Plunging Towards Gomorrah
Posts tagged Ronald Reagan
Progressive Foundations: ‘I want to believe it’s true, therefore it’s true’
May 21st
Ronald Reagan famously said about progressives, a.k.a., liberals: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” The most infamous recent example of this willful ignorance is the Left’s reaction to Arizona’s immigration law.
Apparently, no one in the Obama administration has bothered to read Arizona’s law, but they are so heavily invested in their ideology that what they want to believe about the law makes it magically turn into what they believe it is: a racist, fascist excuse for Arizona’s Gestapo-like police to harass and detain anyone with dark skin or an accent.

I know exactly how William Shatner felt in the Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet". Does anyone else notice that the Obama administration is lying about Arizona's immigration law? Stewardess! There's a creature on the wing!
Every time I hear someone in the Obama administration denounce Arizona’s law – from Obama himself down to people whose job it is to actually know the law, like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano – I feel like I’m living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I’m almost as shocked and perplexed as William Shatner was when he saw a creature on the wing of the airplane he was flying on. Is this really happening and does anyone else notice it?
This is just the tip of the wing, however, as the belief in an alternative universe translates to every conceivable issue. Cyclical, historical climate change turns into Armageddon. Babies are no longer babies, but clumps of unorganized tissue that reveal themselves as babies only after they leave the womb. The only way to make airplanes safe from terrorists is not to look for terrorists. And so on and so forth.
My favorite is how progressives turn the First Amendment into something completely different than what it actually says. They believe it calls for the “separation of church and state,” though it says no such thing. It actually reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That’s funny, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” refuse to appear in the First Amendment. Maybe they’re hiding elsewhere in the Constitution? Or maybe not.
Despite the conspicuous absence of these words from the Constitution, progressives are constantly shouting down any religious references in the public square based on the Constitution’s supposed prohibition of religious speech through the “separation” clause. No such clause exists and the Amendment clearly states that Congress “shall make no law,” which means, for any progressives reading this, that Congress “shall make no law.” Do I need to repeat the phrase again so it’s clear? Apparently I do, but even if I do repeat it, progressives will still read, “separation of church and state.” It’s exasperating to say the least.
In the same way, progressives read the First Amendment’s free speech clauses as applying only to individuals and the causes they believe in. In other words, if you’re an organization representing the interests of a group of people, you’re not entitled to the same speech rights as an individual. Moreover, if you’re a group progressives distrust and malign, say an evil corporation or a conservative non-profit, you have even fewer rights to free speech, if any.
Progressives fervently believe that the First Amendment applies only to individuals when it’s in their best interests to believe this (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), though the text itself says, rather clearly: “…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The key phrase here is “of the people”. Note that it does not read, “of the person,” nor does it say, “of the people we agree with who aren’t racist Nazi homophobes like we say they are because they don’t believe in the same foolish notions of creating an earthly Utopia like we do.”
RE: Why So Condescending?
Feb 13th
I learned something very valuable today after my brief post on liberal condescension. It all started when Jeff Beck (no, not that Jeff Beck) came across my link on Twitter. I guess liberal RE/MAX real estate agents will not ever be fans of The Daily Plunge.
There’s something heartwarming about the use of “not” in that bitter assessment of my entry. Even though it’s not 1993 anymore some people still think using “not” is funny. Now, I’m not going to pick too much on @top20reos. Although I’m sure he won’t mind. As Bob Wiley once said: “He’s so high above us, we’re like ropes on the Goodyear blimp.” For someone who acts like they don’t care about what conservatives think he spends a lot of time trying to agitate people on the right.
Needless to say I engaged Mr. Beck via Twitter but it was a lost cause. He didn’t want to directly answer anything I had to say. It was easier to hurl insults about the quality of The Daily Plunge. I guess I would be upset but I’m not sure I really care about the opinion of a liberal tweeter who uses his real estate agent account to attack conservatives. Anyway, the only reason I bring this up is because of Jeff Beck’s last meaningful tweet to me.
@top20reos: Intelligent people rarely, if ever experience condescension. Think about it.
That really sums it all up. People like Jeff Beck feel like they’re intellectually superior to any conservative. Is it really surprising that every prominent conservative’s intelligence is attacked? The reason why true liberals will never be honestly elected nationally in the United States is because they don’t understand the average American.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
“But Henshaw, Obama was elected and he’s liberal.” Oh, I know, but he didn’t run as a liberal. Obama ran as a post-partisan centrist. He was helped by his sparse record and the fact he ran in 2008, a year any Democrat could have won. The fact is if Obama ever wants to be reelected he’ll have to act more conservative. If intelligent people rarely ever feel condescension, then liberals like Jeff Beck must never be happy. It must be depressing to know that your political beliefs are a pariah to the average American.
Revolution Revisited
Nov 7th
Last December I wrote about the movie Revolution staring Al Pacino as a fur trapper who gets caught up in the American Revolution. The movie was a colossal box-office disappointment and had never been released on DVD until this year. I have finally had the opportunity to watch a version of the film
Al Pacino and the director Hugh Hudson reedited and changed the ending of the film. I can’t really give an opinion about the original film. The new version adds a narration and cuts 10 minutes. Why wasn’t the film accepted back in 1985? Here’s one theory by Hudson.
Q: You say on the DVD, referring to Pacino’s character, that America in 1985 was not ready for an “anti-hero.”
A: The movie heroes were, what? Stallone, Schwarzenegger. And Reagan. Reagan was a true hero to the American people, in a way. Pacino plays a grunt, a soldier, a resistant man, resistant to going to war, to fighting, to being a part of society. He was a roughneck, trading furs. An anti-hero, really. He says, “It’s not my fight.”
Like George Bush is to blame for every problem faced in the 2000s Ronald Reagan is still a liberal whipping boy for the dreadful 80s. President Eisenhower was immensely popular during the 1950s and the movie The Searchers staring John Wayne is considered a classic. John Wayne played the anti-hero Ethan Edwards. The real problem with Revolution is that it’s a terrible movie.
At the beginning the American colonialists are just an angry mob. Pacino’s boat is seized by the mob and then inexplicably his young boy “joins the cause.” After that it’s just one boring event after another. The problem with the movie isn’t the historical interpretation or Pacino’s reluctance to fight, but the dreadful plot. It’s just not a fun story to watch. Back in December I wrote “It [Revolution] certainly cannot be worse than Mel Gibson’s The Patriot.” I’m not so sure, but I know I won’t go out of my way to watch either film again.
the independent voter
Nov 5th
The fickle independent voters… They’re courted by politicians every election. Independent voters are growing in number. Much has been said about the number of self identified Republicans and Democrats. For whatever reason people are proud to be Democrats. This isn’t new phenomenon, and I’m sure a whole book could be dedicated to party loyalty. The number of independent voters is growing because people are disillusioned with the Republican party. Who can blame them? I had always been a registered Independent until last year’s presidential primary. Florida isn’t an open primary state, so I registered as a Republican to vote.
What is a disillusioned voter to do? This answer isn’t as simple as switching parties. Many voters are fed up with the size and power of the federal government. Ever since the New Deal the government has been spending more and more money. By 1980, the tax burden to pay for everything was killing the economy. Reagan wisely cut taxes to reinvigorate the economy, but Washington has lacked the political will to reduce spending. It’s easy to cut taxes, but it’s nearly impossible to rein in spending. That’s where we are today: twenty years of low taxes and high deficits. Liberals simply want to raise taxes, but doing so would cripple our economy.
obama’s fox news paranoia continues
Oct 22nd
It’s one thing for liberal bloggers, talking heads, and small time politicians to complain about FOX News, but for the President of the United States to say that FOX is like “talk radio” is insane. Does President Obama really want to go to war with America’s most popular news source? What does he hope to gain? The President is faced with a bad economy, a health care fight and a war. Why is he wasting time bashing FOX?
“I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” Obama told NBC’s Savanah Guthrie. “And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet that’s another but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.” [Emphasis added]
Oh really? Does anyone truly believe the that White House would be wasting time on FOX if Obama was completely unconcerned? One thing I think Americans are learning about this young presidency is that he can’t take criticism. By any standard Obama has received the greatest coverage from the press in modern history. Yet, he’s upset with FOX? I can see why the White House holds up CNN as the model of centrist journalism. After all it was CNN’s superstar Anderson Cooper who was making jokes about “teabagging” and Wolf Blitzer “factchecking” a skit on SNL. I can see why the White House loves CNN. Just for the record, George W. Bush never said the word “strategery” and Sarah Palin never said that she could see Russia from her front porch. I didn’t know “factchecking” was necessary for sketch comedy.

Corruption we can believe in!
Maybe what Obama is really upset about is his falling approval numbers. If so, he really is a thin-skinned woosie. If I remember my Greek mythology correctly, Narcissus was a thin-skinned woosie. This is part of the job, Mr. President. Even President Reagan had days when he wasn’t so popular. Obama needs to get tough. Quit complaining about FOX News. The leader of the free world needs to start acting like it. Let’s start with making a decision about Afghanistan.
stephen king shot john lennon?
Aug 29th

Have you ever wondered if John Lennon’s death was an elaborate conspiracy? The answer to this question should be a resounding no. Unfortunately, our celebrity culture breeds this kind of insanity. A friend of mine here in Sarasota saw a van driving around that had in big letters lennonmurdertruth.com. This website is a classic example of the type of bizarre celebrity conspiracy fantasy that exists on the web. Here’s just a taste of the craziness:
The story about Mark Chapman is a cover-up. Bold print government cryptographic codes that include the killer’s face and true identity, the killer’s alleged name and letter to the editor printed before the murder and Richard Nixon’s book, The Real War, in back issues of Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report magazines printed before, during, and after the night of December 8, 1980 prove that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan arranged for the author Stephen King, then barley famous, to assassinate John Lennon. That King’s writings draw, dramatically, from the crime and that he taunts us all in his interviews and comments only makes this the story of a lifetime. My 24-page booklet contains everything you’ve seen here and much more. Please order your copy. I guarantee it is the absolute truth about what really happened to John Lennon. Happy Code Cracking!
Evidently, Nixon and Reagan decided to kill John Lennon because of his songs and lifestyle. They hired Stephen King to do it. Not content to pull off the weirdest assassination of all time, they also published codes about the murder all over popular newspapers and magazines. The only person who has noticed the codes is a guy named Steve Lightfoot. The poor guy doesn’t understand why no one else cares.
I worry about all of you people for having to have me tell you why this is important and vital to begin with. When I started I assumed everyone would know that this expose will unleash more power to the people than at any time in our lifetimes. If you are not excited by that fact you, indeed, need my prayers too. Thank you for visiting my website. Only you can expose this story. It will never be told until you people change, first, deep inside. Don’t keep me waiting. I need your help and support. BREAK THIS STORY, PLEASE!
Yes, please break this story. I’m trying to imagine watching Anderson Cooper explain this crazy conspiracy. I’ve read it a couple of times already and I don’t think I can explain it. Why isn’t Jimmy Carter in on this elaborate plan? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by wacko theories about Lennon’s death. There are conspiracy theories about JFK, RFK, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and even John McCain’s time as a POW. There’s no evidence to prove any of these theories, but the lack of evidence only makes people believe more that it happened.
spending our way towards bankruptcy
Mar 4th
One of the myths about the United States government since Reagan was elected in 1980 is that government became smaller. Reagan was able to reduce the tax burden to encourage investment, but he didn’t reduce spending. As Greg Mankiw points out the federal outlays as a percentage of GDP have remained relatively the same the past fifty years.
Over the last century, the largest increase in the size of the government occurred during the Great Depression and World War II. Even after these crises were over, they left a legacy of higher spending and taxes. To this day, we have yet to come to grips with how to pay for all that the government created during that era — a problem that will become acute as more baby boomers retire and start collecting the benefits promised.
What Reagan accomplished during his first term was explaining to the American people that government was not the solution to combat a terrible economic crisis. The economy was in much worse shape in the early 80′s when Reagan became president than it is today. He certainly didn’t call call for the kind of spending Obama and Bush have been asking for the past six months.
Conservatives have never had enough votes to curtail federal spending. Once the government starts spending money it never gives up control. For the past fifty years most Americans have been apathetic. Since the New Deal the nation has been squandering the inheritance of future generations. The reality is the nation cannot afford the programs initiated during the Great Depression for more than seventy years. The Great Society tacked on a few more unsustainable programs. President Bush’s prescription drug plan was another government giveaway that is unfeasible in the long-run. After 9/11 instead waiting to find out what the recommendations of the 9/11 commission the Congress created the Homeland Security Department. If we learned anything during that attack it was that the CIA and FBI didn’t communicate. I can’t see how having three agencies is going to make that better.
It seems that liberals don’t care how much the nation spends and moderates aren’t concerned enough to take a stand. It doesn’t matter how much taxes are raised or how many speeches the president makes, the nation is headed towards bankruptcy unless their’s a significant change in our spending priorities. Higher taxes will only damage the economy. It’s time for the government to cut back.
