Donald Rumsfeld pulls no punches. In this interview with Andrea Mitchell, Rummy sets the left straight on what actually happened in the Bush administration:
Part 1:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Part 2:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In yesterday’s Washington Post, Eugene Robinson wrote an incredibly disingenuous pieces on Ronald Reagan, claiming that today’s Democrats are the party Reagan, because the GOP has moved so far to the right.
First, Robinson cited Reagan’s record as governor of California:
When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion – at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history.
When Ronald Reagan became Governor of California, the state faced an enormous budget shortfall. Reagan’s predecessor, Jerry Brown, used slight-of-hand bookkeeping tricks to hide the enormity of the state’s budget crisis. By the time Reagan took the helm, he had six months to balance California’s books. In order to clean-up the Democrats mess, Reagan was forced to raise taxes in his first year as Governor. However, it was not a position he enjoyed supporting:
It was not an enjoyable speech to make. I’d campaigned on a promise to keep the lid on taxes, now I was asking for an increase. But I swallowed hard and said that as soon as I could, I’d make sure we gave the people some of their money back to them.
(Am American Life p.165)
In fact, Reagan cut taxes four times as Governor, including a 1968 tax rebate of $100 million, the first in California history. The rebate was made possible by Governor Reagan’s budget surplus.
Next, Robinson claimed that as President, Ronald Reagan was not a real tax cutter:
What eludes the GOP’s selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government – and that to be effective, the government needed more money.
On this one, Robinson is again wrong. To get the facts straight, in 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 70%. In 1989, the top marginal rate had been cut down to 28%. As for the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, President Reagan absolutely did not sign it because “he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government – and that to be effective, the government needed more money.” It seems as though this explanation was invented out of thin air by Robinson.
Ronald Reagan dealt with a Democratic House his entire time in office, with a Senate going back and forth. As such, President Reagan was forced to negotiate with the Democrats. One such example was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. While President Reagan opposed raising taxes, the Democrats promised him that for every $1 in tax hikes, there would be $3 in spending cuts. Under these pretenses, President Reagan acquiesced to a tax hike. The Democrats did not keep up their end of the bargain – for every dollar in tax increases the Democrats only cut spending by 27 cents. After this mistake, President Reagan never again raised taxes. In fact, in 1986 Reagan signed into law the most sweeping tax rate reduction in history.
Perhaps Robinson and his ilk forget who Ronald Reagan really was. After the 1964 election, where Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan said:
“We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
No matter what liberals now claim, Ronald Reagan was not a ‘moderate Republican.’ Ronald Reagan was a conservative champion. The attempt to whitewash his record is an attempt to deny the great successes of conservatism. Ronald Reagan communicated and implemented great ideas; conservative solutions that that still apply today.
Chris Matthews is a genius, just ask him. The MSNBC host has gone on a crusade against Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, questioning their intelligence on a nightly basis.
With that in mind, here is Chris Matthews explaining the significance of Egypt‘s Panama Canal:
Has Matthews mixed up the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal? How do we know? It is only safe to assume that Chris Matthews is a “balloon head” who doesn’t know any geography. Who’s writing this stuff for him?
On Tuesday night’s edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews lambasted Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for statements she made regarding slavery:
In the above video Matthews called Rep. Bachmann a “balloon head” who “knows no American history.” Only, what Bachamnn said is true. What Matthews’ statements demonstrate is that he is in fact a balloon head who knows no American history.
When the Constitution was written, slavery was a highly contentious issue. All but a small minority of the Framers of the Constitution, including those that held slaves at the time, were in favor of abolishing the practice. However, the Framers also understood that an outright abolition of slavery in 1787 would prevent ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, the Framers believed that the states were well on the way to abolishing slavery on their own. As such, the Constitution was written in a way that would allow future generations to eliminate slavery. In fact, the word “slavery” does not appear in the original Constitution, because, as James Madison wrote, it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Furthermore, Article I, Section ix of the Constitution was written with the intention of banning the importation of more slaves. In 1807, Thomas Jefferson did just that, and signed a bill into law which banned the importing of slaves. For more information on this topic, Dr. William Bennett’s America the Last Best Hope; volume I is a great resource.
Mathews specious line of thinking is evinced in his citing of the tree-fifths compromise of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It was a mathematical formula used for the census. Matthews, and many liberals, claim that slaves were counted as three-fifths because early Americans didn’t view slaves as full human beings. This claim is predicated on painful ignorance. Slave states wanted slaves to be counted as full people in the census. Counting slaves as equals would increase the population count in slave states, thus allotting slave states more representation in the House of Representatives. The the-fifths compromise was instituted to limit the representation of slave states. Moreover, a close examination of the compromise reveals that slaves are referred to as “persons,” laying the groundwork for the abolition of slavery.
The Constitution’s case for abolishing slavery was noted by none other than the world’s most famous abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, who said “now, take the Constitution according ti its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
Today’s education system teaches American history in a vacuum, as though the United States was the only place on earth where slavery existed. The abolition of slavery is a modern concept, when the entire course of human history is considered. From Thomas Sowell’s Dismantling America (p.197):
Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery.
Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent — people of every race, color, and creed.
More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed.
Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans.
What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created.
What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well.
Chris Matthews’ haughty dismissal of Rep. Bachmann was based on a complete lack of knowledge of American history. Matthews would be well advised to open a book instead of calling Michele Bachmann a “balloon head.”
Christiane Amanpour, the host of ABC’s This Week, is still trying to blame conservatives for the acts of a deranged leftwing pothead from Arizona. What’s more, Amanpour tied the Arizona shooting to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy:
Amanpour’s assertion, that the assassinations of the brothers Kennedy, as well as the Arizona massacre, were caused by today’s “political atmosphere,” has one significant problem: it’s complete lack of any factual support.
To this day, it is believed that the conservative atmosphere in Dallas was in some way responsible for he assassination of President Kennedy. The Texas School Book Depository, from where Lee Harvey Oswald shot the president, today is replete with exhibits on rightwing rage against Kennedy. The problem with the theory? John Kennedy was killed by a Marxist. Lee Harvey Oswald tried to defect to the Soviet Union and supported Castro’s communist revolution in Cuba. Additionally, Oswald tried to assassinate Major General Edwin Walker. General Walker was best known for being a member of the anti-communist John Birch Society, and for imposing his staunch anti-communist values on his troops. But besides that, I’m sure Oswald was a real Reaganite.
Amanpour also linked Robert Kennedy’s death to “today’s political atmosphere.” Does she not remember who killed RFK? Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian terrorist, killed Kennedy because of his support for Israel. In case there were any doubts, Sirhan Sirhan explained to interviewer David Frost that he killed Kennedy for supporting Israel. What a Palestinian terrorist has to do with “today’s political atmosphere” is a good question.
Amanpour’s claim, that conservatism inspired the Kennedy assassinations, or the Arizona massacre, is a narrative sewn out of whole cloth. However, don’t expect the Left to let the facts get in the way of a compelling story.
Another wonderful example of civil discourse from the Left:
Rep. Steve Cohen, who had previously equated the Tea Party with the KKK, compared the GOP to Nazis on the House floor this week. Perhaps he got his cue from another prominent Democrat:
If you dare oppose Obamacare, or the Democrats in any other way, you are a Nazi. But remember, it is the ‘heated rhetoric’ of the right that we have to fear…
With all the talk of turning down the rhetoric, MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow invited far-left bomb thrower, Michael Moore onto her program:
Is that a direct quote from Dr. King?
What a great demonstration of the new tone we are all supposed to adhere to. Moore, the maker of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, the Triumph of the Will, and the autobiographical film Sicko, is a real master of moderation.
Michael Moore’s schlockumentaries are notorious for their ‘creative editing’ and outright lies. Moreover, Moore has made a career of denigrating his country, his ideological opponents, and the economic system that has given him the opportunity to succeed.
The website michaelmoore.com is home to a sad assortment of the unhinged and deranged, including Cindy Sheehan, the founder of Code Pink. In case you’ve forgotten, Code Pink was the activist group that accused members of the Bush administration war criminals. As an aside, do you remember the media being up-in-arms over that type of ‘heated rhetoric?’
After all that background, how about big Mike’s interview? It would appear as though Moore didn’t get the memo on the new tone. Seeing a racist around every corner, Michael Moore claims that the reason people own guns is because they are afraid of poor minorities. Another example of the new tone one is to presume.
Michael Moore is entirely obsessed with race. In the past, Moore has asserted that the National Rifle Association was a successor organization to the KKK.
Michael Moore is no outlier; his thinking is typical of the new Left. After the shooting in Arizona, the media was condemning heated rhetoric, claiming it inspired the shooter. After it was proven that such claims were pure pap, the talking point became that today’s heated rhetoric created an environment of violence. With the Left, and their toadies in the media, so quick to point fingers at the Right, just remember the rehtoric of the Left throughout the Bush years, and to this day.
Tom DeLay, the former Republican House Majority Leader, was recently sentenced to three years in prison, a sentence that is likely to be overturned on appeal. In fact, Judge Pat Priest, who sentenced DeLay, “acknowledged from the bench that appeals courts might not take the same view.”
The story of the witch hunt against Tom DeLay is a real life example of the liberal version of McCarthyism, only in this case the charges really are false. DeLay was the first major target in the Left’s attempt to criminalize their opposition.
To be clear, the charges against DeLay are frivolous. Beginning in 1995, Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, stated that their goal was to “take [DeLay] out.” SInce then, they have come after Tom DeLay with one fallacious charge after the other.
The latest charge against DeLay, which earned him a three year prison sentence, was for money laundering. DeLay’s PAC (Political Action Committee) legally raised money to pay for administrative duties. This should have been the end of the case, as Texas law requires ill-gotten money to prosecute a money laundering case.
DeLay’s PAC raised more money than it needed, and sent $190,000 to the Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent $190,000 to Republican candidates in Texas. This type of a transaction, known as a “swap,” is common practice in politics. In fact, DeLay’s PAC was copied from a model already employed by Texas Democrats.
Democrats hated Tom DeLay because he was an exceptionally effective Whip, and Majority Leader. As such, they pursued the politics of personal destruction. When Democrats could not beat DeLay, his party, or his ideas at the ballot box, they tried to criminalize his politics.
As an aside, the DA that went after DeLay, Ronnie Early is a political hack, well known for his repeated fishing expeditions against Texas Republicans.
The politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics has become standard operating procedure for the Left. They routinely engage in vicious character assassinations against their “enemies,” as President Obama refers to his political opposition. Additionally, Democrats have continued to use the legal system to attack conservatives.
A textbook example of the Left’s despicable tactics has been the campaign against Sarah Palin and her family. Immediately after Palin was introduced on the national scene, her entire family was subjected to a wide assortment of vicious calumny. Not content to just attack the candidate, incredibly, the media savagely maligned the Governor’s teenage daughters.
Since 2008, Sarah Palin has been the target of a relentless campaign of lies and hate, courtesy of the Left. In fact, just this week Palin was repeatedly blamed for the shooting in Arizona, despite the total lack of evidence to substantiate such a claim. When Palin dared defend herself, the media, absurdly, accused her of being an anti-Semite.
Also, Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska because she was being harassed by opponents whom abused the legal system. Palin’s opponents filed a plethora of inane ethics violations charges. The charges made against Palin were fatuous. However, they prevented Palin from being an effective governor, and buried her in legal debts at a time in her life when she could not afford a robust defense.
The Left’s character assassinations and criminalization of politics are dangerous. They will continue to steer good people away from politics, and ensure that the worst continue to rise to the top.
This week on the Tonight Show Bill Maher launched into a vicious tirade against conservatives. Mixed with his sardonic and sanctimonious curse laden diatribe were the assertions that it is only the Right that incites violence, and that people on the Left do not act out violently:
Bill Maher has a problem: he is always sure, but he is rarely right. Maher belittles anyone who dares to disagree with his learned opinions as ignorant. In reality, a place Maher must have left a long time ago, the Left constantly incites violence against conservatives. Additionally, there is a long history of leftists carrying out their violent fantasies.
First, on the inciting hatred front, why not start with Bill Maher himself?
In the following clip from Maher’s television program, the host jokes about Vice president Cheney dying, than makes the serious point that he believes it would be good if the Vice President died:
Then there was Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Hardball musing about killing Rush Limbaugh:
The website The Onion made a video lamenting that Glenn Beck has not died a painful death:
The website the Daily Caller made a four minute video, compiling tweets urging the assassination of Sarah Palin:
Palin Death Wish Tweets Re Tucson Shooting from Legal Insurrection on Vimeo.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, had the following to say about Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican:
“instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
That is just a sample of the vitriol and hate that regularly comes from the Left. Throughout the Bush Presidency the Left regularly wrote books, made movies, and otherwise advocated the assassination of George W. Bush. Maher’s claim that the Left does not incite violence is the type of absurd claim that could only be made by an ignoramus or a willful deceiver.
Maher’s second claim, that only conservatives carry out acts of violence because they are armed and insane, is equally fallacious.
In 1901 President William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, who killed the president “because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.”
Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who assassinated President Kennedy (save your comments Oliver Stone fans), was a Communist defector, who returned to the United States in order to assist Fidel Castro.
The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, sent 16 bombs out, killed three people and injured 23. He too was an anarchist, and a devotee of Al Gore’s.
Just last year James Lee, who was inspired by Al Gore, took hostages at the the Discovery Channel‘s headquarters because they were not doing enough to combat global warming in his estimation.
On top of all these examples there are terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front, that proudly use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.”
All this is not to say that Al Gore and his cohorts on the Left are to blame for the actions of terrorists. There are bad people in the world, and their interpretations of notable works does not implicate the authors.
What all these examples do prove is that once again Bill Maher, who represents the thinking of many on the Left, has given voice to a hateful position that is at odds with reality. Maher’s despicable lies about the Right are old hat for the smear merchant. Maher would be well served if he bothered to do even minimal research before opening his mouth.
Two more videos regarding Arizona. The first is a former friend of Jared Loughner, explaining that Loughner did not watch television news, did not listen to talk radio and that Loughner was essentially apolitical. The second video is of Red State’s Erick Erickson on CNN, taking the leftwing media to task for trying to blame the shooting on the right.
Loughner was an abuser of drugs and alcohol, and most likely mentally unbalanced. Additionally, repeated warning sings seem to have been ignored by an inept law enforcement official, in Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. No evidence supports the Left’s fantasy that Loughner was in any way inspired by the Right.
