38 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-9-18

  1. The self-licking ice cream cone.

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/02/07/trey-gowdy-exactly-one-guy-blame-muellers-self-licking-ice-cream-cone-investigation/

    “As many of us predicted, Robert Mueller’s investigation seems largely out of control and with no end in sight (this didn’t take genius, by the way, you only had to be sentient during the Walsh, Starr, and Fitzpatrick investigations to see how the movie would end). Where sheer common sense and a smidgen of patriotism required Mueller to address, the issue of campaign collusion and do so fast–keep in mind, the FBI had been investigating the same case for about seven months when Mueller was appointed–Mueller seems intent on investigating just about anything his heart desires. Mueller’s investigation now looks as though it has become what is known as a self-licking ice cream cone (as an aside, the expression is much older than the 1992 date Wikipedia sets). It is an operation whose only purpose is to perpetuate its own existence.

    Yesterday, Trey Gowdy was interview by Fox News’s Martha McCallum. He had a similar view and he identified the problem:

    “You have seen special councils in the past leave their purview and the investigation goes on for a long time, the next thing you know, you are investigating a Monica Lewinsky case when the president didn’t even know her when the special counsel began his work. You don’t have any fear of that here?” MacCallum asked.

    Gowdy said that the Mueller investigation has already wandered away from it’s original intention, but he doesn’t blame Mueller — rather, he blames the person who set the purview for the case.

    “Do I have fear that jurisdiction may wander a bit? I think it already has,” he responded. “It has already wandered a little bit. But I would not blame Bob Mueller. I would blame whoever drafted the jurisdiction and the charter that empowered him. If you look at it, it says matters that may arise from the investigation. What the heck heck does that mean? Is that a bank robbery in Topeka, Kansas?”

    MacCallum questioned if Rosenstein was the one who wrote that language, and Gowdy confirmed that detail.

    “And that language came from Rod Rosenstein?” she asked.

    “Yes ma’am,” Gowdy said bluntly.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Biggest scandal in modern history.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/why_fisa-gate_is_scarier_than_watergate_136214.html

    “We are now in the midst of a third great modern scandal. Members of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice sought court approval for the surveillance of Carter Page, allegedly for colluding with Russian interests, and extended the surveillance three times.

    But none of these government officials told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the warrant requests were based on an unverified dossier that had originated as a hit piece funded in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign to smear Donald Trump during the current 2016 campaign.

    Nor did these officials reveal that the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, had already been dropped as a reliable source by the FBI for leaking to the press.

    Nor did officials add that a Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, had met privately with Steele — or that Ohr’s wife, Nellie, had been hired to work on the dossier.

    Unfortunately, such disclosures may be only the beginning of the FISA-gate scandal.

    Members of the Obama administration’s national security team also may have requested the names of American citizens connected with the Trump campaign who had been swept up in other FISA surveillance. Those officials may have then improperly unmasked the names and leaked them to a compliant press — again, for apparent political purposes during a campaign.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Always check out these “non-partisan” groups closely, because they rarely are as advertised.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/richard-painter-and-the-david-brock-engineered-partisan-non-partisan-crew/#more-241541

    “In July 2017, I wrote about a rising star in the anti-Trump media, Stop taking Richard Painter seriously given history of outlandish statements and treason accusations:

    Richard Painter is the Vice Chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-wing activist group.

    In December 2016, Painter replaced in the position of Vice Chair … wait for it … David Brock. Yes, that David Brock, the consummate Democratic oppo-research attack dog, leader of Media Matters, and now American Bridge. That David Brock was Vice Chair of CREW tells you everything you need to know about the group.

    But you will almost never hear this part of Painter’s resume when he appears on TV, which he does quite often. You might hear that he’s a professor at U. Minnesota Law School. But most of all, you will hear that he is a former George W. Bush administration Chief Ethics Lawyer (2005-2007).

    But in the age of Trump, his entree to TV commentary has been relentless Trump bashing — there is nothing the media loves more than someone who served in an Republican administration but now attacks Trump.

    And Painter’s main TV role is to attack Trump in outlandish terms. I never heard of Painer — and I bet you never did either — until he started fulfilling the TV role of attacking Trump.

    Painter continues to be the most visible face of CREW, along with Chairman Norm Eisen, Obama’s former ethics “czar.” A Republican and a Democrat, having served Republican and Democrat presidents, respectively, give the appearance of CREW being non-partisan.”

    But as The Free Beacon documents, it’s all a charade, enabled by a stubborn mainstream media refusal to identify Painter and Eisen’s CREW connection, and the true nature of CREW.

    The Free Beacon documents this media failure, An Unethical CREW — Media ignores left-wing mission of Norm Eisen and Richard Painter’s outfit:

    CREW bills itself as a nonpartisan organization looking at ethics violations on both sides of the aisle. However, the organization was once led by Clinton operative David Brock and is an approved funding group of the Democracy Alliance, which helps guide donations from wealthy liberals to anti-Republican activist organizations.

    The Free Beacon’s analysis, which examined footage from Nov. 1, 2017 to Feb. 1, found that Norman Eisen, the chairman of CREW who was previously an ethics “czar” for Barack Obama, appeared on CNN, where he is a contributor, and HLN at least 19 times. However, he was identified as leading CREW at the start of an interview just three times.

    Eisen, who was mainly introduced as the former Obama White House ethics “czar,” did not make any efforts to disclose his position with CREW when anchors had failed to mention them.

    The statistics are worse when it comes to Richard Painter, the vice chairman of CREW.

    Painter, a self-identified Republican who served as a White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, has been a vocal Trump critic since the 2016 Republican primary.

    Painter, CREW’s vice-chair, joined the organization in late 2016 when it was led by David Brock, the liberal operative and Clinton loyalist who founded Media Matters. Painter’s political affiliation gave the organization a patina of bipartisanship as it ramped up efforts to oppose Trump in the media and in courts.

    Painter conducted at least 68 interviews on MSNBC, CNN, and HLN and was only twice introduced as part of CREW during the same time period Eisen made his 19 appearances, the analysis found.

    In nearly every other instance, he was only introduced as some variance of the former White House ethics lawyer for Bush, a position that he left nearly 11 years ago. Painter also failed to disclose his current position on air when his current title was not mentioned.”

    Like

  4. Interesting turn.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/07/republicans_see_trump_as_top_asset_in_senate_races_136208.html

    “While conventional wisdom holds that Donald Trump will be a drag on Republican chances of maintaining control of the House, those vying to expand the party’s majority in the Senate are embracing the president as a unique asset in the upcoming campaigns.

    Unlike the House map, the Republicans’ path to success in the upper chamber runs through 10 states Trump won in 2016 — five of them by double-digit margins. But beyond those favorable fundamentals, the GOP is looking to the president to lead something of a mass-marketing campaign against well-known Democratic incumbents.

    Party operatives see the president’s penchant for coining catchy — and pejorative – nicknames, along with his made-for-television campaign rallies, as particularly helpful through the long primary process, helping to define the opposition while Republicans pick their nominees.

    “The messaging power and the branding power Trump has is different from any elected official,” said one Republican familiar with Senate races this year. “It’s a very valuable asset he has, and that he alone has been able to hone.”

    Despite the party’s favorable map, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has cautioned Republicans not to “fall in love” with it. Most of the Democratic incumbents in the 10 so-called Trump states are battle-tested, well financed and have made names for themselves as independent of the national Democratic Party and as officeholders in sync with their electorate. And in some of those states, Republicans have yet to field a credible challenger.

    But the GOP is counting on the president to spotlight the incumbents’ votes, particularly on the tax reform bill. Strategists point to Vice President Mike Pence’s trip to West Virginia last week as an example of what is to come from the top. There, he hit Sen. Joe Manchin for voting against the tax bill, health care repeal and other Republican priorities, repeating the phrase “Joe Voted No” and following up later with a series of tweets. Manchin fired back, defending his votes and calling Pence divisive and partisan.”

    Like

  5. A new Senate report says ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion contributed to the opioid epidemic.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/02/07/senate-report-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-contributed-opioid-epidemic/

    “The Senate Homeland Security Committee released a report in mid-January that received surprisingly little media attention despite its provocative assertion that Obamacare, and particularly its enormous expansion of Medicaid, is a driving force behind the opioid epidemic.
    The case laid out by the report is straightforward, logical, and politically unspeakable. It’s an argument generally made in hushed tones until now, and it’s easy to see why. Even the Senate Homeland Security report was swiftly denounced as a “partisan fantasy” peddled by chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) in what little mainstream media coverage it received. Thou shalt not speak ill of Medicaid.

    And yet, the critics could find no way to refute the actual data in the report. They denounced it with thunderous virtue-signaling outrage, attacked those involved in preparing it, criticized arguments it did not make – such as pretending the report claims the opioid epidemic was caused by Medicaid expansion, rather than exacerbated by it – or simply assumed that all critiques of Medicaid and Obamacare must be partisan hit jobs, Q.E.D.

    This validates one of the core concerns about politicizing medicine, or any other scientific field, by putting Big Government in charge of it. Rational discussion becomes impossible. Every analysis quickly devolves into a partisan brawl.

    The report postulates Medicaid expansion is a contributing factor to the epidemic of opioid abuse – not the sole or original cause, as the report itself and Sen. Johnson took pains to point out, despite mischaracterizations by critics. Much of the opioid crisis involves prescription drugs, which can become addictive even when legitimately prescribed, and are often stolen through fraud and resold on the street. Medicaid expansion greatly increased access to prescription drugs. Medicaid also includes programs to fight drug abuse, but some of those programs involve pharmaceutical treatments that can themselves become addictive, especially when they fall into the hands of street pushers.

    It requires no great leap of logic to see the connection between a dramatic increase in access to drugs and a problem driven by easy access to drugs, and yet it is evidently heretical to state that relationship out loud. That’s even more remarkable when the increased use and abuse of painkillers is universally acknowledged as a major element of the opioid crisis.

    No one seems to have trouble acknowledging that fact when blaming pharmaceutical companies for creating and pushing drugs, doctors for over-prescribing them, or Americans for reporting remarkably high levels of pain and demanding truckloads of pills to deal with it. The Senate report itself states at the very beginning that the opioid epidemic is complicated, and “most agree that development, marketing, and medical training regarding drug usage – and the resulting over-prescription of opioids – have played a key role.”

    Ask if a massive government program that makes it much easier for over one-fifth of the population to get drugs could be part of the problem, however, and you’re a hyper-partisan monster who really just wants to kill poor people by taking away their Obamacare. The Senate committee demonstrated its understanding of just how hot this political potato is by filling the early pages of the report with lavish praise for Medicaid and its good intentions, and repeatedly stating that government spending on drugs is but one factor in a complex crisis that deserves careful analysis.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. In my opinion, the drug epidemic is a plague driven by hopelessness and depression (or despair). These are primarily spiritual conditions, although clinical depression apparently can have a physical component that can be greatly helped with medicine. Although rehabs may help, if such treatments are not combined with the regenerative power of Christ, lasting changes are doubtful. Reducing medicaid indiscriminately would not a particularly good antidote to the problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. This is an interesting development: Macy’s is coming out with a new line of modest women’s clothing aimed at the Muslim market. I’m a little sad that it has come packaged as specifically Muslim clothing because affordable options for more modest Christians (and Orthodox Jews) have been just as restricted. But in the long run I don’t suppose it matters that much, because the trend will be helpful regardless of the marketing focus. It’s good for Christian women and girls to feel like they have the option to cover up a little more without having to go full-on Amish or wear a feed sack. :–)

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-macys-muslim-fashion-line-20180208-story.html

    Like

  8. Now who was it supposedly colluding with the Russians again?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

    “Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.

    “We have so much to discuss u need to be careful but we can help our country,” Warner texted the lobbyist, Adam Waldman, on March 22, 2017.

    “I’m in,” Waldman, whose firm has ties to Hillary Clinton, texted back to Warner.

    Steele famously put together the anti-Trump dossier of unverified information that was used by FBI and Justice Department officials in October 2016 to get a warrant to conduct surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page. Despite the efforts, Steele has not agreed to an interview with the committee.

    Secrecy seemed very important to Warner as the conversation with Waldman heated up March 29, when the lobbyist revealed that Steele wanted a bipartisan letter from Warner and the committee’s chairman, North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, inviting him to talk to the Senate intelligence panel.

    Throughout the text exchanges, Warner seemed particularly intent on connecting directly with Steele without anyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee being in the loop — at least initially. In one text to the lobbyist, Warner wrote that he would “rather not have a paper trail” of his messages.”
    ————————

    Gee, I wonder why………

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Whole lotta collusion going on. Mueller’s just looking in the wrong place.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/09/former-state-official-teenage-steele-blumenthal-fbi-conduit-something/

    “Earlier this week, House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes told people that he would shift his focus in the handling of the Russia-collusion probe from the FBI to the State Department. The issue at hand, Byron York reported last month, was a possible conduit between Christopher Steele and his work on the Donald Trump dossier and other Obama administration officials outside of normal counterintelligence channels:

    But it appears some investigators are looking beyond the 35 pages of reports done by Steele for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, that were published in January 2017 by BuzzFeed. They’re looking into whether Steele did other reports about Trump, perhaps similar but not identical to what was in the dossier published by BuzzFeed. And they are looking into whether those reports made their way to the State Department. They’re also seeking to learn what individual State Department officials did in relation to Steele, and whether there were any contacts between the State Department and the FBI or Justice Department concerning the anti-Trump material.

    It’s not clear whether State Department activity related to Steele’s Russia project took place in the months leading up to the 2016 election, during the transition, or both.

    The Atlantic reported Monday that the focus would fall on one official in particular:

    Devin Nunes has a new target: Jonathan Winer, the Obama State Department’s special envoy to Libya, and longtime Senate aide to John Kerry. Winer received a memorandum written by political activist Cody Shearer and passed it along to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence official who had compiled his own dossier on Donald Trump.

    Actually, there’s one more figure in this conduit that the Atlantic mentions later: Sidney Blumenthal. The longtime Clintonland fixer, and supplier of questionably acquired intelligence to Hillary Clinton before the attack on the Benghazi, helped move the Shearer memo around to Winer. Winer then forwarded it to Steele, who then passed it back to the FBI, where Blumenthal’s efforts became part of their counterintelligence probe, likely without the bureau knowing its full provenance.

    If that sounds mighty convenient for Hillary Clinton, Winer wants everyone to know that he saw this as doing his job. Winer writes an amazing pre-emptive column in the Washington Post attempting to head off any suspicion before it gathers too much steam. Winer had been in contact with Steele during the summer of 2016 and had been passing notes made from his reports to Victoria Nuland, a career State official whose responsibilities at that time were Europe and Asia, which made her a natural fit for dealing with Russia issues. (Nuland had also been the spokesperson for State during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.) Nuland told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday that she simply passed the information to the FBI, as it was “not in our purview” at State.

    We’ll get back to that in a moment. But that’s when Blumenthal and Cody Shearer enter the picture:”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Ricky, 1) In a showdown between the President and the FBI, I would believe the evidence over either one.
    2) I don’t count my briskets before election day; you shouldn’t count your chocolates yet either.
    3) Short selling is tricky business, and takes stronger hands than I have at the moment. Also, I think much volatility is caused by high volume computer spoofing.

    Like

  11. Good question. Where were all those mythological “fiscal conservatives” we always hear about?

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/why-is-rand-paul-the-only-senator-fighting-a-budget-deal-that-includes-1t-in-spending/

    “Paul rightly pointed out Republican hypocrisy on federal spending, noting that the same people voting to raise the debt ceiling for the next two years lambasted President Obama for wanting to do the same.

    I’m so old, I remember Republicans touting cut, cap, and balance back in 2011, even if they don’t.

    Which begs the question, why is Paul alone in calling attention to our runaway federal deficit?

    Mike Lee stood with Paul, but only to criticize the binary choices parliamentary procedure creates:

    After Paul withstood a barrage of criticism from his colleagues, the like-minded Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) came to the floor to defend him. He said individual senators are “left out of the process” and left with a binary choice of voting yes or no, with no alterations to legislation.

    The legislation, all 700 pages of it were introduced at midnight Wednesday, leaving less than 48 hours to sort through the spending monstrosity. This is the exact same kind of governance Republicans complained about for 8 years: introduced hundreds of pages of legislation in the dead of night, leave little to no time to review said legislation, insist the legislation must be passed or else! Republicans might not be trotting out children, but they’re shamelessly using the military as a political prop in this battle.”
    ———————–

    Like

  12. Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-may-block-permanent-residency-requests-from-visa-recipients-who-receive-government-benefits/article/2648542

    “The Department of Homeland Security has drafted a proposal that would negatively affect legal immigrants’ chances of attaining permanent residency in the U.S. if he or she used public benefits prior to applying for that status, according to a report published Thursday afternoon.

    The proposed new rules would allow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers to consider an applicant’s reliance on taxpayer-funded benefits, including food assistance, government pre-school programs, utility bill subsidies, and health insurance premiums.

    The proposal states a person would be deemed a “public charge” if he or she relies on “any government assistance in the form of cash, checks or other forms of money transfers, or instrument and non-cash government assistance in the form of aid, services, or other relief.”

    Acting DHS press secretary Tyler Houlton said any change to current policy would stay within the law and is only meant to safeguard taxpayers’ money.

    “The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer. Any potential changes to the rule would be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the law – as well as the reasonable expectations of the American people for the government to be good stewards of taxpayer funds,” Houlton told the Washington Examiner.

    Additionally, the proposal states “non-citizens who receive public benefits are not self-sufficient and are relying on the U.S. government and state and local entities for resources instead of their families, sponsors or private organizations.””

    Like

  13. Obama, friend of extremists, and funder of terrorists.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/inside-the-ring-obama-era-cash-traced-to-iran-back/

    “The U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.

    According to knowledgeable sources, Iran has used the funds to pay its main proxy, the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, along with the Quds Force, Iran’s main foreign intelligence and covert action arm and element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

    The U.S. money supplied to Iran as part of an arms settlement dating back to the 1970s also has been traced to Iran’s backing of Houthi rebels seeking to take power in Yemen. Iran has been supporting the Yemen rebels as part of a bid to encircle and eventually take control of Saudi Arabia.

    The intelligence tracing the American funds to Iranian-backed terrorists is likely to further fuel President Trump’s effort to undo the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration’s main foreign policy initiative codified in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the Iran nuclear deal is called.

    Despite promises to reject the deal during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump announced in January the U.S. would not pull out of the Iran nuclear accord for now. But the president criticized the transfer of money to Tehran and signaled that Washington is going after Iran’s funding of terrorism.

    “The enormous financial windfall the Iranian regime received because of the deal — access to more than $100 billion, including $1.8 billion in cash — has not been used to better the lives of the Iranian people,” Mr. Trump said Jan. 12. “Instead, it has served as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression, and to further line the pockets of corrupt regime leaders.””

    Like

  14. Guys, not all people who consider themselves conservative are fiscally conservative. Some of us think the country can and ought to spend money on infrastructure of various kinds and other things that promote the general welfare of the nation as a whole. And I have known some self-described libertarians who are only fiscal conservatives until their government employers try to cut back on employee raises or pensions. Then, even the most fiscally conservative of them tend to lose their conservatism altogether unless they are also strong social conservatives. That’s one reason that government unions and unfettered lobbyists are a bad idea.

    It’s human nature to work for your self-interest even to the point of damaging others or damaging the whole. That’s why government was instituted— to put some internal brakes on the nations so we do not go over-board in that endeavor….hopefully.

    Like

  15. I think that function of putting brakes on undesirable activity is also why the investigations that are happening nationally are so important. Although I find most of these investigations to be incredibly boring (with he said/she said back and forth accusations) but still they are incredibly important because they shine the light in the dark places of government. Accountability will help us stay on a more just and merciful path.

    Like

  16. Debra @ 6:10 But If a person who considered himself/herself to be a conservative and was NOT fiscally conservative, we used to consider that person to be a pro-life Democrat. I have known a number of fiscal conservatives who are consistent across the board. I have even known honest liberals who are committed to supporting themselves and aren’t looking to be subsidized by their fellow citizens.

    Republican support of this spending bill is worse than Republican support of Trump. We have seen this pattern twice. Republicans in Congress limited Bill Clinton’s spending and the budget was balanced. Little Bush got in and the Rs spent like drunken sailors. Under Obama, the Rs again sought to be a check on his spending. Now, they are again spendthrifts.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Dreher on the Alt-Right:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christians-take-the-alt-right-seriously/

    Our time continues to remind me of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s:
    A. A church in decline and aligned with bad politicians.
    B. A growing extreme leftist movement at odds with C.
    C. A lower-class, nativist rightist movement at odds with B.
    D. A decline in the number of people who support the rule of law.
    E. Rampant perversion and a toxic culture.

    Like

  18. Liked by 1 person

  19. Ricky, if there is such a thing as a socially conservative Democrat I have yet to see it. There are Blue Dogs, but if I’m not mistaken they are more fiscally conservative Democrats, not socially conservative. You are determined to find me a new ideological home, though I am content to be relatively powerless within the Republican camp. :–)

    Like

  20. Debra, There used to be a bunch of you. You voted for FDR and Truman. You elected Jimmy Carter. You are the Last of the Mohicans.

    Like

  21. Another one from the BabylonBee:

    “Op-Ed: Looks Like We Forgot To Defund Planned Parenthood Again Like We Promised—Shucks, Sorry, Darnit—Maybe Next Time

    Fellow Americans: we want to take a quick moment of your time to apologize. You probably heard that we just passed a huge spending deal—and it looks like we totally forgot to defund Planned Parenthood again, even though we promised you countless times we would do exactly that if you would just give us the chance. Dangit!

    Shucks, we’re really sorry.

    Despite the fact that self-proclaimed pro-life Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, for goodness sake, I guess we just sort of blanked there. So, unfortunately, the nation’s largest abortion provider, which kills more than 300,000 unborn babies annually, will continue to receive more than half a billion taxpayer dollars from the federal government every single year. Seriously, more than 500 million dollars. $543,700,000 last year, to be exact. We’re just going to continue handing it to them.”

    http://babylonbee.com/news/looks-like-forgot-defund-planned-parenthood-like-promised-shucks-sorry-darnit-maybe-next-time/

    Liked by 2 people

  22. LBJ thought you could eliminate poverty, but even Jesus said it would always be with us. You can’t change human nature, but you can move toward a more just and merciful government when you fear God. I suspect I would be a 1950s Reagan–not the 1980s version; we know what that became. The last of the Mohicans indeed. And homeless within the Republican camp. :–)

    Liked by 1 person

  23. In the 1950s we didn’t have too big to fail, too big to jail, too big to exist corporations running healthcare and many other aspects of our lives. These didn’t really come into existence until after the Reagan revolution. At that time the lid came off of all manner of laws that restricted corporations from owning other corporations, which prevented mega-mergers, monopolistic abuse, etc. Then after the S&L debacle which ended in many financial executives being jailed, more protective laws were dismantled so the jailings and real accountability in financial institutions especially could not happen again. We’ve lost our way, and continuing down a wrong path will not magically result in a better outcome.

    Reagan had great and inspiring speeches, but the implementation of his solutions have not served us well.

    Like

  24. The programs that created the vast majority of our national debt were LBJ Great Society programs. Anyone that can read a pie chart can see that. See the list above. LBJ’s programs caused our healthcare to cost twice as much as that of any other nation on earth. They created an underclass that is largely dependent on government. Our shrinking group of taxpayers pay for the food, housing, transportation, retirement, “disability” benefits and healthcare of the Democrats and the Trumpers. We even pay for the opioids they are now using to kill themselves. Soon we will be paying for rehab and various “cures” for the ones who survive the overdoses.

    Reagan warned us about all of this. He tried to reverse the damage of LBJ’s disasters and gave us a brief Indian Summer of American greatness. However, lots of people enjoy (and become addicted to) government goodies.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.