and created 8.1 million jobs.

Fast-forward to when Barak Obama became president and his policies, which included a stimulus that crowded out private investment, an enormous healthcare reform bill, and a nightmarish financial regulatory package; all of which delayed economic recovery from the crash of 2008, and drove the unemployment rate to 9.1%, according to the Heritage Foundation.

When discussing economic implications liberals also love to refer to the Reagan years and undermine “Reaganimics,” also known as “trickle-down” economics. When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Democrats couldn’t wait to declare that “trickle-down” economics was over.

According to cato.org, the economy performed better during the Reagan years that during the pre and post Reagan years.

  • Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  • Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  • Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  • The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre and post Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years, but much lower in the post Reagan years.

Liberals also continue to indicated that the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the budget deficits and the quadrupling of the national debt in the 80s. This is factually untrue. Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts, than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, revenues expanded by 24.1 percent. Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990 – 97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases, real federal revenues grew about 19.3 percent.

If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? According to cato.org, there were two primary explanations: (1) large and sustained defense build-up and (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation and the recession in the early 1980s.

Liberals are also quick to state that Bill Clinton’s economic record has outperformed Reagan’s. The growth rate under Clinton was 2.7 percent, a half percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983 to 89 expansion.

From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile, from the richest to the poorest, gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data. The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reagonomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989, there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

While every president has had his own economic policy, Democrats do lean toward raising taxes and punishing the rich, including businesses. Republicans, however, lean toward lowering taxes for everyone to expand the economy which will result in an increase in tax revenues to the government.

The 2016 presidential election is no different with same economic implications of past presidential elections. Furthermore, the economy is always front and center in a presidential election cycle regardless of other factors such as foreign policy, crime, immigration, right to life, etc.

Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the rich and on those evil businesses, but promises to cut taxes on the middle class. Donald Trump is proposing tax decreases across the board, especially on corporations to create jobs and bring jobs back to America.

If you study the examples illustrated in this article, it is inevitable that Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did more for the economy than presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama. I’ve always said that it took two brain cells to be a Republican while Democrats can operate on only one brain cell. This is one of the reasons. It takes a little more studying and deliberating to understand conservative/Republican economic philosophies.

With the baby boomers retiring, it is more important than ever that the economic implications of this presidential cycle are understood. More healthcare is going to be consumed, along with social security. Do we want our elderly suffering from lack of essentials because Social Security, something we all have paid into and were told we would receive when the time came? Do we want to elderly to go without much needed health care? Or do we want them to die out for lack of access to health care?

America, the above is your choice.

Facebooktwitter

A DIVIDED REPUBLICAN PARTY – IS THAT SO BAD?

You cannot tune into political commentary without hearing about the divided Republican Party. Republicans admit it and Democrats use it against the Republicans. Fellow Republicans admit the party is divided and are hoping that its members will re-united before the November 2016 presidential election and elect a Republican president. The Democrats are using this so-called divided Republican Party to get more votes for Democrat candidates.

Is a divided Republican Party all that bad?

In the past, I have authored several blog posts illustrating the differences between Democrats and Republicans. In review, Republicans believe that items/issues should be handled in the private sector or the lowest level of government possible; whereas, Democrats believe in a stronger more centralized government. Republicans and Democrats – What’s the Difference

Is a divided Republican Party so bad?

Yes, the Republican Party has it’s disagreements. Smart people generally do.

Republicans frequently use the term, “government over-reach” to indicate areas in which the federal government has taken control over individual freedoms and areas once controlled by states or the private sector. Don’t you think that it would be natural for individual Republicans to disagree on what may constitute “government over-reach?”

Just the other day I had a brief online discussion with a person who was very “anti-Obama” and while he didn’t indicate that he was a Republican, I think he probably is. This person, however, is a proponent of the president’s new overtime directive whereby certain salaried professionals, those making $47,000 or less, must be paid overtime by employers when they work more than 40 hours per week. I think this directive is “the plague” and will be a giant leap in destroying corporate America. This gentleman and I, both Republicans, disagreed.

The abortion issue was another issue in which Republicans were quite divided on, especially in the eighties and nineties. Many, many discussions ensued over abortion and still do today. However, with modern technology indicating that an embryo takes on many human characteristics immediately upon fertilization, the dialog of pro-choice versus pro-life is not as lively because many Republicans have converted from pro-choice to pro-life.

Democrats, on the other hand, simply and without apparent consideration, fall in lockstep with anything  the Democrat party leaders (the president, congressmen, and other party officials) declare. If it includes growing the government, raising taxes, especially on the rich, and deviating from any traditional moral behavior, the Democrats all fall in lockstep. There maybe one or two so-called conservative Democrats still left in Congress; Democrats like former Georgia Senator, Zell Miller, but for the most part these Democrats are a dying breed. Many such as Alabama Senator, Richard Shelby, have switched to the Republican Party; while many have passed away.

In addition to the fellow who felt that Obama’s overtime ruling was a good thing, I’ve had many discussions with Republicans on healthcare, the environment, abortion, gambling, taxation, affirmative action, LGBT rights, etc. A number of these Republicans have disagreed with me on many of these issues.  Also, there are many Republicans out there who will tell you that they are fiscal conservatives, but social liberals. This is common among many gay and minority professionals here in the south.

Republicans are not always going to agree with their presidents either. There were a few things where I differed from Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. That’s because I think, I reason, I research, and I’m my own person, a unique individual.

Democrats/liberals/progressives will continue to shed a negative light on a so-called divided Republican Party and claim that Democrats are always united. Sometimes I wonder just how many Democrats actually agree with everything Barak Obama has done as president. There are those Democrats who do and readily admit to worshiping him.  I call those folks “Obama zombies.” Do other Democrats really feel that we need to immediately eliminate the use of fossil fuels and flip over to the more expensive and less “green energy?” Are they okay with the demonization of the nation’s law enforcement? Do they feel that the actions of the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter organizations in their protests are a good thing? Are they also okay with destroying a person’s life just because he or she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman? I say we’ll never know the answer to these questions because many Democrats sit silent on these matters refusing to respond to questions. And when forced to respond, they become shrill and start hurling their usual bogus accusations at Republicans.

Facebooktwitter