Friday, October 12, 2018

Comparing Trump and Reagan

On October 7, 1984, President Reagan famously said to Walter Mondale, “There you go again.”  Historically, gentlemanly detractors also maligned him.  Mark Weinberg makes this same mistake in his Trump-Reagan column, “Where do we go from here”.  For Weinberg, political nostalgia has caused confusion over personality and substance regarding his subjects. 

On the basis of policies and accomplishments President Trump has proven he’s our generation’s Reagan.  What of Donald Trump's “Make America Great Again” motto: a Reaganesque message trumpeting U.S. exceptionalism?  Specifically, Trump has modeled Reaganomics by lower taxes to spur today’s 4.2 percent GDP.  In his first year, the Trump administration reduced the federal workforce by almost 13,000.  Given Reagan’s abhorrence for the size and scope of government, the Trump era rollback of 22 regulations for every new one is clearly something “The Gipper” would approve of.  Furthermore, both men value the rule of law and keeping our country safe.

Similar in substance is Trump to Reagan on the international stage.  His policy of direct engagement with foreign leaders and his “Peace through strength” doctrine mirror Reagan’s.  In the 1980s, the geopolitical foe was Gorbachev, and the “evil empire” was the Soviet Union.  Today’s villainous regime is North Korea and Kim Jong Un.  The actors have changed, but not the chairs.  Where it counts, who’s more Reagan than Trump?  

Warts and all, each man is the leader of his time.  In his smiling, affable way “The Great Communicator” fought just as tenaciously as Trump’s fighting now.  But the game has changed.  It’s unrealistic to expect a plainspoken New York billionaire to be constrained by the pearl-clutching behaviors of the past.  After all, neither political party has remained static in its orientation.  How much do outspoken, big government socialists—infesting today’s Democratic Party—have in common with the policies or demeanor of JFK?  The return to civility will only happen when the American people demand it from every representative.  Meanwhile, it’s too easy to fixate on the President.  In “Julius Caesar” the Bard counseled, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, August 31, 2018

Biden’s words fowl in DeSantis’ mouth

How can identical words be “offense” only when uttered by a Republican politician?  Ron DeSantis, the Trump-supported candidate for governor of Florida, said of his Democratic opponent, “He’s an articulate spokesman for far-left views, and he’s a charismatic candidate.”  The sensible among us would recognize such descriptors as inherently complimentary.

Not so with the free speech-repressing politically correct crowd.  From DeSantis the left automatically heard “racist dog whistles” because the Democratic nominee is Andrew Gillum, the progressive mayor of Tallahassee, who happens to be black.  By contrast, the left remains silent as crickets that Joe Biden used the same language to describe then presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007:

“I mean you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s storybook, man.”

Obviously the faux outrage is only reserved for representatives of the anti-bigotry party of Lincoln.  Unfortunately, this tempest in a teapot was further inflamed by Mr. DeSantis’ unsavvy reference to “monkey this up” by embracing Mr. Gillum’s socialist agenda.  For political polarization, Democrats assume the worst, most twisted  interpretation of GOP gaffes: a quality completely ignored in their own candidates.  With the left's linguistic double standard, truth is an easy sacrifice for an ill-gotten political advantage.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, August 27, 2018

Overcoming the China Syndrome

Clifford D. May’s “The China syndrome” is spot on.  Many Americans, and Washington decision-makers, still mistakenly view China as a trading partner rather than a geo-political adversary.  Mr. May’s correct that our “friends” are singularly focused on usurping America’s First World position.  This reality was echoed in a recent Mark Levin interview with National Security and Defense Strategy expert Michael Pillsbury (Director of the Center of Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute) who said of the Chinese: 

The key source of economic growth is science and technology [also known as technology-based planning].  ... It's a comprehensive approach that to become number one in the world we've got to get hold of what they call the innovation technology base.  Find out the most dramatic, profit-making technologies in the world and get them—by one means or another.

Via TBP, the Chinese correctly exploit technology to produce superior goods and services, exported globally.  The resulting influx of wealth facilitates China’s worldwide “bullying” of other nations so aptly detailed by Mr. May.  

Likewise, the U.S. is not immune to this systematic erosion of autonomy.  In fact, the quicksand is greatly aided by America’s distracted focus on financial shell games (ie, financed-based planning) such as lowering taxes, reducing government regulations and tariffs.  These manipulations only work in the short run—and won’t counter China’s long-term strategy to undermine and diminish U.S. strength. 

Essentially, it's like they’re playing chess while America plays checkers.  A titanic threat to the course of nations.  The Chinese enjoy this sustained competitive advantage due to technology-based planning.  The U.S. government must immediately implement our own available system: a great topic for Mr. May’s next article.

David L. Hunter is the writer of “How to Rebuild a First World Economy

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Photos Suggest Shared Shadiness

Almost 2,500 years ago Greek fabulist Aesop sagely advised, “A man is known by the company he keeps”.  A modern analogy is seen in whom one chooses to break bread with.  This concept particularly applies to the slippery Clintons, and the now disgraced movie mogul they chose to dine with on December 13, 2016.  That Hollywood bigwig is today’s accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein.  According to photographs—mysteriously only recently uncovered by Britain’s Daily Mail, not the mainstream media—Hillary is seated between two men accused of sexual assault; the other being her husband Bill.  Ah, the “hiddenness” of such open secrets—and the curious concealment of related pictures.

Historically, Hillary knew about Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” in the 1990s.  Another Clintonian open secret: long denied until the irrefutable DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.  Likewise, in her decades-long friendship with Weinstein, is it possible that she didn’t know when everyone in Hollywood seemed to?  At the exclusive East Harlem eatery called Rao’s—mere weeks after her failed presidential campaign—Hillary is fraternizing with such a man?  Given her stinging political defeat one would reasonably infer she would surround herself with trusted intimates.  That means either she didn’t know or she didn't care.  Either way, what would Aesop say about her character, or theirs?
The suppression of questionable photos involving prominent Democrats is nothing new.  Another telling example is an obscure image taken at a weekly Congressional Black Caucus lunch back in 2005.  A single frame shot by Askia Muhammad and hidden by him for 13 years.  The main subjects were then freshman senator Barack Obama and the minister Louis Farrakhan: the highly controversial anti-Semitic, anti-white and anti-gay leader of the Nation of Islam.  (For context, per the New York Times, Mr. Farrakhan described Adolf Hitler as “a very great man” in 1984.)  If exposed then, what would the electorate have thought of photographic proof of connection between both men?

In any case, here’s what Mr. Muhammad told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “I swore myself to secrecy. If the picture was exposed, it could still be a deal breaker for Obama [becoming president]. … I did not want to be the instrument of his downfall.”  His candid response likely explains why Hillary’s Weinstein photographs also took so long to surface.  Using Aesop's standard, these images depict associations with dubious characters.  Why hide these photos for years unless they symbolize a deeper reality of collective corruption?

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Primary Upset Shows Red Innards

The cannibalization of Democrats—now philosophically interchangeable with Bernie Sanders-style socialism—is fascinating (and deeply disturbing) to see.  What else explains last week's primary defeat of establishment candidate Rep. Joseph Crowley?  Shockingly, the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress—a 10-term incumbent—pink-slipped by the voters of NY-14.  In Mr. Crowley's former slot now stands a genuine pinko: 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ah, à la Obama, another fresh-faced progressive spinning the old yarn of collectivism.  On NBC's “Meet the Press” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mirrored the former “hope and change” president by stating, “I’m an educator, I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the United States.”  Well, everyone values such things; the question is how they’re achieved.  In reality, capitalism already provides that to the most people of any economic system—with the added benefit of self-determination. 

Socialism is always based upon redistribution of government resources.  Therefore, in practice, this House nominee peddles de facto economic enslavement via perpetual government dependence.  That's not the American way.  In truth, it’s a complete abandonment of the principles that defined their party under JFK.  Would President Kennedy want higher taxes, single-payer healthcare, radical criminal justice “reform” to empty prisons, and open U.S. borders (by abolishing ICE)?  Furthermore, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim “Democrats are a big-tent party” is as hollow as her dystopian rhetoric.  By today’s standards, JFK’s policies place him slightly left of mainstream Republicans.  On that basis, Jack would be shown the door as unceremoniously as Joseph Crowley was. 

Would the late Norman Thomas, a fellow socialist, Presbyterian preacher and six-time presidential candidate, be that surprised by the unvarnished emergence of another democratic upstart?  Reverend Thomas famously prophesied that socialism would stealthily (and incrementally) arrive in America wearing the mantle of the Democratic Party.  In the modern era, it emerged with the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2015.  That movement has gained a latest toehold with the unexpected victory of millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The white and blue has been drained from the Democratic Party, but the red—at its metastasized heart—remains.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Ryan Leaving Washington Broke(n)

What should be said of Wisconsin's Paul, the Unwilling: the earnestly mannered, fresh-faced, doe-eyed House Speaker? During his three years in charge, this “policy wonk” spends as frivolously as any progressive—while piously opining about conservatism. For context, when Mr. Ryan became a representative in January of 1999 the U.S. debt was only $5.56 trillion. Given the nation's deeply underwater finances—that ballooned over his 19-year career (and spanned four U.S. presidents), Ryan's truly a Republican In Name Only (RINO).

Specifically, he's the embodiment of incompatible opposites. Mr. Ryan took the top congressional job in October of 2015—while publicly proclaiming he didn't want it. Likewise was his chilly embrace of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As the standard-bearer, the President was never the beneficiary of Mr. Ryan's largesse: extended to all Democrats. Regarding support of Trump, this highest elected Republican famously said, “I’m not there right now.” Contrast that to Ryan's sunny treatment of his liberal colleagues in his first speech as the 62nd Speaker of the House:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean.”

In retrospect, Mr. Ryan's loyalty was always to the entrenched Washington establishment (read: the swamp), not to the brash billionaire businessman become president or his populist constituency.

Let's look briefly at this Speaker's “report card”. When Mr. Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. Upon his retirement announcement on April 11th, the figure was $21,121,833,941,447.86. That's an increase of $2.97 trillion in two years and 5 ½ months. Per Gallup, Congress's approval rating (Nov. 4-8, 2015) was 11%. As Gallup's figure is not yet available, the RealClear average is currently 13.2%. That's a meager improvement of 2.2%. Schizophrenically, Mr. Ryan reforms taxes like a Republican while squandering like a spendthrift Democrat. What else explains his rubber-stamping a budget-busting 1.8 trillion dollar spending bill early in his tenure (December 2015), barely averting a government shutdown in March (with another $1.3 trillion in expenditures) while previously passing tax relief (December 2017)? Given his track record and fiscal results, that's an F.

While Paul Ryan basks, taking his self-congratulatory victory laps—only his myriad failures weakening America will be his legacy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Guns Banned, Knives Next?

Shockingly, New York and London, two world-famous cities of similar population sizes, currently have equivalent murder rates.  The glaring differences are that the United Kingdom has no Second Amendment, and prohibited firearms in 1997.  That has not stopped the violence, however.  The mostly gang-related carnage has been accomplished with knives instead. 

That’s no problem to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to hold the post in a major Western capital.  He tweeted, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”  Since Mr. Khan plans to restrict British cutlery, will his next target be serving forks?  If this is the new trend there, he has certainly fashioned a big job for himself.  Imagine confiscating all of the blunt objects at hand, or lying about, that can be weaponized!

When will leftists finally acknowledge the simple truth that inanimate objects cannot be blamed for the hateful intentions of the wielder?  So much for the “evolved sensibilities” of our floundering cultural cousins in the gun-free zone across the pond.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog