Received in my email from a friend:
Many Americans look around at the political scene and wonder how we got to the point where anyone who disagrees with those in the media (and any liberal) is a horrible person probably guilty of hate speech. The concept of personal destruction has been with us for a while, but there are a few moments in American history that we can point to as watershed moments. One is the confirmation hearing of Robert Bork in 1987.
Robert Bork was recognized as a qualified conservative judge. In 1962, he became a law professor at Yale. In 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. In 1987, he was nominated for the Supreme Court. His nomination hearing was one of the low points of American history. The unfounded attacks on him were a shadow of things to come.
Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about Joe Biden’s role in the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork.
The article notes:
During the fourth Democratic debate on Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden — the ostensible moderate in the race — bragged about his role in the acrimonious political attack that first made Supreme Court confirmation battles as vicious as they are today. While Democrats often blame House Speaker Newt Gingrich for coarsening America’s political rhetoric, the character assassination of Robert Bork first ignited the partisan political warfare that hit a fever pitch with Trump.
Biden is campaigning on a platform of “restoring the soul” of America, aiming to reverse the influence of Trump, whom he blames for the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville, Va. Yet the former VP played a key role in the political declaration of war that turned Bork’s last name into a verb. On Tuesday, he bragged about that.
Asked about abortion, the former senator — and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman — bragged, “When I defeated Robert Bork, I made sure we guaranteed a woman’s right to choose for the better part of a generation.”
So the smearing of Robert Bork (also the smearing of Brett Kavanaugh) was actually about abortion. It worked the first time; it didn’t work the second time–Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed–Judge Bork was not.
The article continues:
Yet bragging about Bork is a bad strategy, especially for a candidate who aims to present himself as a return to political civility.
As Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) wrote in his excellent book Them: Why We Hate Each Other—and How to Heal, the “Borking” of Robert Bork helped create the “angry constituency” that spurred on (Newt) Gingrich’s success.
…Biden played a large role in the character assassination.
Stage management was a key part of this made-for-tv political drama, and one of the central cast members was the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. His former staffers later admitted that chairman Biden hatched a plan to work with outside advocacy groups to heighten the visibility of the Bork hearings. Biden thought a Supreme Court fight could be a key lever to boosting his name recognition in advance of the 1988 Democratic primary.
Because character assassination worked in that instance, the Democrat party has tried it on other occasions. It wasn’t until they tried it on President Trump that they met someone who was willing and able to fight back. That is one of many reasons that the Democrats are trying to remove him from office–their normal bag of tricks is not working on him.
Breitbart posted an article yesterday about the support for E-Verify, one part of President Trump’s immigration proposal. A new poll finds that E-Verify is supported by at least 3-in-4 likely U.S. voters in six swing states.
According to the latest Zogby Analytics poll conducted for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), 75 percent to nearly 82 percent among all likely voters in swing states such as Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin support nationwide, mandatory E-Verify.
The article concludes:
The polls’ findings put likely American swing state voters overwhelmingly on the side of Trump’s “America First” legal immigration plan, with not only broad support for mandatory E-Verify, but also majority support for ending the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S.
Each swing state poll was conducted May 23 through May 29 with a margin of errors +/- 4.3 to 4.4 percent.
Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Our lawmakers need to remember that.
Economists seems to have a problem lately correctly predicting economic growth. They always seem a bit surprised when the numbers come in higher than what they predicted. Well, it has happened again.
The Gateway Pundit is reporting the following today:
The fourth quarter GDP number was released on Thursday and beat expectations at 2.6%. Economists expected a 2.2% GDP rate.
CNBC says the GDP report was only preliminary, it would mean average growth for the year was 3.1 percent.
...Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5% . Barack Obama, with his abysmal policies, was lucky to average a GDP growth rate of slightly greater than 1%.
Obama ranked as the fourth worst presidency on record in GDP growth at 1.457% . Only Herbert Hoover (-5.65% ), Andrew Johnson (-0.70% ) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41% ) had lower average annual GDP growth than Barack Obama.
The Commerce Department announced in the first quarter of 2016 that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years with a GDP growth rate of an anemic 0.5% . The second quarter GDP growth rate was not much better at 1.2% . (The 3rd quarter GDP rate was not yet announced by the time we drafted our post before the 2016 election.)
…Barack Obama was the first President ever to never surpass an annual rate of 3% GDP growth! This resulted in Obama being rated the worst economic President ever!
Obama’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast in 2016 that America would never see 3.0% economic growth again. They had given up and Hillary was their candidate.
President Trump did win the election in 2016 and his Director of the White House National Economic Council Larry Kudlow said in early December that the U.S. economy is growing at a rate greater than 3% –
This is good news for people in the job market and people entering the job market. Jobs are becoming more plentiful and salaries are rising.
All Americans were hoping something good would come out of the meetings between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It was understood that China was holding a leash on Kim Jong Un and that he was very limited in what he could agree to, but we hoped. Holding the summit in North Vietnam was a stoke of genius–the message it sent was ‘your country can have this kind of prosperity if you behave well.’ Unfortunately the talks ended without an end to North Korea’s nuclear policy and with no relief in sight for the starving, abused people of North Korea.
Fox News posted an article about the talks.
The article reports:
President Trump abruptly walked away from negotiations with North Korea in Vietnam and headed back to Washington on Thursday afternoon, saying the U.S. is unwilling to meet Kim Jong Un’s demand of lifting all sanctions on the rogue regime without first securing its meaningful commitment to denuclearization.
Trump, speaking in Hanoi, Vietnam, told reporters he had asked Kim to do more regarding his intentions to denuclearize, and “he was unprepared to do that.”
“Sometimes you have to walk,” Trump said at a solo press conference following the summit.
Trump specifically said negotiations fell through after the North demanded a full removal of U.S.-led international sanctions in exchange for the shuttering of the North’s Yongbyon nuclear facility. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that the United States wasn’t willing to make a deal without the North committing to giving up its secretive nuclear facilities outside Yongbyon, as well as its missile and warheads program.
Removing sanctions without denuclearization would have been reminiscent of the Iran deal, which did not go well. Walking away was reminiscent of Reykjavik, which actually went very well (although it did not appear to go well at the time).
Let’s take a look at Reykjavik for a moment. Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and American President Ronald Reagan met in Reykjavik on October 11 and 12, 1986. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the possibility of limiting each country’s strategic nuclear weapons to create momentum in ongoing arms-control negotiations. The two leaders failed to come to an agreement because President Reagan insisted on America having the freedom to develop the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, mockingly known as ‘Star Wars’). SDI was still in the infant stages of its development at that point, but President Reagan wanted the freedom to develop it (and was willing to share the technology with Russia in order to create a situation where nuclear weapons owned by rogue nation states would be useless). Gorbachev refused to allow America to develop SDI, and President Reagan left the summit. The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991. The strong stand taken by President Reagan against the Soviet Union played a part in the end of the Soviet Union.
Hopefully the strong stand taken regarding North Korea’s nuclear program will also result in the dissolution of the tyrannical government currently in control of that country.
Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the situation on our southern border. I guess you might even call the editorial a fact-check on some of the things we have been told recently by the mainstream media.
The editorial reports:
NPR’s “fact check” — like countless others — dismissed Trump’s claim as false because “illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”
What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.
Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.
NPR may call that a fact-check, but it seems to me that it is more like political spin.
The editorial continues:
Trump’s critics certainly don’t bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught. It does not count the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.
The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country. Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as much as 50% of illegal crossers.
Even at the lower percentage, that means that 104,000 illegals made it into the country in 2018 alone.
Is that not a crisis at the border?
I strongly suggest that you follow the above link to read the entire editorial. It contains a lot of important information that is not necessarily being reported.
The editorial notes that previous Presidents noted the crisis and promised to fix it:
Here’s another problem with claims that we don’t have a crisis at the border.
Past presidents all treated it like one.
In 1982, for example, President Ronald Reagan said that “The ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws is a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
President Bill Clinton said in his 1995 State of the Union address that “All Americans … are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.” That’s why, he said, “our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders.”
President George Bush, in a prime-time Oval Office speech in 2006, declared that securing the U.S. border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security.”
Bush also promised to end the practice of catch-and-release “once and for all.” He said that “people will know that they’ll be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally.”
President Barack Obama in 2005 declared that “we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.” And in 2014 even he admitted there was a crisis on the border — one that he did virtually nothing to fix. (Apprehensions at the border last year were almost the same as in 2014.)
The editorial concludes:
Yet despite repeated promises by presidents and Congress for the past three decades, the border remains nearly as porous as ever. And catch-and-release is still alive and well. Is it any wonder so many try to cross the border illegally every month.
Isn’t the failure of leaders to do what they all say is necessary to protect national security interests the very definition of a crisis at the border?
Democrats, it seems, want to label everything a crisis. We have a health care crisis. A clean water crisis. A “food desert” crisis. An infrastructure crisis. A homelessness crisis.
Democrats label just about everything a crisis. Why? Because they want to whip up public support for bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government programs.
Everything, that is, except for the very real, long-standing crisis posed by a porous border that each year lets in tens of thousands of illegals.
The current government shutdown is about border security. Any other discussion is irrelevant spin. The Democrats simply do not want President Trump to have a border wall, and the Republicans do not want to see an end to cheap labor. That is the impasse.
We have all heard the expression, “The proof is in the pudding.” In other words, you can judge the value of something by how well it works. Sounds like common sense, but somehow common sense occasionally takes a vacation from our political dialog. Recently, the left wing of the Democrat party has come out in support of socialism. Tom Steyer and George Soros have invested millions of dollars into Democrat candidates who support socialism while many Democrats are trying to play down the fact that the party is flirting with socialist ideas. Capitalism has dropped in approval among the public while socialism is popular in many circles. Yet when you compare the results of the two economic systems, capitalism helps many more people than socialism.
Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial titled, “The Coming Global Middle-Class Majority: Thank Capitalism, Not Socialism, For The Boom.”
Here are some highlights from the editorial:
…capitalism in the last few decades has had the most revolutionary impact on improving human lives in history.
And yes, that’s a fact, one reaffirmed in a new study by the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution think tank.
The study validates what some have known now for years: Capitalism makes everyone wealthier, even the poor. But it also magically turns hundreds of millions of poor people into the middle class. It’s the greatest economic transformation ever.
The Brookings study, by Homi Kharas, asserts that in just two years — 2020 — the majority of the world’s estimated 7.5 billion people will be “middle class.” Kharas defines middle class as anyone who can pay for food, shelter and clothing, with enough left to supply some luxuries, including TV, a motorbike or car, higher education, home improvements and better food.
The editorial notes the difference between perception and reality:
Put another way, thanks to the free-market revolution that is still reshaping the world, per person global output increased more in the 15 years after the fall of communism than it had in the previous 10,000 years of human civilization.
To say this is an underrecognized, underreported phenomenon is an understatement. Today, in our colleges and universities, our best students learn that the world is bifurcated sharply into haves and have-nots, a result of capitalism run amok. And that capitalism leaves a small handful of people richer but the rest of us poorer.
Simply not true. Indeed, most of the world is getting richer, largely due to free trade, more open investment, and the recognition by many countries that not all regulations are good. And among those who have benefited the most are those who are the poorest.
Socialism didn’t achieve these things. Capitalism, now a dirty word, did. Yet, as we’ve mentioned before, a recent Gallup Poll shows that among those aged 18 to 29, 51% have a positive view of socialism while just 45% have a positive view of capitalism. They’re sadly mistaken.
As left-leaning economist Robert Heilbroner so eloquently wrote in the pages of the New Yorker all the way back in 1989, “Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won … Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism.”
The editorial concludes:
Yes, growth cycles go up, and they go down. But there is no question that the free market policies put in place in the early 1980s under U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have had an enormous effect around the world. The ideas they fostered and that other governments picked up made the world a much wealthier place. They helped pull literally hundreds of millions out of poverty and misery.
Remember that the next time you hear Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren or congresswoman wannabe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez extol the wonders of socialism. Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism creates poverty. And the explosion in the global middle class proves it.
I guess those who support candidates espousing socialism need to study recent economics and history.
In 1987 The New York Times printed an article about Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor under President Reagan. The were a lot of people in the media and in government who disliked President Reagan almost as much as they dislike President Trump. In 1985, Donovan resigned from his Cabinet position because charges of fraud and grand larceny were brought against him (those charges had nothing to do with his work in the Reagan administration). He was the first Cabinet member in history to be indicted. In 1987 he was cleared of all of those charges.
In 1987, The New York Times reported that Mr. Donovan had been acquitted. At the end of the trial, Mr. Donovan asked, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” That is not to mention the expense of defending himself during the two and a half years of the trial. The use off the government to bully people into submission is not a new problem, but we have definitely seen an increase of attacks on people tangentially associated with Donald Trump.
Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the impact the Mueller witch hunt has had on Carter Page.
The article reports:
FBI surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page cost him business, income and even his girlfriend.
Page tells The Post that during the media barrage he faced in late 2016, he visited his girlfriend at her London flat, where she was “freaking out with the fake news about me.”
“Talking with her later in the evening after dinner, she told me that she didn’t want me staying there anymore, and that our relationship was over.
“So late that night,” Page continued, “I booked a last-minute hotel reservation as part of this early chapter of the redefinition of my life.”
Page believes the FBI’s mole, professor Stefan Halper, was secretly spying on him as part of a “politically motivated” investigation of Team Trump, using fake sympathy to gain his trust — all while fishing for dirt on Page’s ties to Russia, where he’d worked as an energy consultant.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be a trap,” Page said.
People who work on a political campaign should not be subject to government spying simply because they worked on a political campaign.
The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that included one of President Trump’s tweets:
This is wrong. The Mueller investigation has bankrupted General Flynn, awakened Paul Manafort‘s family at gunpoint in the middle of the night, and bankrupted Michael Caputo (article here) after he worked on the Trump campaign for a short period of time.
None of Mueller’s efforts have uncovered one shred of evidence that the Russians were working for the Trump campaign or vice versa. Mueller has terrorized American citizens in the name of justice and not been held accountable for it. It is time to turn the tables and hold Mueller accountable for his actions.
I lived in Massachusetts for a long time. Ted Kennedy was my Senator. There didn’t seem to be anything I could do about that. He was known to be a womanizer who did not always have the best interests of America in mind. At one point he wrote a letter to a Russian leader asking for help in making sure Ronald Reagan did not get elected. He also had addiction problems and was not noted for telling the truth. Nevertheless, he continued to get elected. I don’t know if the people of Massachusetts didn’t realize the kind of person he was or if they didn’t care. At any rate, the truth about Ted Kennedy is now coming out.
Yesterday The National Review posted an article about the movie “Chappaquiddick.” The movie deals with the events on Martha’s Vineyard the night Mary Jo Kopechne was killed. The movie is an honest portrayal (as honest as possible considering we really don’t know exactly what the chain of events was) of the events of July 18, 1969.
The article concludes:
Only the patriarch himself, Joe Kennedy (Bruce Dern), who is undone by a stroke and has only four months to live, reacts with the proper fury, slapping Ted on behalf of the nation. Imagine having sons like Joe Jr., John, and Robert and being left with only this one, the one expelled from Harvard for cheating, the one who was cited for reckless driving while a law student. Ted himself recognizes the futility of trying to match his legendary brothers: After what they did, he asks, what sobriquet does that leave for me? The fat one? The dumb one? An early scene of Kennedy racing his sailboat nails his personality: sloppy, vain, entitled, a man you wouldn’t trust to change your tire.
Yet in the end, aided by a confluence of forces both extraterrestrial (Apollo 11, which dominated the news that week) and tribal (Ted Sorensen, the family expert in blowing smoke), Senator Kennedy managed to save his career. All that Massachusetts voters required was a sincere apology, and he could fake that.
And so we had Ted Kennedy in the Senate from 1962 until 2009 doing untold damage to the country and to the U.S. Constitution.
The article reports:
This either kills two birds with one stone or that one stone sinks the tax plan because of its weight. If Senator Bob Corker issued his complaints last month regarding deficit reduction in earnest, one guesses that the former occurs. Aside from moving toward individual freedom and the Constitution, the repeal of the individual mandate makes sense fiscally, particularly with a $20 trillion debt hanging above our heads. The added dynamic alleviates, at least, the concerns regarding the deficit aired by Senators Corker, John McCain, and Susan Collins.
Adding the repeal of the ObamaCare Mandate to the tax bill makes good sense in terms of what is the right thing to do. The move has questionable value politically. The Democrats are complaining that repealing the mandate will mean that low-income people will not have health insurance. Wait a minute. That claim defies logic. Repealing the individual mandate means that low-income people will not have to pay a fine if they don’t have health insurance. If they can’t afford health insurance, how are they supposed to pay the fine? Since when did the government acquire the right to force you to purchase something you don’t want?
The article concludes:
In 1981, when Ronald Reagan slashed the top personal rates from 70 to 50 percent, the federal government imposed the heaviest burden on Americans. Now, the cost of the federal government and the cost of healthcare approaches parity. The former gobbles up the same portion of the GDP, more or less, that it has throughout our lifetimes. The latter has almost tripled in its proportion of the GDP in just a half century.
Donald Trump’s tax plan puts American businesses on a level playing field with their competitors abroad and sensibly allows citizens to keep more of what they earn. This undoubtedly helps the economy. But the Trump tax cut will not boost growth the way the Reagan or Kennedy or Coolidge cuts did because 2017’s economy faces a special health-care challenge that did not exist in the 1920s, 1960s, or 1980s.
Prosperity proves illusory in any economy in which the cost of one commodity outpaces growth. Who cares if a tax cut boosts GDP by one percent if medical inflation devours that increase in the economy?
Good for Republicans for recognizing that relief for citizens requires reforming not just the tax code but the healthcare system, as well. Bad for any of them to imagine the job done, or a boom around the corner, through a modest personal tax cut, a robust corporate rate reduction, and a repeal of the individual mandate.
Adding the repeal of the individual mandate to the tax plan will help low-income people. However, in watching this debate, remember that the Washington establishment does not want Donald Trump to be a successful President–he is an outsider and the establishment thoroughly resents that. My fear is that the tax reform will not pass because the repeal of the ObamaCare mandate will be a poison pill for much of the establishment. At that point, the Republican establishment will whine, “We tried, but the Democrats wouldn’t let us pass tax reform.” If that happens, it will be a long time before I vote for a Republican again.
The Watergate Scandal began a period of Democratic control of Washington that essentially lasted until the 1990’s. Ronald Reagan won the Presidency, but the Democrats controlled Congress. The Watergate Scandal played a role in the Democrats obtaining and keeping that power. It was their high watermark of political influence. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they would like to repeat their success. Unfortunately for the Republican party, this time they have a few turncoat Republicans helping them.
This is a quote from an article I posted in March:
The actions of the Democrats during Watergate provide a preview of what is happening now. Watergate was a high watermark in the politics of personal destruction. In his book, Inside the Real Watergate Conspiracy, the author, Geoff Shepard, states:
“It seems clear that without Cox’s intervention, the federal prosecutors would have issued indictments at least by August 1973, and the public’s desire to know that the government was seriously pursuing the Watergate case would have been fully satisfied. Indeed, on May 24, 1973, the U.S. attorney publicly stated that comprehensive indictments were imminent; and the prosecutorial memo submitted to Cox on his arrival stated that the case was all but closed.”
As Americans, we need to make sure that this sort of manipulation of the news does not happen again. Today we have an alternative media that we did not have then. Hopefully that will make a difference. At any rate, we need to be aware of what is being attempted.
As Democrats and some Republicans applaud the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel there are some things we need to remember. First of all–no investigation has turned up any evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to impact the 2016 election. Second of all–the longer these accusations can be dragged out, the more people will accept them as fact. Third of all–if the Democrats can turn the heat up high enough with fake stories, they may be able at least to vote on impeachment. The don’t have the votes to impeach President Trump, but impeachment hearings might win them some votes among some Americans (or it could seriously cost them votes as the impeachment of Bill Clinton cost the Republicans votes).
What we have watched this week is political theater. Unfortunately it is political theater played without any sense of truth or fairness. It is a glaring example of the fact that the swamp in Washington needs to be drained–and Donald Trump is not the problem. The media has created chaos with anonymous sources and unseen memos. The chaos is not from the Trump Administration, it is from a media that is trying very hard to reverse the votes of the American people.
The media has not given President Trump fair treatment. That is not a surprise–he is a Republican and is fighting the status quo. He might even make it necessary to change which cocktail parties they attend. Right now the media narrative is that President Trump is a disaster for the country and has accomplished nothing. Let’s take a look at what has actually taken place during President Trump’s short time in office.
The Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday listing the accomplishments of the Trump Administration.
The article mentions the immediate impact President Trump’s election has had on the economy:
The article includes a number of specifics on the DOW, including:
Since the majority of working Americans have 401k or other retirement accounts, this positively impacts most working Americans. It doesn’t help welfare recipients or people working part time or for minimum wage, but those people will be helped as the economy improves and they are able to get better jobs. This would also be a really good time for people who want to be successful to improve their marketable skills so that they will be ready to find a better job in an improved economy.
Other accomplishments listed in the article include:
President Trump decreased the US Debt in his first 100 days by $100 Billion. (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 100 days by more than $560 Billion.)
President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).
Housing sales are red-hot. In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.
Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.
Please follow the link above to the article. There have been many accomplishments that have simply been overlooked by the mainstream media.
The article reports:
…The Hill reported late Tuesday that 225 companies — mainly construction and engineering firms — have voiced interest in building Trump’s proposed wall.
The list was compiled from a website for contractors interested in doing business with the federal government.
Contractors intrigued by the project have until March 10 to submit a prototype concept paper, followed by a formal request for proposal by March 24.
Interested parties so far include construction companies like Caddell and Raytheon, a top defense contractor.
A number of small businesses have also applied, including 20 owned by Hispanic-Americans who could come under scrutiny for helping create the structure.
In November 2014, I reported:
“The Internal Revenue Service continues to make little progress in reducing improper payments of Earned Income Tax Credits,” a press release from Treasury’s inspector general for Tax Administration says. “The IRS estimates that 22 to 26 percent of EITC payments were issued improperly in Fiscal Year 2013. The dollar value of these improper payments was estimated to be between $13.3 billion and $15.6 billion.”
Fixing that problem would provide a major portion of the cost of building the wall. I am sure there are other costs to illegal immigration that could also be eliminated to pay for the wall.
Ronald Reagan said it best:
“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”
― Ronald Reagan
The Federalist Papers reported today:
Maybe Barack Obama thinks if he says something that’s completely false, perhaps they’ll believe it if he tweets it.
So speaking to troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, when Obama said “Over the last eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland,”
Sorry, that is a lie.
The article includes the list of attacks during Obama’s Presidency:
Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2009. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and murdered one soldier, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, and injured another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, at a military recruiting station in Little Rock. Muhammad reportedly converted to Islam in college and was on the FBI’s radar after being arrested in Yemen–a hotbed of radical Islamic terrorism–for using a Somali passport, even though he was a U.S. citizen. In a note to an Arkansas judge, Muhammad claimed to be a member of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, the terror group’s Yemen chapter.
Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009. Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up a military base in Fort Hood and murdered 14 people. Hasan was in contact with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he fired upon the soldiers on the Fort Hood base. After being sentenced to death, Hasan requested to join ISIS while on death row. It took six years for Obama to acknowledge the shooting as a terror attack instead of “workplace violence.”
Frankfurt, Germany, March 2, 2011. Arid Uka, a Kosovo Albanian Muslim, shot and murdered two U.S. airmen who were headed to fight in Afghanistan at a Frankfurt airport and injured two others. Uka was sentenced to life in prison and is believed to have been radicalized through jihadist propaganda on the Internet, as his Facebook page was laced with jihadist statements. He is also believed to have acted alone.
Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012. Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic terror group, attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed the attack on a video, a blatant lie.
Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. Tamerlan and Dhozkar Tsarnaev set off two bombs at the 2013 Boston marathon, killing three and injuring over 260 people. The Tsarnaev brothers later shot and murdered Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier. The Tsarnaev brothers were self-radicalized through online jihadist propaganda and through a mosque with ties to al-Qaeda.
London, Britain, May 22, 2013. An off-duty British Army solider was murdered by Islamic fundamentalists.
Brussels, Belgium, May 24, 2014. Islamic terrorist Mehdi Nemmouche murdered three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Hamas starting war with Israel, July 8, 2015. Islamic terror group Hamas started a war with Israel, launching rockets into the Jewish state.
Moore, Oklahoma, September 24, 2014. Alton Nolen beheaded a woman, Colleen Huff, at a Vaughan Foods plant and stabbed and injured another person. While Nolen’s motives are unclear, he appears to have been another radicalized Muslim who was obsessed with beheadings.
Queens, New York, October 23, 2014. Zale Thompson, another self-radicalized Muslim, injured two police officers with a hatchet before being shot dead by other cops. Thompson reportedly indoctrinated himself with ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Shabab–a Somali jihadist terror group–websites and was a lone wolf attacker.
Brooklyn, New York, December 20, 2014. Ismaayil Brinsley shot and murdered two police officers execution-style and his Facebook page featured jihadist postings and had ties to a terror-linked mosque.
Paris, France, January 7, 2015. Two Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine that had published cartoons mocking Mohammed. Al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Paris, France, January 9, 2015. A gunman who pledged allegiance to ISIS held people in a kosher supermarket hostage and killed four of them.
Copenhagen, Denmark, February 23, 2015. A gunman who swore loyalty to the leader of ISIS opened fire at a free speech forum and at people outside a synagogue. The terrorist murdered two people.
Garland, Texas, May 3, 2015. Two gunmen shot up the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, where a Mohammed cartoon contest was taking place, and were killed by a police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.
Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France, June 26, 2015. A French ISIS fanatic beheaded his boss.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four Marines and a sailor at a military base in Chattanooga and was believed to have been inspired by ISIS.
Palestinian Intifada against Jews, September 13, 2015. A wave of Palestinian terror attacks toward Jews in Israel began in September, which only worsened after the incitement from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Paris, France, November 13, 2015. ISIS launched a massive, coordinated terror attack in the city of Paris that resulted in at least 129 dead and 352 people injured.
San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. Two radical Islamists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, shot and murdered 14 people and injured 22 others at an office holiday party.
Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2016. ISIS set off bombs and gunfire at a Brussels’s city airport and a subway station, killing 30 people and injuring at least 230 people.
The article points out:
In fact, under Barack Obama, worldwide terrorism deaths have risen four-fold.
Obviously, President Obama is not solely responsible for the increase of terrorism around the world, but there is an aspect of this that needs to be looked at. America has been looked to as a force that kept law and order around the world. It was understood that if a country was consistently causing trouble, they might experience the wrath of America on some level. In 1986, the United States bombed Libya in response to the terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque and other terrorist attacks Libya had been involved in. There was a price to be paid for engaging in terrorism. The attack had only a limited effect on the terrorism activities of Libya, but the message was sent that America would attack states that sponsored terrorism. Unfortunately that has not been the case during the Obama Administration. He has made it possible for billions of dollars to flow to Iran, a country that routinely funds terrorism and arms America’s enemies in the Middle East.
Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union partially because he was considered a cowboy, and the Russians feared him.
According to a recent article at RightWingGranny, President George W. Bush had a similar effect:
According to one of the world’s most deadly and infamous terrorists, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, President George W. Bush wiped out plans for other imminent attacks by quickly invading Afghanistan after 9/11/2001.
According to a new book detailed by The Federalist and former Bush staffer Marc Thiessen, KSM admitted during enhanced interrogation the President’s swift “shock-and-awe” action not only thwarted plans for follow up attacks to 9/11, but changed Al Qaeda‘s entire strategy.
…Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States ‘turned tail and ran.’
‘Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Mitchell writes. ‘KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.’ He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned ‘by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.’
I do not support overseas fighting unless it is absolutely necessary, but those who criticize President Bush for his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan forget that there was no follow-up attack to 9/11. They also forget that it was President Obama who prematurely withdrew troops from Iraq, allowing for the growth of ISIS.
I am hoping that Donald Trump will be a President in the mold of President Reagan–not anything like President Obama.
If you are under 50, you may not be familiar with the Eleventh Commandment. The Eleventh Commandment was created by the California Republican Party and popularized by President Ronald Reagan. The Eleventh Commandment reads, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” If you have watched any of the Republican debates, you are aware that the Eleventh Commandment has died a violent death.
Ms. Robichaud notes:
He is the leader of the Republican Party — not just the establishment wing. It is time for him to lead the entire party by stopping the civil war.
There have been plenty of times when conservatives have been less than thrilled to vote for the Republican nominee, but once the selection had been made there was no ranting or raving about our objections. We kept our nose-holding to ourselves and loyally supported the nominee.
The establishment is having a massive hissy fit over the Trump candidacy. They are not helping the other Republican presidential candidates. They are only hurting our chances to win the White House in November. Shame on them for their self-indulgent whining.
As I have stated many times before, Donald Trump did not get my vote in the Republican primary (North Carolina has early voting, so I have already voted). However, if he wins the votes in the Primary Elections around the country, he is entitled to the nomination.
The maneuverings of the establishment Republicans are amazing. They have ignored the party’s base for years, and now wonder why the base is choosing to ignore them.
The article further reminds us:
Earlier in this election cycle, Priebus got Trump to sign an agreement to not run as a third-party candidate if he did not win the primary. Was it a one-way agreement? Where is the protection for Trump? He’s winning these primaries fair and square. It wasn’t even close in Massachusetts.
Priebus is going to be the last chairman of the Republican National Committee if he doesn’t stop the establishment’s temper tantrum.
What could Priebus do? First and foremost, he needs to shut off all money to people who speak ill of the soon-to-be nominee. That will motivate them.
Second, Priebus can give them a collective dope slap. To suggest that Trump would be a lousy president due to some business failures is beyond ridiculous. According to Forbes magazine, 8 out of 10 businesses fail within the first 18 months. Businesspeople have successes and failures.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton should be indicted over the email scandal! On her watch as secretary of state, four Americans died because she refused to act! The Clinton Foundation is a disgrace!
The Republican Party is in danger from its own establishment. The establishment that has gone along with higher taxes, more spending, and not using every weapon available to fight ObamaCare and executive orders is reaping what it has sown. The Republicans hold the House and the Senate. Does anyone believe that if the Democrats held the House and the Senate that they would not manage to advance their agenda? If the Republicans continue to avoid success and replace it with whining that they cannot do anything because of President Obama, they deserve to be removed from whatever office they hold. Attacking each other only adds to their problems. If the republican leaders continue to act in a way that ignores the base and encourages attacks against the leading candidate, they may find themselves without a party to lead.
It bothers me that President Obama chose not to attend Justice Scalia’s funeral. Evidently I am not the only person bothered. Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago. On Thursday he posted an article at Real Clear Politics about President Obama’s absence from the funeral.
The article reminds us:
President Obama’s decision not to attend Justice Antonin Scalia‘s funeral is shameful. It mirrors his decision to skip the state funeral for Margaret Thatcher in 2013. On these somber, formal occasions, the president is called upon to represent our country as the head of state. He is not representing his party, his political agenda, or himself personally. He is representing our country—or at least he should be. On Saturday, it is his duty to mourn a man who sat on the Supreme Court for decades. He is shirking that duty.
President Obama missed the opportunity to bring the nation together. Unfortunately, during his term as President, he has generally missed opportunities to unite Americans.
The article concludes:
President Obama need not reach these rhetorical heights. But he ought to behave with quiet dignity and represent our nation at Scalia’s funeral. He does not have to pretend he agreed with Scalia’s decisions. He does not have to praise the justice’s judicial philosophy. But he ought to honor the life of a man who spent three decades on the Supreme Court and five years before that on the U.S. appellate bench.
Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us.
President Obama has not handled the office of President with class. He has exploited the office and divided Americans rather than uniting them. Hopefully, Americans will elect a President in November who will unite us and respect the office of President.
The Daily Caller posted an article today about the Master Agreement between the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). It is a truly amazing agreement.
The article reports:
The Master Agreement between the VA and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) states, “Prior to considering candidates from outside the bargaining unit, the department agrees to first consider internal candidates for selection … in all cases … first and full consideration shall be given to any best qualified candidates within the facility.”
Veterans are supposed to get “preference points” against other applicants under federal civil service hiring rules. At the VA, such points are apparently negated by a hard-and-fast rule that a job can’t go to anyone unless no qualified union member wants it.
The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) also allows vets to apply for jobs that are otherwise only open to current employees. Thanks to the union contract, it is futile for them to apply — at least for plum positions — because the VA must consider union members first.
This is an example of another government agency that has lost its purpose.
The article goes on to explain that many of the good jobs in the VA are not open to veterans.
The article reports the comments of a whistleblower:
Ryan Honl, a veteran who worked at the VA hospital in Tomah, Wisc. before becoming a whistleblower by telling Congress about the mistreatment he witnessed in the facility, told TheDNCF that “VA’s first objective was to originally ‘care for those who have borne the battle.’ Today, the VA’s original mission has become secondary. Its primary mission is now to serve bureaucrats and those in power” by sustaining high-paying administrative jobs for civilians.
Since Honl voiced his concerns, VA employees have threatened to sue and discredit him. They even by made his personal medical information public.
It’s time to clean up our government.
In an article posted in July 2014, The New York Times posted the following:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany — the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O — in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.
The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”
Cleaning up our government is going to involve getting unions out of the public sector.
He sent an email to his supporters that included the following statement (as posted on Power Line):
In the end, I believe that voters want to be for something and not against someone. Instead of talking about how bad things are, we want to hear about how we can make them better for everyone. …
Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the race so that a positive conservative message can rise to the top of the field. With that in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.
I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current frontrunner. This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and – ultimately – to the future of our country.
Hopefully we will hear more from him in the future. I would have liked to have seen him as the candidate.
Unfortunately the mainstream media in America has become the spokesperson for the Democrat Party. Things are reported or not reported according to the impact they will have on the success of that party.
The story reports:
Others complained about Williams’s unwillingness to go after hard-hitting stories. Multiple sources told me that former NBC investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Lisa Myers battled with Williams over stories. In February 2013, Isikoff failed to interest Williams in a piece about a confidential Justice Department memo that justified killing American citizens with drones. He instead broke the story on Rachel Maddow. That October, Myers couldn’t get Williams to air a segment about how the White House knew as far back as 2010 that some people would lose their insurance policies under Obamacare. Frustrated, Myers posted the article on NBC’s website, where it immediately went viral. Williams relented and ran it the next night. “He didn’t want to put stories on the air that would be divisive,” a senior NBC journalist told me. According to a source, Myers wrote a series of scathing memos to then–NBC senior vice-president Antoine Sanfuentes documenting how Williams suppressed her stories. Myers and Isikoff eventually left the network (and both declined to comment).
The actual definition of divisive is having a negative impact on a Democrat.
Today Newsbusters posted another example of how the American mainstream media works.
The Republicans who signed the letter are reminding the President of the Senate’s role in approving treaties. They are asking the President to respect the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Ted Kennedy was asking the Russians to get involved in an American election. It seems to me that the latter is much more significant than a reminder of how the U.S. Constitution works.
Vice-President Biden has done it again. Breitbart is reporting a comment made by Vice-President Biden at a memorial for the late Jim Brady, President Reagan‘s Press Secretary who was shot during an attempt to assassinate President Reagan.
The article reports:
According to The Washington Times, Biden stressed that the push for more gun control is not over and said he prays a new voice for the gun control movement emerges soon:
What we need is another Jim Brady, who has the skill and the ability to convince those who are afraid, who walks the halls of Congress, to step up and do what they know is right. One will come along. It will happen. I pray God it is sooner rather than later.
I am sure that the Vice-President made the comment without thinking through the implications of his statement, but can you imagine the uproar if a Republican had said something similar.
The gun control debate does not need any more victims–high profile or otherwise. What the gun control debate needs is a respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. In terms of crime rates, statistics show that since Detroit relaxed its gun laws, crime rates have gone done. Muggers are less likely to mug grandma if she might be packing. Criminals are not likely to obey restrictions on gun ownership.
The article reports:
The CBO updated its fiscal projections Wednesday, and they reflected its new gloomy view that the future of the U.S. economy is one of slower growth and lower productivity.
“They think that we will get back up to potential growth,” said Loren Adler, an analyst at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “but they make it clear that they think potential growth is lower than it used to be in the ‘80s and ‘90s.”
The CBO first reached the conclusion that future growth will be slower when it released its long-term budget projections in July, but only incorporated it into its official 10-year budget projections Wednesday.
In its new projections, the CBO sees the economy suffering from a scenario in which its potential is slightly lower than before — 1 percent lower in 2024 than previously expected.
As a result of weak economic growth this year and slightly slower potential growth over the next 10 years, the CBO sees $514 billion in lost revenue.
…The CBO’s scenario — slower growth and permanently lower interest rates — is consistent with the “secular stagnation” scenario outlined by former Obama economic adviser and Harvard professor Larry Summers, who has argued that the U.S. economy may not be able to generate enough consumer demand for goods and services on its own without stimulus from the Federal Reserve or through federal spending.
The assumption that demand will return to normal “now seems problematic,” Stein (Center for American Progress’ Harry Stein) told the Washington Examiner, noting that he wasn’t sure whether the CBO assumed secular stagnation in its model.
So how do you grow an economy? Ronald Reagan seemed to have the answer–lower taxes. If you look at the deal that President Reagan made with Congress (a Democrat-controlled Congress), Congress was going to cut spending along with the tax cuts. Unfortunately, Congress chose to ignore their part of the bargain, and spending during the Reagan years increased greatly and deficits went up despite record tax revenues coming into the government. Even with the growing deficits, the economy grew rapidly once the tax burden was taken off of the people who create jobs and produce wealth. The Obama Administration has increased the income of the wealthy while leaving the middle and lower classes behind. This is the fruit of crony capitalism. The gap between rich and poor has increased during the Obama Administration–not decreased. If you want to see America prosper again, elect people to Congress who will cut taxes and cut spending.
Yesterday George Will posted an article at National Review Online about the sluggish economic recovery under President Obama. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was approximately 7.5%. By January 1, 1983, the unemployment rate had risen to 10.4%. By January 1, 1988, the unemployment rate was 5.70%. Presidential economic policies do impact the economy.
The article reminds us:
Ronald Reagan lightened the weight of government as measured by taxation and regulation. Obama has done the opposite. According to the annual “snapshot of the federal regulatory state” compiled by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, four of the five largest yearly totals of pages in the Federal Register — the record of regulations — have occurred during the Obama administration. The CEI’s delightfully cheeky “unconstitutionality index,” measuring Congress’s excessive delegation of its lawmaking policy, was 51 in 2013. This means Congress passed 72 laws but unelected bureaucrats issued 3,659 regulations.
One of the things that is slowing down the recovery in our consumer-drive economy is the amount of student loan debt. Student loan debt is currently the fastest growing debt–larger than credit-card or auto-loan debt. Another factor is the retirement of the baby boomers.
The article further reports:
In April, the number of persons under 25 in the workforce declined by 484,000. Unsurprisingly, almost one in three (31 percent) persons 18 to 34 are living with their parents, including 25 percent who have jobs.
These are not positive numbers.
The article concludes:
There is, however, something new under the sun. The Pew Research Center reports that Americans 25 to 32 — “Millennials” — constitute the first age cohort since World War II with higher unemployment or a greater portion living in poverty than their parents at this age. But today’s Millennials have the consolation of having the president they wanted.
At some point the Millennials may realize that elections have consequences and that they have voted themselves out of jobs.
In 2010 I attended a family reunion in Northern California. Because my military family was stationed near San Deigo, we made the drive up the Five. One of the things we saw was the impact of the Congress-imposed drought on the Central Valley, formerly the breadbasket of America. The story hasn’t gone away. The picture below of the Central Valley was taken during that drive.
Today National Review Online posted an update of the story.
The story at National Review Online describes the Central Valley:
The soil being uncharacteristically fertile and the summers being long and dry, growers are afforded that most valuable of things: control. Emancipated from Gaia’s caprice, farmers here can determine precisely not only how much water they wish to provide to their crops but when to add it, too. Which is to say that, in the Central Valley, irrigation is achieved not by the whimsy of the sky but by deliberately placed pipes, pumps, and microprocessors. It is here that the ancient earth meets the best of technology; where Silicon Valley meshes with the baser elements and, together, they yield life. “If the Pilgrims had landed in California,” Ronald Reagan liked to joke, “the East Coast would still be a wilderness.” Undoubtedly. I suspect fewer Pilgrims would have died, too. Make no mistake: This place is a miracle — a vast greenhouse in which, unmolested by the elements and provided with incomparably fecund terrain, farmers can do their thing as never before.
But the miracle has a problem. On the Harris Ranch in the Central Valley, 9,000 of the 15,000 acres are fallow because of lack of water.
The article explains:
The Central Valley’s woes began in earnest in 2007, when the hardline Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) won a lawsuit against California’s intricate water-delivery system, sending farmers like John Harris into a tailspin. In court, the NRDC’s lawyers contended that the vast pumps that help to funnel water from the reservoirs up in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta down to the Central Valley, to Southern California, and to the Bay Area were sucking in and shredding an unacceptable number of smelt — and, the smelt being protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1994, that this was illegal.
And much of the breadbasket became a dustbowl.
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is a study in governmental destruction of a natural resource–America’s breadbasket.
The article concludes:
And so nothing happens. Each year, farmers sit and wait — praying for rain, and hoping that the federal government will send them a few drops of water so that they do not have to leave perfectly good land fallow and tell their employees that this month there will be no work. Of all our present troubles, California’s farming woes are perhaps the most inexplicably sourced and the most easily fixed. Complacently convinced of their infallibility, legislators in the nation’s richest state have prostrated themselves at the feet of many silly ideas in recent years. But for authorities to have put the livelihood of millions of citizens at the mercy of a tiny little fish is almost too much to bear.
We need a little common sense with our environmentalism.
On Monday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story that provides some background on the incident. Tuffy Gessling has been dressing up as sitting presidents as part of his clown act since the days of Ronald Reagan. This is the first time it has been a problem.
The article at Hot Air concludes:
…Gessling figures that people have lost their ability to laugh, at themselves and their favored institutions, and a large amount of their perspective, too…Well … at least during Democratic administrations, anyway. The hysteria over a silly rodeo skit boggles the mind, and it’s not benign, either. Despite the fact that presidential face masks have a long history in the US for satire and entertainment, and perhaps especially so during the administration of Obama’s predecessor, this new-found abhorrence of offending the dignity of a sitting President does not bode well for political speech of any kind in the future. Will wearing a presidential mask for satirical purposes during a possible Hillary Clinton administration be automatically assumed to be an act of unconscionable sexism, too, rather than just humor or criticism?
The lesson here is this: Toughen up, buttercups. And I’m not talking about Tuffy Gessling, either.
The history involved in the clown with a presidential mask incident makes me wonder what has happened to our sense of humor. This act has been perfectly acceptable for more than forty years. Why was the clown banned for doing something that he had been doing since the days of Ronald Reagan? There truly is a double standard here. There are much more important things to worry about in this world than a clown with a President Obama mask.
A friend on Facebook posted this:
Ronald Reagan defined the word ‘leadership.’