By Dennis Lund
“All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the states; the states created the Federal Government.” — Ronald Reagan Jan. 20, 1981
WHEN IT COMES TO GENIUSES WITHIN THE POLITICAL REALM, the Democrats are the first to claim a monopoly on this too-rare commodity, Unfortunately history does not support their braggadocio.
If we look at the Reagan Presidency, for example, we can recognize that it was not his personal level of intelligence that had a profound effect on the economy, but rather his ability to recognize the genius of the Founding Fathers in creating a new constitutional republic, allowing for individual success under the auspices of the free enterprise system, one not over-encumbered by a meddling and overreacting central authority.
In his first inaugural speech Reagan also stated: “Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
Today we are endlessly told that our inept president has failed because either the Republicans blocked him or because the hole was far deeper than realized. Both are statements of obfuscation designed to cover Barack Obama’s failings and his lack of faith in our republic, and to divert attention away from alarming parallels in the bumbling Carter Presidency.
Reagan, too, faced a dismal economic situation: high inflation, interest rates of 14 percent and more, gas lines and rationing, high unemployment and what even Carter admitted to, in his infamous “malaise” speech, was a “crises of confidence.”
Widely proclaimed as being one of the smartest presidents in history, Carter could not break the malaise; it took Reagan’s policies to restore the nation’s economy and confidence. By the end of Reagan’s third year, the recovery was on track; his presidency ushered in a strong economic period that continued through three successive administrations.
What is troubling today is our current leadership has such a profound lack of faith in a system that since World War II has served the nation so well.
We indeed are lucky in many ways to be living in America, as our country is blessed to have many fine minds with inspiring intellectual capacities; it is just so sad that so few are sent to Washington, D.C.
Cases in point:
The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was considered to be the high water mark of our political ascendency. The nation had finally found the wisdom to elect an intellectual giant; indeed, he was hailed as the nation’s savior, the one needed to heal the lingering wounds of racism, the one with the political will to bring us out of Republican-created depths. Indeed this political messiah would unite the nation as never before. New York Magazine hailed him as the “first Jewish president,” Newsweek as the “first gay president,” complete with halo.
The housing/lending fiasco immediately demanded the attention of our genius president and his crack team. After four years working on the problem, on Jan. 10 of this year, Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, announced The Plan: the Ability-to-Repay rule.
Let’s look at the first three proclamations of the new rule (taken from www.whitehouse.gov):
• Potential borrowers have to supply financial information, and lenders must verify it;
• To qualify for a particular loan, a consumer has to have sufficient assets or income to pay back a loan.
• Lenders must determine a consumer’s ability to repay both the principal and the interest.
That is essentially it, folks. To get a loan: You need a job, you need to prove it, and you need to pay the money back.
We waited four years for this?
It gets better, including “a proposed exemption for designated nonprofit creditors and homeownership stabilization programs, as well as certain Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and federal agency refinancing programs.”
Read it again and be certain that, yes, the government is proposing to exempt themselves from these strict criteria.
That is the “genius” of Washington, D.C., in a nutshell.
The “genius” of Nancy Pelosi was again displayed this month as she read from a prepared statement:
“All members of Congress took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the American people — to protect and defend. That is our first responsibility.”
The word “protect” does not appear in the oath, which actually reads, in part:
“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”
Some would give her a pass for a slip of the lip, but this was no slip: she was reading a prepared statement and she used the word twice. Another indication of a serious misunderstanding of her fundamental role as a leader of this nation.
Now one might correctly say that “protect” and “defend” are synonymous, but that ignores two errors: Pelosi’s oath is to the Constitution and does not include the phrase “and the people.”
The subjects of her speech? Gun control and the modification of laws pertaining to gun control to suit today’s political climate in an effort to “protect … the American people” from gun violence. Pelosi should also be concerned about protecting the Constitution from being shredded by “all enemies, foreign and domestic …”
I would have a modicum of respect for those who seek to circumvent the Second Amendment if they stood up to ask for its abolishment; at least then they would be speaking honestly.
This, though, they will not do because they know it is a battle they would lose. Instead they chip away at our rights, which once lost cannot again be found.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
Awww, Dennis, I fear you’re slipping in the polls, that was NOT among your best…the US government turned into a pit of mediocrity under the auspices of Bush and Cheney, the under-regulated capitalist/predators went nuts, the economy tanked severely…Obama walked into a known hell-hole, the Tea Party did squat for two years and Mitch McConnell’s only aspiration for 4 years was to make Obama a one-term president and he failed at that dramatically… Now with NO Republican Heroes to turn to, you run Reagan up the flagpole? Reagan as a Gov. of CA emptied the mental hospitals into the street, as President did little or nothing for the AIDS epidemic, and towards the end claimed to know little or nothing about the Contra Boondoggle…was Nancy’s ouija board to blame? Sorry, Amigo, I don’t read Pugh or Livesay any more at all and you’re starting to sound like their shadow… Considering the hell-hole Obama inherited, we’re doing just fine…show me something the Repubs have done in 4 years except cower behind a Norquist Oath…How does that fit into the Constitutionality of their oaths of office? Reagan should have stayed selling 20 Mule Team Boraxo products, at best he was a Grade B Western twit…pb
Peter stated: , you run Reagan up the flagpole?
Peter, I suspect response was as you read the name Reagan was in a Neferatuistic fashion to the rising sun; your eyes glazed over, your blood pressure rose and the rest of the piece was viewed at glance.
At least Mr. Shelby read the piece through his Bizerkley framed lenses.
😉
Dear Dennis: I continue to think that you’re a good fellow at heart, and that you intend to be so. It pains me to see a person of your ability fling unsupported generalizations and tilted premises.
First: “All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the states; the states created the Federal Government.” — Ronald Reagan Jan. 20, 1981.” Who among us needs reminding that the states were created by the British Crown via permissions, missions, grants and charters? They didn’t just happen spontaneously from the mob impulses of land-seeking groups of people.
Second: “WHEN IT COMES TO GENIUSES WITHIN THE POLITICAL REALM, the Democrats are the first to claim a monopoly on this too-rare commodity, Unfortunately history does not support their braggadocio.”
Why not support your own braggadocio? Name some Democrats who claim that monopoly. Please!
Third: “In his first inaugural speech Reagan also stated: ‘Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.’” Dennis, you know perfectly well, despite Ronnie, that The People is neither a monolithic nor an homogenous entity but multi-layered and multi-factioned. So, one must ask, which people or what part of the people under-consent to their government? (But, we know who and what they are, don’t we?) You should not inflate your concept of The People, or deform our common concept, to support your claim or hide a worm-filled can of semantic sins.
Fourth: “Today we are endlessly told that our inept president has failed because either the Republicans blocked him or because the hole was far deeper than realized.” Well, Dennis, you and Jim Pugh, et al., do tell us endlessly our president is inept. You get this notion, often reinforced, from the disinformation bubble you live in, support and draw upon. ” Both are statements of obfuscation designed to cover Barack Obama’s failings and his lack of faith in our republic, and to divert attention away from alarming parallels in the bumbling Carter Presidency.” You flat out lie, Dennis. The GOP has blocked him, and does, at every step. Yes, the mess Obama stepped into was worse than he foresaw. But, I show you the mess in your own mind.
Fifth: “What is troubling today is our current leadership has such a profound lack of faith in a system that since World War II has served the nation so well.” What system is that, Dennis? Unregulated enterprise? laissez-faire capitalism? Or the massively developed industrial production & commerce system that was regressively dismantled by outsourcing? Or the financial system that was nearly destroyed by over-greedy, hog-careless banking methods?
Six: Little is worth discussing until #Seven except the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s slender Ability-to-Pay rule that provided a start to put banking back in sensible order, order which it had forgotten or thrown away in the rush for big bucks in a Niagara Up-sucking economy! You can sneer all you like, but it is quite an accomplishment, considering the fierce opposition that you pooh-pooh as indicating Obama’s failure. But, then, fairness to anyone but yourself and your kin has never been your strong suit, has it?
Seven: Dennis, your jazz about Pelosi’s statement is a puling, niggling nonsense with synonymous words:
“protect” and “defend” mean the same thing and give “support” to the Constitution and due process.
If you were capable of learning from your mistakes, this would be enough. I know it’s not, but it’s all for tonight. Fare thee well and — good night.
First: Who among us needs reminding that the states were created by the British Crown via permissions, missions, grants and charters? Since I was quoting Reagan that question would best be directed to him.
Second: Name some Democrats who claim that monopoly. Please! Harry Truman: “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself.” The there is Piece from Time Magazine: Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? By John Cloud (having trouble posting links, so you can google it)
Third: “You should not inflate your concept of The People”… Again you quible over a Reagan quote, take it up with him. But I agree with the quote, as the Federal government has overreached, way beyond original concepts.
Fourth: “Dennis, you and Jim Pugh, et al., do tell us endlessly our president is inept. GMTA
You flat out lie, Dennis. Prove it
The mess Obama stepped into was worse than he foresaw. So he was not competent enough to understand what he was getting into then. Thanks for confirming that.
Fifth: What system is that, Dennis? It is called a Constitutional Republic Robert, I first learned if it in middle school.
Or the financial system that was nearly destroyed by over-greedy, hog-careless banking methods? This is one area where your lack of knowledge is exceeded only by your arrogance. The government’s role contributed extensively to this problem.
#Seven: ….considering the fierce opposition. You willingly ignore the actions taken by the federal bureaucracy under 0bama, as if he has done nothing because of the Republicans. That is naive, at best, or willful ignorance.
Seven: about Pelosi’s … niggling nonsense with synonymous words:
“protect” and “defend” Next time read what I said, as I already covered this point.
Dennis the usual Liberal/Socialist suspects. I am glad Peter mentioned my name. That does mean he is paying attention. Robert Shelby your suttle put down of Dennis did not get by anyone. When the usual suspects resort to the other side of the fence that just means they have nothing good to say about the Liberal/Socialist side. I would ask the usual suspects is 16.4 tril on its way to 20.0 tril debt good? What is your solution. You have none. You are trapped in your aged old ideals that are not working.
Noted: Bob L. is unable or unwilling to address any of Bob Shelby’s points. I say unable, and scared to boot.
RA, you leap, once again, to a probable erroneous conclusion, as Mr. Shelby’s lengthy response is addressed to me, it is one I will answer, but probably later this afternoon, as Sunday breakfast is a tradition in my house and the kitchen is calling.
I would bet on a third option: Bob is waiting to see what I have to say in response to Mr. Shelby.
If he responds, and dodges, and avoids the substance of the post to which he is responding, he deserves to be called out. And called out he will be. His lengthy, tired history of clogging up this blog with gibberish notwithstanding.
“Sunday breakfast is a tradition in my house and the kitchen is calling.” I should say so. Sally forth!
Your third option is hilarious. This is how Bob “waits” for you to respond? How about actually waiting — and keeping his nose out of it?
Our dear Bob Livesay has tried for a long while to be our town’s gadfly. He has succeeded notably in becoming our equivalent of a fruit-fly or soil-gnat. Always buzzing. Always in danger of getting snapped up by a passing hummingbird. Seriously, I do read him carefully on city finances. Often enough, he makes sense. Whether or not he offers the best solutions is not for me to decide. I bless him anyway.
I believe I have addressed everything that the Poet Laureate has said in the past. Sorry I did not mention you as one of the Usual Suspects. So noted.
Are you you identifying yourself with Kaiser Sose (Sauce-say?)
Back at you Real American. You are now included in the Usual Suspects. So now answer my question if you can. I say unable and stuck in her Liberal/Socialist beliefs. Come on Real American show all of us how you have all the answers instead of just meaningless remarks.
More meaningless gibberish.
Yes, but it’s nice we’re all in one police line-up, now, ready to be identified for our Crimes Against the Hate.
I believe Ted Kennedy at any Republican nomination for the Supreme court was without a doubt very mean spirited. For one reason only, they were Republican nominees. Wives walking out in tears. No need for that. Also the bridge incident was enough to finish any man from future politics,. But not the favorite son Ted Kennedy.
Yes Robert Shelby you are part of the line-up and for good reason. “You have contributed nothing to a free way of life. Effort is required. You and your group of followers have obstructed the free way of life when effort is required. This Country has afforded you a good life and the freedoms you have. You have done nothing to maintaining its existence. The obstruction you and your followers are doing will not upset the balance that will maintain our freedoms. The menace of you and your followers will be curtailed by freedom lovers” Robert Livesay 1-27-2013.
Is that free way like free lunch? Or the freeway’s center divide where the roadkill ends up? As usual, you have not said what you really mean. If you had, it would not come across as nonsense. I worked most of my life for other people in various ways. I’ve had a productive life of which you know nothing. What did you do yourself? Cut fabric? Design clothes? Market stylish fads? Manage little girls in a garment sweat-shop? Cheat the market for big gains to yourself?
If you cleaned the bullshit out of your head, R.L., not much would remain. But, do write down all you know about freedom and the lovers of freedom. See if it covers the head of a pin. Then, sit on the point of that pin while you tell all you know about limitation, restriction, restraint, tyrannical accountability and deprivation of understanding.
You see Robert you have to defend yourself. I do not. You know nothing about me. Nothing Robert.
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs.”
– Thomas Jefferson
A beautiful passage, Thomas. Thanks for quoting it to us.
You’re welcome.
Thomas Jefferson — my favorite liberal secular humanist!
Folks, I happened to watch a good part of the Senate hearing on John Kerry, nominated for Secretary of State. I have to tell you, that listening to remarks and queries from a number of Republicans on the committee raised my hopes for the Republican Party and its contingent in Congress. Really smart, non-partisan talk on complex issues moved me to high respect for several of them.
Rand Paul, however, came on as challenging to the point of aggressive disrespect for Kerry. Of the two, Kerry was unmistakably the adult. Patient, forbearing and carefully responsive, he disarmed Paul, one point after another. It confirmed my feeling that Rand Paul is philosophically too immature to belong in the Senate.
Robert Shelby if what your saying is true I quess neither did Ted Kennedy. I am a Conservative and not a member of the Tea Party. So I would say that I do not agree with everything the Tea Party stands for. But at the same time they do back many of the Conservative ideals. Kerry is going to have a very easy time and get confirmed with very little opposition. I also believe that when it comes to cabinet positions the President has the right to chose who he wants and should have little if any opposition. I will not say that for Supreme court nominees. Their impact can go on for many years of Presidents from both sides of the fence.
“I would have a modicum of respect for those who seek to circumvent the Second Amendment if they stood up to ask for its abolishment; at least then they would be speaking honestly.”
In 1967 open carry was abolished in California. The Mulford Act, named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, was a bill that was signed by then California Governor Ronald Reagan. Reagan had the full backing of the NRA as well.
You mentioned the Mulford act previously on a different post, still not sure why you are bringing it up again.
From my POV I have never expressed a disagreement about reasonable restrictions on guns; I have instead voiced opposition to “gun control” being used as an excuse to encroachment on the 2nd Amendment to the point of negating the same, which is what is under consideration today (though rarely openly discussed).
Holy makerel, Dennis! Tell about these secret discussions. You know very well, don’t you, that in intellectual circles every damn thing under the sun gets discussed? You know also that many ideas discussed are then cussed in disgust and put away! 😉
every damn thing under the sun gets discussed
Of course it does Robert, but the subject in question; the Mulford Act, has now twice been thrown out in a tendentious manner, giving neither a perspective on relevance to the discussion or the historical context which necessitate the need of passage.
I notice Thomas has not elaborated on his reasons for bringing the law up, which would serve to confirm the classical ‘strawman’ purpose in doing so.
I may be wrong on that, but a failure to respond serves as confirmation
Careful! Them’s fightin words!
Seriously though, please accept my apologies for having been so tardy with my response. I spent this beautiful balmy Benicia day in the park with my kids. Then I cooked a delicious goat stew for dinner. This particular recipe required many steps in order to get the meat to become as succulent and as juicy as possible. I’m sure that at least a few here can attest to an appreciation for a delicious piece, or three, of well prepared meat.
In your previous comment, you failed to mention that you found my reference to the Mulford act of no consequence in regards to a previous and separate comment section. You later comment that, “…the Mulford Act, has now twice been thrown out in a tendentious manner “. Perhaps you can elaborate a little more on my first instance. If you choose not to, I will understand. It may be that this insinuation is only verifiable in your own mind. Nonetheless, I’m honored that you even noticed.
As far as my most current reference to the Mulford act goes, let us connect the dots:
Mr. Bray pointed out your figurative unfurling of the “Ronnie” vexillum. You state, “…his [Reagan’s] ability to recognize the genius of the Founding Fathers in creating a new constitutional republic.”. This statement leads one to believe that you fully agree with all aspects of RR’s interpretations of the constitution; not just limited to the economic aspects. In respect to 2A: if the current governors of the states of Arizona, Alaska and/or Nevada eradicated full open carry rights in their states tomorrow; one can bet that certain folks would consider it to be a step towards unconstitutionality dismantling 2A. However, in 1967 Ronnie did exactly that. He ended open carry in California by signing the Mumford act. At the time, as I am sure you are aware, there were certain people that protested, quite vehemently, the constitutionality of the act. I know, someone will say that Reagan was just playing up to his supporters amongst the Hollywood elite at the time. However, I don’t see Reagan’s actions at the time to be any different in comparison to how they would be viewed by certain folks today. I mention this in order to not “divert attention away from alarming parallels”.
Was this earlier version of Reagan also considered by you to be someone that had an “ability to recognize the genius of the Founding Fathers in creating a new constitutional republic”? Would you hold the earlier version of Reagan to, “I would have a modicum of respect for those who seek to circumvent the Second Amendment if they stood up to ask for its abolishment; at least then they would be speaking honestly.”? I don’t think Reagan confessed to his hopes for the abolishment of 2A. Yes I know, there is a possibility that Reagan did not have any hopes to abolish 2A. However, one can only say that with the same amount of certainty than one could say that current politicians want to abolish 2A.
It is apparent that you hold Reagan’s legacy in pretty high regard. I only ask that you consider that his legacy is a bit flawed in comparison to the model you hold up.
Thomas, my response to your comments (shown in italics):
leads one to believe that you fully agree with all aspects of RR’s interpretations of the constitution; not just limited to the economic aspects. — During the Reagan years, I was a card carrying Democrat, never voted for the man and had many issues on which I disagreed with him on, still do. But, as I matured, became more roundly informed on both sides and as I witness the rise of the Clinton’s I switched. My comments on Reagan were related primarily to two things: The success of his economic policies which took us out of the horrid economy of the Carter years, and Reagan was what he was, a Conservative who stood up to his detractors and stuck to his guns (so to speak).
You have seen no comments from me heralding Reagan beyond those made in reference to three things: the success of his economic policies, his victory in the Cold War, and the above in reference to letting America be that which was intended in the Constitution, including appropriate Amendments.
in 1967 Ronnie did exactly that. He ended open carry in California by signing the Mumford (sic) act. I note that again you do not put the Mulford act in context to what was occurring at the time (hence the use of tendentious), allow me to do so:
Armed militants were monitoring police calls and in response to certain calls then gathering in force, with loaded side arms ready, at the scene. This represented a clear threat to the police and action was required.
At the time, as I am sure you are aware, there were certain people that protested, — I was 14 years old at the time, but I have read up on the Mulford Act enough to read among those “certain people” were 30 Black Panthers, armed with guns, who marched on Sacramento in protest.
It is apparent that you hold Reagan’s legacy in pretty high regard. I only ask that you consider that his legacy is a bit flawed in comparison to the model you hold up. Primarily addressed in my response above, but I will add: The first LTE I wrote to the Herald over four years ago was in response to someone who made the claim that Reagan’s economic policies had been a failure. Democrats like Bill Clinton built their careers, in part, by destroying or ridiculing “Reagan-nomics”, then hypocritically turn around and follow many of the same policies.
Your comment can be turned back at you, as it is apparent from previous postings that you hold Obama in high regard, as I have yet to see a single comment which would indicate a disapproval of any action he has taken, many of which have: been highly questionable (Walpin, Holder, Adams), unconstitutional (recess appointments), resulted in deaths (drones, Fast and Furious, Benghazi), aided to destroy the economy (Off shore drilling, Shell, Arch Coal), broken pledges (Gitmo), hypocritical (Brazilian off-shore drilling) and more.
“Armed militants were monitoring police calls and in response to certain calls then gathering in force, with loaded side arms ready, at the scene. This represented a clear threat to the police and action was required.”
It should be added that their purpose in monitoring police activity was to insure/witness that detainees were not having their civil rights violated. As it was well known that police departments were permeated with racist officers at the time. I may be mistaken, but I have not seen any evidence that these incidents broke out in fire fights. The carrying of guns was more symbolic, similar to Tea Party folks bringing firearms to their rallies.
“I was 14 years old at the time, but I have read up on the Mulford Act enough to read among those “certain people” were 30 Black Panthers, armed with guns, who marched on Sacramento in protest.”
Again, similar to Tea Party folks bringing firearms to their rallies.
It can be argued that the gun legislation at the time and the proposed gun legislation today is simply the result of one group attempting to limit another group’s 2A rights.
“You have seen no comments from me heralding Reagan beyond those made in reference to three things: the success of his economic policies, his victory in the Cold War, and the above in reference to letting America be that which was intended in the Constitution, including appropriate Amendments.”
You are correct I have not. However, you are without a doubt currently a card carrying right-winger and you frequently herald conservative ideals, and more often than not you do so by poo-pooing the ideals of the other side. Am I wrong?
Which brings me to this: “Your comment can be turned back at you, as it is apparent from previous postings that you hold Obama in high regard, as I have yet to see a single comment which would indicate a disapproval of any action”
Nor have you seen a single comment, not even in part, from me which would indicate approval of any of Obama’s actions. Additionally, you’ve seen no comment from me which would verify my political affiliation. I’m really not a card-carrying member of anything. I find that allegiance to a political party limits freedom, as it requires a overbearing and self-limiting level of conformity.
Really?
Yes, Thomas, Republicans scarcely even try to be consistent with themselves, anymore. Romney was the clearest index of this that I ever saw. Oh, some of them make great palaver about “going back to First Principles,” but anyone who understands logical casuistry knows “First Principles” are used as a trick to bypass what are actually the high values. It’s a sort of bait-and-switch. High sounding cant. Rubbish. Verbal entrapment in narrow thinking.
No doubt.
Okay, Bob, you didn’t say anything there I disagree with except trying to demote Ted to standing on a par with Rand. That’s just absurd. Ted Kennedy’s lifetime of work was a benefit to the nation. Rand Paul is too radically simplistic not to be institutionally destructive. Kennedy faced the future. Paul wants to bring back a past that never really existed even before 1800. Of course, he’d never baldly admit that.
I wonder that extreme Libertarians and Tea Party-goers don’t start wearing knee-britches over white stockings and buckled, square-toed shoes, frock coats with lace at cuff & collar, tricornered hats, and put hoop skirts and iron panties on the women. That would identify how they really see themselves.
A much deeper look at Ronald Reagan…
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/02/reagan-revisionism-planned-centennial.html
Will we all knew if you looked long enough you would find a Liberal/Socialist that would agree with you so called Progressives. Will you may want to go back and take a look at one of your post about the 47mil .You wanted some answers. I did give you the answers. . It appears no one else will. Stick with me WilloI will answer all your questions in a very timely manor with facts that are accurate and correct. Just ask. Happy to help.
Am I wrong?
Yes, in several ways.
Thanks, Will. A good link. Steve Lendman reminds us that Ronald Reagan was: “ideologically hard right, his legacy including:
— disdain for working Americans;
— contempt for the rule of law, civil liberties, human rights, and democratic freedoms; and
— support for concentrated wealth, power and budget-busting militarism.
He backed:
— sweeping deregulation;
— destructive “free trade;”
— offshoring high-paying manufacturing jobs;
— the war on drugs – in fact, a war on poor minorities, escalating America’s prison population to the highest by far in the world, two-thirds in it Blacks and Latinos, most for nonviolent offenses;
— tax cuts for the rich;
— draconian social program cuts;
— support for global despots, apartheid South Africa, star wars, death squads, proxy wars in Central America, Africa, Afghanistan, and Middle East by helping Iran and Iraq wage war;
— contempt for gays, lesbians, people of color, the poor and disadvantaged, and more.”
Shelby that is a lot of Liberal/Socialist facts. Please elaborate in detail on all of those so called facts. If you chose not to I will assume it is just your unproven opinion.
Not sure if this will work or not, as I am trying to post a graph (available at the Link below), which paints a picture on one aspect of the economic success of the Reagan years.
The Economy and Five U.S. Presidents
Here is the link