Election 2028: Perhaps Gavin Newsom Has a Chance?

 

On September 14, 2026 (had to wait three days after the obligatory commemoration of 9/11), California lame-duck governor Gavin Newsom starred in another CNN puff piece, hosted by Jake Tapper, with a lake and fly-fishing tackle. And “Starred” is the word, since the whole operation was another well-constructed psy-op by the Constantly Not News network to prop up a Democratic candidate, complete with a sweeping, aerial opening panned out over a bucolic Montana plain, with some country music in the background.

Newsom starts with a lie: “I’ve no experience in this process [running for President], so I’m going through it.”

He was a spokesman for President Joe Biden in 2024. He knows what it takes to run for Preasident, and he’s been doing since 2023, hoping to get into Biden’s good graces (Angling for the VP slot perhaps?), then betting on Kamala crashing in November so that he could step in and save the Democratic Party.

The CNN set-up was clearly that: a set-up to prop up Newsom as a man of the people who can connect with working-class and middle-class voters. Why Montana, though? The state hasn’t voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1992, and just fired its last Democratic statewide officeholder in 2024.

These corporate media commercials masquerading as news are nothing new. Newsom standing in water with a weak fishing line completed the fake package. The Tapper segment gave off the same vibes as Kamala Harris’ interview with CNN in February 2019, while she was trying on different coats. How about that news spot with US Senator John Kerry hunting in 2004?

It’s old papers to many pundits: Newsom is running for President.

What’s stunning is the unrelenting bravado. Newsom will never abandon this fantasy. He is defined by vanity, stoked for the last 16 years of statewide officeholding. How can he not plunge into this far-flung ambition for the Presidency?

Every major political office he has run for, he has gotten elected. 

No matter how destroyed or decrepit the state of California has become, Newsom is a legend in his own mind, and the phenomenally fawning media will always glow up the Democratic candidate, no matter how incompetent their record of governance. 

What is Newsom’s strategy here? He’s serious, even if the real world recognizes him as unserious. What does Gavin Newsom intend to accomplish as president, or what steps does he think will get him into the White House, despite the increased media attack on his leadership and his legacy? 

 

It all started with his 2023 debate with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Fox News host Sean Hannity engaged in some subtle (and clever) manipulation by offering some moderate to softball interviews to Gavin Newsom on his show earlier that year. At first, I thought that Hannity was losing his mind or he had sold out for easy ratings. Why was he giving interviews to allow Newsom a chance to make himself look good or even halfway decent? 

Then came the major selling point: Hannity was setting him up, not to look good, but to hold a debate against the governor of one of the reddest (and most successful) states in the union: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

The clash of executives would force into full relief the ultimate red-state v. blue-state comparison.

Based on the facts, the delivery, and the commitment to truth and decency, Governor DeSantis won the debate. However, Newsom wasn’t interested in winning a debate against a red-state governor in front of red-state voters. He was sharpening his media skills to spin, deceive, gaslight, and lie outright before a national audience and impress the Democratic voter base, establishment, and donor class that he's a flawless executive who can collect his thoughts and withstand all scrutiny with a smile. 

Like Tucker Carlson’s frequent schtick of straight-up lying about prior comments, even denouncing them once confronted with the record, Newsom can ignore reality, bend the truth, and attack opponents without breaking a sweat or losing his nerve. He is a practiced con artist, making all kinds of excuses for why California is falling apart. He highlights little progress in one area, while skillfully ignoring or covering up the legacy of failure before and after what little good he can play up.

In the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Gavin Newsom is a plastic Ken version of Patrick Bateman from American psycho. He can lie with impunity without breaking a sweat, fidgeting his hands, blinking his eyes, or turning away from the camera. 

This kind of psychopathology can play very well with the progressive voter base as he competes for the Election 2028 Democratic nomination. 

Governor Hair-Gel is ambitious, but he plays coy like a mad seducer.  In one example of covering his tracks (barely), he toys with the notion that other Democratic contenders have a chance of running and winning. During his staged photo-op with CNN’s Tapper, Newsom pledged to support Harris if she throws her hat in the ring again (I hope she does!).

Newsom recently interviewed cocaine aficionado and laptop loser and spoiled rich man Hunter Biden, who has worked the podcast circuit to rehabilitate himself (his image, not his habits) and probably raise money since Daddy doesn’t have the rich political connections anymore. Hunter delusionally thinks he has a chance at becoming president in 2028, too. Newsome gave free press to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has nothing but a train of awkward attempts to capitalize on President Trump's positive labor policies in the Rust Belt, while at the same time pretending that she doesn't know him. That photo up where she literally hid her face behind her folder in the oval office did her no favors. 

Is Newsom sweet-talking the bench, or sizing them up to intimidate them? He has positioned himself as an anti-Trump foil, even maintaining his political and ideological distance despite a few professional interactions with President Trump during the horrendous wildfires that devoured Northern California in 2019 and then in Southern California in 2025.

He is banking on just enough common sense in the Democratic grassroots to elect someone who is not a DSA crazy, but is still committed to an anti-Trump successor who has a broad resume of executive experience. 

If his latest gloss-up on CNN is an indicator, it shows that he's all manufactured and very little man. The coiffed head and gravelly voice got him far in California, but at the end of the day, he faces the same challenges as his former AG Kamala Harris. Living and working in a liberal echo chamber all his life, he has shown neither aptitude nor interest in reaching across the aisle or working with people of different backgrounds or political bent. A few photo-ops in Flyover America won’t remedy those deficits. 

Even if he won the Democratic Party nomination, he would have the same Harris drag down. The record of California dysfunction and collapse is too stark to ignore. No matter how deep the anti-Trump animus in the Democratic Party, the anti-democratic DSA grassroots have taken such a hold that they want someone fresh and vibrant with no establishment aftertaste. 

Newsome fails on those points. But who knows what could happen in two years?

LGBT Activists Fear DeSantis, Not Trump

LGBT Activists are targeting DeSantis. They are not going after Trump, because they are not afraid of Trump. They know that he has caved on the important cultural issues. They also know that he is easier to defeat in 2024. Check out this LGBT protester in South Carolina, and see how Gov. DeSantis handled him:

Left-wing protesters for gender insanity in schools get wrecked by Ron DeSantis, and the crowd leaps to their feet.

“We don’t want you indoctrinating our children. Leave our kids alone!” pic.twitter.com/ZlvMl7CoL9

— Never Back Down (@NvrBackDown24) July 17, 2023

This is the leadership we need in Washington DC!

Elder for President? A Categorical "No" from Me

Larry Elder ran for Governor of California last year, and got stomped on two-to-one in the recall. The California voters are so stupid, that they were will to settle for more of Gavin Newsom's terrible tyranny, rather than bank on someone--anyone--better.

Now Elder is thinking about running for President. He wants to highlight key issues that are plaguing the country's culture, not just the political problems.

I think it's commendable that he wants to draw attention to fundamental problems in America society. 

I don't think he's going to make a big difference or get people's attention if he's quoting 18th Century philosophers whom the vast majority of Americans have never heard of.

Fellow patriot, I want to take a different approach with you today. If you ever studied philosophy, you probably know about Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative.” One way of looking at this theory is: a particular action can be determined as right or wrong simply by examining whether there would be chaos if EVERYONE were to take that action. Now, how does this apply to us? We’re in a fight for the soul of America and to save ourselves from more suffering at the hands of Biden and his destructive policies. In order to beat the Democrats – who are outraising and outspending us – and win back Congress in two months, we need your financial support. But if EVERYONE reading this chose NOT to help us raise the funds we need to get our message out, hold the Left accountable, support Republican candidates, and save our country, then there would be chaos. The Democrats would be allowed to buy their way to victory and continue wreaking havoc on our economy, security, prosperity, and freedoms. If you’re counting on someone else to give, then they probably are too. And if that’s the case we will NEVER be able to keep up with the Democrats and we will lose to them in November. If you recognize that we need resources in order to win in November, then please step up and make a donation today. Literally ANY amount – whether it's $500 or $5 – will make an impact in this competitive election. If we all just expect others to step up, then NO ONE will. Saving America is up to you and me. Are you with me? Thanks! Larry Elder P.S. America has had enough chaos under Biden, and it’s up to us to put a stop to it. I’m in this fight, and I need your support to continue. With just two months left and Democrats gaining in the polls, will you put some skin in the game to ensure we can restore conservative leadership of America and get our nation back on track? PAID FOR BY ELDER FOR AMERICA Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee www.elderforamerica.com

Larry Elder is a categorical "No" from me for President. I did not support him for governor, either, since he sided up with most of the liberal cultural issues, including his support for allowing confused men to use women's restrooms. What a crock!

Revisiting Reaganism with George F. Will, Fifteen Years Later

Time to move on from Reagan,
wrote George F. Will as far back as 2007

Right before President George W. Bush's administration ended, George F. Will told conservatives that they needed to move on from Reagan.

Sadly, he didn't accept that the movement voters wanted meant Trump: a nationalist, populist, more isolationist foreign policy which focused on American citizens, stopped mass immigration (legal and illegal), and stopped with the reckless, globalist agenda-setting spending.

Will's call to move on from Ronald Reagan was published in 2007:

George F. Will:Conservatives must temper worship of Reaganism

WASHINGTON — In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis — gratitude decaying into idolatry — is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.

Reagan is dead, and Reaganism is dead. He met many of the challenges facing the country during the 1980s, and he scored a significant win in consigning international communism to the ash heap of history.

Today, the United State is looking at a harsher fate if We the People do not tackle the domestic marxism infecting our schools, universities, and other institutions.

That is one lesson of John Patrick Diggins' new book, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History." Diggins, a historian at the City University of New York, treats Reagan respectfully as an important subject in American intellectual history. The 1980s, he says, thoroughly joined politics to political theory. But he notes that Reagan's theory was radically unlike that of Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, and very like that of Burke's nemesis, Thomas Paine.

Burke believed that the past is prescriptive because tradition is a repository of moral wisdom. Reagan frequently quoted Paine's preposterous cry that "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."

This notion of "beginning the world again" would re-emerge with Barack Obama. Sadly, the change that he thought he would bring would be nothing more than corporate elitism spitting on the needs of everyday Americans. Reagan cared about America, he loved the American people, but the domestic issues we face today cannot be solved by the Reaganism of yesterday.

Diggins' thesis is that the 1980s were America's "Emersonian moment" because Reagan, a "political romantic" from the Midwest and West, echoed New England's Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Emerson was right," Reagan said several times of the man who wrote, "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature." Hence Reagan's unique, and perhaps oxymoronic, doctrine — conservatism without anxieties. Reagan's preternatural serenity derived from his conception of the supernatural.

George Will depended way too much on quotes. What a distraction!

Putting aside the stylistic problems, Will does drill down a deeper issue: conservatism without anxieties. The truth is that every human being should be in tune with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. This repository of natural law defines and embeds the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. 

We want the Laws of Nature to be crystal clear to every American. Then would they be restored to the cultural and legal heritage of this country. So, for this part I find Will's criticism a little unfounded.

Diggins says Reagan imbibed his mother's form of Christianity, a strand of 19th-century Unitarianism from which Reagan took a foundational belief that he expressed in a 1951 letter: "God couldn't create evil so the desires he planted in us are good." This logic — God is good, therefore so are God-given desires — leads to the Emersonian faith that we please God by pleasing ourselves. Therefore there is no need for the people to discipline their desires. So, no leader needs to suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination.

I disagree with this take. The Scriptures could not be clearer regarding human direction and will in conjunction with God's will and desires:

"12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

Diggins thinks that Reagan's religion "enables us to forget religion" because it banishes the idea of "a God of judgment and punishment." Reagan's popularity was largely the result of "his blaming government for problems that are inherent in democracy itself." To Reagan, the idea of problems inherent in democracy was unintelligible because it implied that there were inherent problems with the demos — the people.

Human nature is flawed as well as fulsome, no doubt about that. Human nature does need to be limited, not expanded upon. This notion of human expansion and cheery optimism led to higher spending during his administration, with no real interest in tackling the massive debt that has only grown much, much worse over the last forty years.

There was nothing — nothing — in Reagan's thinking akin to Lincoln's melancholy fatalism, his belief (see his Second Inaugural) that the failings of the people on both sides of the Civil War were the reasons why "the war came."

It's essential for a president to rally and cheer up the citizenry, certainly, so I do not believe that a president should beat down on the national electorate exclusively. There is room, and much need, for course corrections among the people, no doubt. There is a fallen aspect to human nature which cannot be ignored, of course, for for that reason the United States Constitution instituted so many checks and balances on political power.

As Diggins says, Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding." To the founders, and especially to the wisest of them, James Madison, government's principal function is to resist, modulate and even frustrate the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires.

See above.

"The true conservatives, the founders," Diggins rightly says, constructed a government full of blocking mechanisms — separations of powers, a bicameral legislature and other checks and balances — in order "to check the demands of the people." Madison's constitution responds to the problem of human nature. "Reagan," says Diggins, "let human nature off the hook."

"An unmentionable irony," writes Diggins, is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism. "Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it." Unless people have a bad conscience about demanding big government — a dispenser of unending entitlements — they will get ever larger government.

There is a great deal of truth to this indictment. Reagan did not cut the spending, and he only slowed the growth of government. Today, forty years after the last inflation crises under President Jimmy Carter, the American public is enduring the long-term cost and consequences of printing money ad libitum.

But how can people have a bad conscience after being told (in Reagan's First Inaugural) that they are all heroes? And after being assured that all their desires, which inevitably include desires for government-supplied entitlements, are good?

Barack Obama would echo similar sentiments during his 2008 campaign and into this first and second inaugural. The cheery optimism that treats human beings as basically good, while the government and the environment are the truly flawed features, will create nothing but problems for true constitutional governance.

Similarly, Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do. But the Balkans reached a bloody boil because of the absence of effective government. Which describes Iraq today.

George Will was a vocal opponet of the War in Iraq, as was John McLaughlin and a number of other paleoconservatives. Strangely enough, George Will hated President Trump, who was the first President in thirty years to keep the United States out of war and scale back American military commitments around the world!

Because of Reagan's role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Diggins ranks him among the "three great liberators in American history" — the others being Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — and among America's three or four greatest presidents. But, says Diggins, an Emersonian president who tells us our desires are necessarily good leaves much to be desired.

It depends on what the desires are, and it depends how individuals push to realize those desires. If people want to use the government to fulfill their desires, they will find and create nothing but frustration. After Reagan, we have yet to see a Republican President who has been committed to cutting the spending and shrinking the size and scope of the state.

Will Trump follow through, should he get re-elected in 2024?

If the defining doctrine of the Republican Party is limited government, the party must move up from nostalgia and leaven its reverence for Reagan with respect for Madison. As Diggins says, Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they want to hear; the Madisonian persuasion tells them sobering truths that they need to know.

The American people have many sobering truths to face, like the fact that demographic demise, via births and mass immigration, is hurting the structure of the country. The excessive spending due to the reckless entitlement promises must come to an end. 

Reagan said that government is the problem, but he never stopped growing that problem. The next generation of leaders and representatives in Washington DC and around the world will have to get used to saying NO to lobbyists, grifters, and consultants, and say NO to growing government.

Human nature needs a heavey dose of NO at this time, now more than any other, and Reaganism cannot provided that needed check and balance.

President Grover Cleveland Vetoes Texas Seed Bill (February 16, 1887)

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

President James Madison Rejects Infrastructure Bill (March 3, 1817)

 

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

JAMES MADISON.

Why Angry About Tax Cuts, and Why Democrats Are Wrong to Foment This Anger

The New York Post invited columnist John Crudele to share his reasons why the tax reforms package, just passed and signed into law by the President, is so unpopular.

Santa Trump gave American taxpayers a gift that they should have been thrilled and thankful to receive. Yet polls — starting from before the plan was actually passed — show that Americans hated the idea of a tax cut.

Quinnipiac’s poll, for instance, showed that just 25 percent of voters approved the plan. Other surveys — by ABC News and the Washington Post, CNN, Morning Consult and YouGov — put approval only slightly higher. But those were still nowhere near the support that past tax cuts received.

He then references the widespread popularity for previous tax cuts by Reagan, Bush, and their extensions under Barack Obama.

Crudele then explains his opposition to the tax cuts:

With the US already $20 trillion in debt, I think it was unconscionable for Washington to change the tax laws in a way that will increase that debt by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

And that increase is on top of how much the debt is going to increase anyway. There were better ways to help the economy.

Larry Kudlow has concluded that the cuts will spur economic growth and tax revenue, which will more than cover for the initial deficit.

But I’d be shocked if enough Americans took the long view like I did to bring the approval rating down to an average of just 32 percent.

There are, of course, several explanations for the poll results. The most basic one is that the polls could have been wrong. Pollsters got the results of the last presidential election awfully wrong, so why trust what they say now?

Polling has been off lately. It's becoming more difficult for the polling forms to command respect from average readers. Should we really care what a sampling of people think about the tax cuts. Did the polling take place in a specific state, or were the respondents spread throughout the country?

Another reason might be that Americans bought into the idea that this tax cut was disproportionately going to benefit the rich. And it probably will.

The cuts will benefit a wide swath of men and women in the country. 80% of Americans will see a cut in their taxes. Yes, a large number of wealthy people will see a cut, too, but that's because "The rich" are paying most of the taxes to begin with. Congress needs to move toward a flat tax at some point so that this "eat the rich" or "soak the rich" insanity gets put to rest once and for all.

That anti-rich argument was mostly a story planted by Democrats and other Trump haters. The people reached by the pollsters could have simply been repeating what they were hearing on news shows and reading in the newspapers.

This reason is the more likely one, since the media corruption has become endemic and fanatical with the Trump administration. The media had a quiet disdain for Reagan, and then the press would mock George W. Bush's speaking skills. But the anti-Presidential animus eating away at the press corps is unprecedented under Trump.

Now that a number of corporations have been giving out $1,000 bonuses and crediting the tax reform for their largesse, that opinion could change quickly.

The corporations are giving money to their workers. What more do the naysayers want? They want the president removed from power, and there is nothing that he can do that would change their opinion. They are so rigidly attached to their progressive, left-wing worldview, that nothing can change their mind.

Crudele offers one more reason why the high negative opinion at this time for the tax cuts:

But I can think of another reason Americans might have been against the tax cut. And it’s the same reason that kids eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus.

It’s called cynicism.

Maybe we’ve gotten to the point where nothing that Washington does is right. Grown-up Americans don’t believe in Santa, and they don’t believe our politicians can solve our problems.

Let’s hope we will soon grow out of that stage.

Indeed, I hope they do, and I believe that they will when they see more money in their paycheck and less money going to the IRS.

This argument brings up why Democrats are overplaying their class warfare card on the tax reform package. David Harsanyi of The National Review reports:

According to political analysts, 2018 Democrats will use the just-passed tax reform as a way to argue that the Republican Party is the party of the plutocracy, which is another way of saying that Democrats are going to use the same argument they’ve been using for the past three decades with varying degrees of success. A number of liberals have claimed that the passage of “unpopular” tax reform is historically analogous to the passage of Obamacare, which triggered the loss of hundreds of Democrat seats and, perhaps, control of the presidency.

I am already smiling. Tax reform means that more people will keep their money. Obamacare was advertised with hollow promise, none of them came true, and people lost their health insurance and their money.

Big differences here.

Yes, the tax bill is unpopular. Then again, I’m not sure you’ve noticed that everything Washington, D.C., tries to do is unpopular. Nothing polls well. Not the president. Not Congress. Not Democrats. Not legislation. Not even erstwhile popular vote-winning candidates. 

This argument connects very well with Crudele's point about cynicism in the electorate.

However — apologies to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — they can be somewhat content knowing that voters will probably like it once they find out what’s in it.

In otherwords, they will give the bill a pass once they see what's in it.

Why do so many Americans believe that the middle class is getting a tax hike? Because outlets they trust are constantly lying to them. Both in framing and content, the coverage of the tax cuts has been impressively dishonest.

YEP! Finally, at least one reporter is calling out the militant negative bias in the press, directly targeting President Trump and everything he accomplishes.

There will always be ideological arguments regarding the efficacy of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, but at some point people are going to find out that they’ve gotten one, too. The nonpartisan  liberals at the Tax Policy Center concede that 80 percent of Americans will see a tax cut in 2018, and that the average cut will be $2,140 — which might be something to scoff at in D.C., but I imagine a bunch of voters surprised by these savings will be less cynical. Only 4.8 percent of Americans will see a tax increase.

The elitist arrogance stands out once again. They scoff at saving $2,000, but that's big money for families ravaged by eight years of Obama-nomics.

Like Obamacare, people don’t know what’s in the bill.

This time, though, it's not the fault of the majority party, which did not hide the contents of the tax reform package. 

But unlike Obamacare, the repeal of the individual insurance mandate gives millions a choice. The passage of Obamacare, after all, upended lives. The Affordable Care Act became synonymous with “health care insurance,” and voters attributed everything that went wrong with that insurance to the bill.

Yes. There is no way that voters will attribute something bad or wrong to legislation which has allowed them to keep more money, a law which has encouraged more businesses and corporate interests to relocate and invest in the United States to create jobs.

And since Democrats offered a litany of fantastical promises about the future of health care, the disapproval was well-deserved. Millions began seeing their insurance plans discontinued as soon as Obamacare was implemented, despite assurances from the president and pliant Democrats that no such thing would happen. For many, premiums in the individual markets doubled over four years of Obamacare. Voters dealt with these tangible, real-life consequences.

In other words, the Democrats lied, health care died, and so did their House Majority. This latest litany of lying can still doom their chances of retaking the House in Election 2018, even though they claim that this is the best opportunity in nearly a decade to do so. Let's also remember that Democratic projects for House seats in 2016 underperformed, too.

Whatever valid concerns there are about debt or spending (and they are valid), it is unlikely that tax cuts will have similar long-term consequences on voting as those on health care. It is more likely that tax cuts will do little to change the dynamics of the coming years. But it is plausible that because of the overreaction from the left, millions of Americans who thought they were going pay more in taxes will find a new child credit and be thankful.

BAM! Even Trump's daughter Ivanka worked hard to get this tax credit going. She has made the concerns for single mothers a center-piece of the GOP economic agenda for once, as did US Senator Tim Scott when he celebrated the tax reform package's passage in Congress.

As an ideological matter, every time a Democrat claims that keeping more of your own money is tantamount to “stealing” — which happens often — voters should remember this is fundamentally a debate between people who believe the state should have first dibs on your property and people who don’t. The only way to frame the bill as a tax hike is by using the 2025 expiration of individual rate cuts. And the only way they won’t be extended is if Democrats decide to raise taxes again. These are debates Republicans should embrace.

YES! 

That’s not to say tax reform is a panacea for Republicans. It’s far from it. Historically speaking, the party in power will likely lose a bunch of seats in the 2018 midterms. But the claim, as Democrats are sure to make, that those losses are unique or tied to the toxicity of an agenda item — particularly a tax cut, which is generally popular among Americans (when they know it exists) — is far-fetched.

Yes it is.

I do acknowledge that the Republican Congress will likely lose seats. They lost seats last year, and there is enough hustle in D+ leaning House seats with Republicans representing them in swing states with a larger, more diverse voting population. Carlos Curbelo is one example whose tenure in Congress remains tenuous. A Florida Republican in swing district on the Southern tip of South Florida, he has cut a centrist fold in his re-election bid, and only Wikileaks exposés helped him defeat his last opponent, along with Trump's strength at the top of the ticket.

Final Reflection

The relentlessly negative press has had to admit that the tax reform will benefit all Americans, not just "the rich". The income tax rates have been lowered significantly, for example, which all but proves that even high tax cuts which depended on SALT deductions will not see the bump or massive increase in taxes despite the lowered tax deduction credit.

Many blue state Republican lawmakers voted for the Tax Reform package, even with the SALT deduction significantly lowered, counting on massive support from President Trump and the GOP majorities to stand by them faithfully for casting the votes to get tax reform across the finish line.

McConnell and Co.'s decision to add repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate very likely sweetened the deal for many wayward Republicans facing tough headwinds going into Election 2018.

Intellectuals: Society, Trump, and Liberal-tarians

Intellectuals are a fairly modern invention for our society. 

One study I had read labeled the prophets in the Old Testament one type of intellectual. I disagree, since they operated as revelators to a nation which had rejected the laws of God and rejected His precepts. The philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome fall into this “intellectual” category more accurately, since they praised their reasoning, research, and logo ahead of revelation and physical effort.

The common denominator among them? They were spectacularly wrong on a number of issues, whether in science or sociology.

Modern Day intellectuals spend more time thinking that they themselves are God, and that their take on issues is the ultimate statement of truth and error in our culture.

What is it about these towering minds (in their own mind), and their increasingly negative impact on our culture?

Thomas Sowell shares his well-studied views on intellectuals in this interview:

 https://youtu.be/Wln6lNTxVpY

Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell on the Vulgar Pride of Intellectuals youtu.be Peter Robinson talks to economist Thomas Sowell about his book "Intellectuals and Society." Robinson and Sowell discuss the fact that intellectuals play a di...

What is about these wannabe brainiacs?

They are a lot like Millennials. Because they have a degree--actually a series of degrees--they are convinced that they have the top-notch knowledge on all the latest issues. The bubble-culture of universities tends to reinforce the false notion that they know more, that they know better about society. They surround themselves with flatulent

It's the fatal conceit, as identified by Friedrich Hayek in his book published in 1988.

The truth is they are actually very limited in their full understanding of many issues. The work-a-day experience of the common man often exceeds the self-absorbed arrogance of the white-collar intelligentsia.

Another reason why the degree chattering classes want to have and impose their opinions on current events. It's all about power. They believe in a world of aristocracy run wild. Of course, their political aspirations are nothing new. Plato and then Aristotle of Ancient Greece advocated this kind of governing structure with "Rule by the best", and they thought themselves as the right people to fill those seats. During the Enlightenment, German thinkers invested their hopes in benevolent despots like Frederick the Great, even though he was more despot than benevolent.

Just because someone is smart does not mean they have all the answers.

Many people mocked President Trump because of his shaky grasp of some issues, or his less-than-polished rhetoric. Other destructors, both Republican and Democrat, slammed Trump because he did not have prior experience as an elected official. After 100 days he has proved himself an admirable executive. His "lack of experience" has not prevented him from governing effectively. Reminder: James Buchanan, the 15^th President of the United States, commanded consummate experience, holding political office from both chambers of the Pennsylvania state legislature, to both houses in Congress and even key executive offices. He was one of the worst presidents in the nation’s history, doing nothing while the country split up over slavery.

And he was an experienced intellect, too.

This intellectual bias is not unusual among young people, too, especially in today’s political discourse. I have found a particularly aggressive form of it among young libertarians, or should I write "liberal-tarians." They are convinced that they see the world in a better light, with not only less government, but the disregard for family values and life. They are wrong.

The very voters who can help the state of California bounce back from its illiberal doldrums is a focus on Judeo-Christian values and regard for the well-being of lie and family. Liberal-tarians are convinced that they are the more progressive, more modern purveyors of future victories. Yet they are still losing. The very culture which permits free markets and free enterprise depends on regard for life and respect for individual families.

All of this is under attack, and the fight for limited government will fail as long as these so-called experts ignore the most important institution for any society: the family.

Final Reflection

The intelligentsia impulse is all about power. It's about a small faction of academics, intellectuals, and arrogant eggheads who think they know better than everyone else. After years of study, however, how many of them have any record of accomplishment to show for their "elevated" views on anything?

True intellect depends on wisdom, which includes the deep understanding that individuals, no matter how educated, do not have all the answers nor probing information on every issue. Furthermore, "being smart" is not the calling card to justify having a statement on everything, and more so dictating to others what they should do, say, or believe.

#NeverTrumpers, Jump on the Train or Get Off the Bus!

After 110 days of the Trump Presidency, one would think that the diffident, doubtful #NeverTrump crowd would turn the page and get on board the Trump Train. Yet to this day, I find a number of people, including hard-core Cruzers, who have not given up their hatred and disgust for Donald Trump. When I posted the cover of a new Trump children's book on my Facebook profile, one man commented: "That man is a fool."

Donald Trump is a fool? He worked all the angles that needed to be done, and he won the Presidency. He defeated at least 16 other well-connected and qualified candidates to compete. He then took on the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, the Soros phalanx of major corporations and their multi-million dollar donations. And he won.

And he is still winning!

So, the arguments from all of these #NeverTrumpers has grown increasingly stale, not only that, but it's so disconnected from reality, that one can hardly stand it. It's offensive!

Donald Trump is your president, whether you like it or not. Frankly, I am liking it a great deal!

Todd Royal shared his views on the #NeverTrump ideological recalcitrance in April:

Let’s review what President Trump accomplished in one week. He got Judge (now Associate Justice) Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court, and according to Senator Tom Cotton (a former member of the 101st Airborne, served in Iraq and Afghanistan), “Restored America’s credibility in the world,” after striking Syria over their chemical weapons attack. 

The appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court made Trump's victory worth everything for Trump’s most skeptical supporters. Even hard-core libertarian Republican Congressman Thomas Massie said so.

But there's more about Trump to embrace:

Trump understands the rough and tumble world of international diplomacy. He one-upped President Xi by making him wait an hour for his arrival at their recent summit the same way Ronald Reagan first greeted Gorbachev on a cold winter day wearing only a suit while Gorbachev was bundled in a heavy top coat and scarf. Trump understands what Obama didn’t, and the Chinese have begun changing their behavior after the summit, when it was reported by Reuters that China is turning back North Korean coal (North Korea’s main export) from their docks.

Well, well, well.

Trump is kicking rump all across the globe. While Obama was bowing and scraping for respect from world leaders, the President is not afraid to fight for American interests. How refreshing is that? Sure, candidate Trump was ready to slam China as an offensive currency manipulator. Now that China is agreeing to more solid trade deals to improve American lives, Trump is giving the Chinese premier a little more breathing room.

That's fine with me.

But still, the #NeverTrump crowd is just as loud. He is not presidential enough. He is not enacting policy reforms quickly enough. Indeed, purists and policy ideologues will never be happy. All of their elected officials must accomplish and expand the values they seek at all costs, or else.

The demand for perfection leads to lose. The abolitionists of the Ante-Bellum period were so determined to end slavery, that they withdrew from the political process. They burned copies of the Declaration of Independence, and they denounced the inherent corruption of the United States for allowing that despicable "peculiar institution" to stay alive.

In a similar vein, grassroots activists are angry with Trump because every step of the illegal immigration problem has not be resolved as he had said he would. Patience and priorities must stand. Purity would have ensured a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

What else burns these ardent anti-Trump conservatives? A need for self-righteous recognition, perhaps? They can brag in the media that they never compromised their principles. They are self-righteous in another sense. "This man slept with other women!"

"He has a foul mouth!"

"He called women 'pigs' and 'dogs'".

"His demeanor is not presidential."

It's this high-and-mighty church lady mentality--and it's really disgusting. Trump is not a nice little school boy. He has flaws. He has some serious problems with speaking consistently on issues. Our country faced serious threats to its integrity and existence. What sense would there have been for individual voters to hold onto their purity, but watch the country fall away into progressive darkness?

Well-respected conservative commentator Dennis Prager reminded conservative readers: The question during the election [2016] was: What will happen if the Democrats and the Left win the presidency again?

Voters, grassroots activists, and policy wonks must focus on limiting evil, and in turn expand truth, justice, and liberty. The process to free the slaves in the United States exceeded legislative solutions, since the partisan factions engaged in a cruel, four-year Civil War. Legislative successes followed, including the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

The political process must concern all citizens, just as they are invested in the policies and principles they wish to advance. #NeverTrump doesn’t understand this difficult yet necessary reality in politics.

Or worse, they just don’t care. For that reason, their rhetoric and relevance must wane in the advancing months. As for me, I blocked the commentator who called Trump a fool. I submit that all of us will be the wiser for taking similar actions with unrepentant Trump opponents.