Tag Archives: President Reagan


Could I be developing an ego? Something I’ve never had before, but always wanted.

When it comes to putting liberals in their place, I’m doing quite well. The more I study the nature of liberalism, the more I’m convinced there are millions out of touch liberals out there who need reigning in.

I’ve indicated in previous blogs that liberals think they’re so smart because they have the academic sector on their side. When I say the academic sector, I mean those who work in our educational institutes as instructors and professors. This ranges from elementary schools to the halls of the esteemed institutions of higher learning such as Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. I’ve always felt those in the academic sector were out of touch with the real world, but so what? It is what it is, life. It seems as though you have to take these out of touch liberals and tell them the truth one out of touch liberal at a time.

About 24 hours ago, I had an encounter with a left wing academic from Michigan who was responding to a negative article about the current president of the United States.

On how unusual, a negative article about a president! (sarcasm) From the rant of this academician from Michigan, you would have thought that he had never read a negative article about any president. From reviewing this left winger’s profile, it looks like he was old enough to have been an adult during at least part of the Reagan presidency. Did he not remember all of the vitriol that his party spewed against President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and then President George W. Bush? Guess not. Or is he like every other liberal and just doesn’t think being disingenuous means anything? In other words, it’s okay for liberals to disparage conservatives, but it’s not okay the other way around.

In his rant, Mr. Michigan Academic indicated that the article was racist. I’ve always said that liberals lacked reading comprehension skills because the article, while negative toward President Obama, said nothing about the color of his skin. Of course, we all know that liberals make up their own definition of racism to whatever fits their needs at the time.

Mr. Michigan Academic obviously lives in his own little liberal cocoon in one of the most liberal states in the United States. Maybe he was too busy trashing Presidents Reagan and the Bushes that he didn’t realize there was a whole other side.

Well here was my response to his rant:

“As Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” We’ve come to a point in this country where we no longer blame the criminals for their actions. Yes, this president and his liberal henchmen are using this tragedy to push their gun control agenda, and none of his programs would have prevented a shooting such as the one in Orlando. Among those being blamed are the Christian Right, the NRA, and church goers. HELLO, it was an Islamic Terrorist that shot these people. And this president, as he’s always done, doesn’t see a need to go after the actual perpertrator. Furthermore, I have read a number of articles today that indicated Omar Mateen may have been gay, himself. So, the liberals can’t very well blame those who they consider homophobes. But they will do it anyway. With respect to calling this racist, I’m a conservative political blogger and personally fed up with being called a racist just because I don’t care for the current president and don’t support his policies. Unless you can point to anything I’ve authored where I’ve indicated that I don’t like this president or his policies, or denigrated this president in any way because of his skin color, I suggest you not hurl the racist accusation at me or anyone else.”

I haven’t received a response to my comment. Furthermore doubt Mr. Michigan Academic has ever set foot in the state of Alabama, and he probably won’t. He’s probably thinking how dare a southern conservative Christian woman from the state of Alabama and a University of Alabama graduate at that, take him on, a northern elite liberal. Plus, she’s a writer of southern contemporary romance and an administrator of an Alabama Crimson Tide sports website. How dare she? Well, I did, and I think I shut him up.

And before I close, I just want to say to Mr. Michigan Academic, “We, as in the University of Alabama, own the state of Michigan in football.” Roll Tide!



On Friday, liberals/Democrats/Obama supporters got what they considered some good news on the economic front.
• 280,000 jobs were added in May
• One million jobs added so far in 2015
• Wages grew by the highest level in two years
• 12.6 million jobs created over 63 straight months under Obama, the longest streak of job creation in American history

Well, I guess the “tolerant left” will be kicking their feet up and have their noses stuck in the air so high that if it rained, they’d all drown.

According to Reuters, a surge in job creation and higher wages in May triggered talk that the United States was finally entering a “sweet spot” that would push the Federal Reserve closer to a long awaited interest rate hike.

Behind the headlines, however, data showed a troubling picture that the long-term unemployed and discouraged workers were still being left behind, a key concern that has been repeatedly highlighted by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

On Friday, June 5, data showed the United States added 280,000 jobs in May versus expectations for 225,000 and that wage growth nudged up to 2.3 percent from a year earlier, prompting markets to start betting on an October rate hide compared with December.

Despite the surge in new jobs, the headline unemployment rate rose to 5.5 percent as more people entered the labor force, showing the economy is still not creating enough work on a sustainable basis, according to some economists.

The jobs that were created remain primarily in the lower-paid end of the service sector, such as restaurants, leisure, and retail. Wage gains were primarily concentrated in managerial jobs. For non-supervisory jobs, the pace of paycheck growth was 2.0 percent year-on-year in May.

Reuters goes on to stay that still not all who want to work are working. The number of people working part time who wanted to work full time ticked up in May to 6.7 million from 6.6 million and the labor force participation rate is stuck around 62.9 percent, signaling the economic recovery is not complete. The number of people unemployed for twenty-seven weeks or more was at 2,502 million, the lowest since late 2008 but still well above levels seen before the 2007-2009 recession.

Furthermore, in the first quarter, the U.S. economy shrank 0.7 percent and the second quarter recovery has been tepid because consumers have not responded to lower gasoline prices by spending their money on other items.

“Even though job growth was solid, it needs to be sustained over a longer period of time in order to significantly tighten the labor market to the point where we finally see significant wage growth, “ wrote Elise Gould, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left leaning Washington think tank.

According to Forbes, the recession ended four years ago (National Bureau of Economic Research). So, Obamanomics has had plenty to time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record, the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. So, the current president should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.

The current president likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.

Peter Ferrara, in his Forbes article, goes on to indicate that the right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

In the ten previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So, the job effects of prior post-Depression recessions have lasted an average of about two years. Under the current President, though, by April 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5-1/2 years, we have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about a 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138,056 million in January 2008.

Under President Reagan’s watch the economy suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2.5 million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started.

Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when the current President’s so-called stimulus costing nearly 1 Trillion was passed, until August 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% of above, 30 months, from April 2009, until September 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the 1981 to 1982 recession. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy the President’s extended unemployment has been.
THE ECONOMY IS NOT THAT GREAT. We’re too much debt and we have excessive regulations. Plus many of the “tolerant left” are posting garbage, thinking they are superior to everyone.

Much of the above was taken from David Chance’s June 5, 2015 article on Reuters.com, entitled, Big Holes Remain in Labor Market despite Blowout U.S. Jobs Report,http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/05/us-usa-economy-employment-idUSKBN0OL1YB20150605 , and Peter Ferrara’s June 2, 2015 article on Forbes.com, entitled Economically, Could Obama be America’s Worst President, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/.



In a November 3 article on politicususa.com, Sarah Jones writes about the successes of the Obama administration because the stock market is up, the price of gas is down, and private sector job growth is up.

Regarding the stock market, in an article by Sean Hyman on moneynews.com dated March 11, 2013, Mr. Hyman indicates that economics is not always a reflection of what the market is doing. I know this article is old, but it is information that never changes. Here are three main reasons why:

  1. We’re buying companies, not economies. So if companies manage their debt, cash, resources, etc. better than the overall economy, then stocks can go up while the economy does not.
  2. Corporate earnings are stronger now than in times past, even though the U.S. economy is still weak.
  3. Most companies in the S & P and Dow Jones, etc. have very significant international operations that are affected by; those economies as well as our economy.

I haven’t gone in depth with these explanations; that’s for you to do if you have the time. I just wanted to point out that while a sluggish economy can certainly pull down the stock market, and has done it many times in the past, the stock market and the overall economy are not always in lockstep.

With the stock market up, most of our portfolios are a little fatter and our wealth has increased a little. But aren’t we the folks that the current president and the liberals hate? If we’re doing ever so slightly better, then something’s surely wrong. The president may just have to get out his re-distribution of wealth manual and do something.

Regarding the price of gas, we all know how it works. If a Democrat is in office and the price of gas falls, it’s all the doing of the Democrat president. If a Democrat is in office and the price of gas rises, the president has nothing to do with the price of gas. On the other hand, if a Republican is in office and the price of gas falls, the president has nothing to do with the price of gas But, on the other hand, if a Republican president is in office and the price of gas rises, it’s the Republican president’s fault.

Putting aside my “tongue in cheek” comments, Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, in an article on foxnews.com, states that in the last several years, America has become an energy-producing powerhouse. And it’s not the result of the current president’s attempts to ram his green energy down our throats.

Mr. Moore goes on to indicate that oil prices are falling because of changes in world supply and world demand. Demand has slowed because Europe is an economic wreck. But since 2008, the U.S. has increased our domestic supply by a gigantic 50 percent. This is a result of the astounding shale oil and gas revolution made possible by made-in-America technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. From the beginning of 2008 through the end of 2013, the oil and gas extraction industry created more than 200,00 jobs while the overall job market shrank by 970,000.

So, liberals with their screaming of “No Fracking,” are doing as much as they can to see to it that you, in fact, pay more at the pump. Even the current president is an advocate of high gas prices because when the prices are high, we’ll use less gas and he and his henchmen can further promote their green agenda. After all, aren’t fossil fuels are evil and we should just let the oil stay in the ground doing absolutely nothing?

Who created this planet? Who put the oil in the ground? If you answered the one true God to both of these questions, you are correct. Now just why did God put that oil in the ground? Could it have been for mankind to discover and use to enhance our lives? But what about the Exxon Valdez and the BP Horizon oil rig? When these unfortunate incidents took place, people were quaking and shaking in their boots, “oh these areas are destroyed forever.” The northern Gulf coast will never be the same. It will never be safe to swim in the Gulf and eat the seafood that comes out of those waters. The Gulf coast is booming. In fact, I’m getting ready to go down there soon for some much needed R&R.

While there was certainly a lot of human intervention in the cleanups of these two disasters, the earth, itself, is an organic living thing. Microbes ate a lot of the oil. Yes, the microbes also depleted the oxygen levels in the waters, but the ecosystem is in balance. There is going to be some residual, but it wasn’t near the disaster that the liberals were hoping for. As Rahm Emanuel says, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

When God created the planet and put the oil in the ground for us to use, do you think he was that short-sighted that he didn’t for see that we humans were going to make mistakes and a lot of them whoppers. Surely he would create mechanisms for the planet to clean itself up. And, of course, he did.

Regarding the private sector job growth, the current president has claimed that his administration is responsible for creating more private sector jobs than any other administration, even President Regan’s administration. In researching this, I found a lot of information out there to the effect that more private sector jobs were created under the current administration than under previous administrations and the current president is very definitely touting this.

So many jobs were lost during the first part of this president’s administration and we may just now be catching up. There are a lot of lay-offs occurring in the Birmingham, Alabama area even as I write this. And I also have firsthand information to the effect that all of this administration’s burdensome regulations created on businesses have created a new job classification, “compliance.” It’s a whole new field. And we all know that millions of folks have dropped out of the labor force after having failed to find work.

The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in the United States of America and while this president has certainly fought the private sector, the private sector has continued to move ahead. President Reagan didn’t create all of those private sector jobs in the 1980s, it was the entrepreneurs who do what they do, no matter what. President Reagan, through his policies, did give them freedom to create these jobs.

Do I personally believe that the current president is responsible for the current growth in private sector jobs? I don’t, I really don’t. I believe that this country’s entrepreneurs have persevered even though this president has been vocally against them. They’ve found a way to do what they do, regardless of the environment they have found themselves in.  Just think what this country could become if only this administration would adopt the philosophies of the Reagan administration.