Rogues gallery of Democrat politicans-those complicit in the great financial/housing crash of 2008-look on as the anti-Reagan President signs FINREG into law in the Ronald Reagan Building signaling the hoped for end of the Reagan Revolution.
Obama in his abyssmal ignorance and hatred of free market capitalism meant it to be a great symbolic occasion signaling to the nation the end of an era that nearly plunged us into a second great depression. For on July 21, 2010 Obama signed into law FINREG a sweeping new 2300 page financial regulations reform bill that would prevent another disastrous financial collapse.
And where did our great post-partisan uniter and healer sign this bill, the greatest financial overhaul since the Great Depression? In the Oval Office, on Capitol or somewhere else in the White House? NO! That wouldn't do. Just as he began his presidential race in Springfield, Illinois on the steps of the Old Court House in imitation of Lincoln, and took his oath of office on Lincoln's Bible, Obama needed a place of symbolic importance when he signed this historic bill: in short he needed the Reagan International Trade Building. What a grand gesture and brilliant bipartisan move. What a way to endear himself to Republicans, Tea Partiers and the Reagan Right. Signing into law a bill that massively grows the size and regulatory power of government in a building named in honor of the man who said "Government is the problem." Imagine the reaction of the liberal press and the anti-capitalist Left if Reagan or Bush had done something similar: if they had signed into law their tax cutting bills in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. MSM would have went ballistic accusing them of intentionally insulting New Deal liberals and the memory of FDR.
Obama signing FINREG in the Reagan Building was like the Islamic supremacist Feisal Rauf building his triumphalist mosque near Ground Zero. It was meant to antagonize and divide not unite and heal wounds. What Obama did was the spiteful act of a leftist community agitator on a national scale never before seen. An insulting act of blatant f*ck youism to the opposition (excuse my French) and Reagan's memory.
Obama can't govern like Reagan, lead like Reagan, communicate like Reagan, negotiate like Reagan, win bipartisan support like Reagan; he can't inspire optimism and confidence in the people and business world like Reagan. Obama is a petty, vindictive little man unworthy to be Reagan's shadow. Overshadowed by the Gipper's victorious legacy of economic renewal at home (his policies created 20 million new jobs) and in defeating the Soviet Union abroad (and liberating millions) Obama's narcissism and delusional self-esteem needed a symbolic victory over his anti-socialist nemesis (which he can't get in reality); he needed to cut Ronald Reagan down to size and stick it to the Reagan Right out of spite. In short, this ceremony was designed to show Obama's contempt for Ronald Reagan and his policies and to herald the Death of Reaganism.
Indeed, in choosing the Reagan Building Obama was making it perfectly clear that he was Reagan's arch-enemy and polar opposite; that he was the GREAT ANTI-REAGAN come to slay the beast; and that by making FINREG the law of the land he was discrediting Reaganomics and fixing the mess supposedly and ultimately caused by Reagan's anti-government deregulation policies: the 2008 financial/housing collapse*.
*As you'll see below it was leftist economist Paul Krugman who planted this stupid and unprovable idea in Obama's uncritical mind.
But now that he's dropping like a rock in the polls and faced with defeat in 2012 the man who made a show (just one short year ago) of being Reagan's nemesis runs for cover donning Reagan's mantle and misusing his legacy to shame fiscally conservative small government
Republicans-to bash those who want less federal control and more freedom and certainty; who want to revive the depressed and failing economy, balance the budget and pull back the deficit and debt from the brink. If it weren't so pathetic it would be laughable. As Obama shrinks in stature he looks desperately to Reagan to save his hide* turning the great tax cutter into a compromising tax hiker to pressure the "anti-tax" GOP to fold. But Obama grabs at straws and there's no changing him. He's anti-Reagan to the bone with an anti-Reagan's destiny; he has a rendezvous with catastrophe driven by ideology as he leads the nation down the path to financial and economic ruin. Reaganism has no better friend than Barack Obama. And in the end Reaganism, the Founders and freedom shall prevail.
*After the shellacking he took in 2010 Obama wanted the public to know that he was reading a biography on Ronald Reagan during his Christmas vacation. Was he actually reading about Reagan to learn the secrets of his successful presidency? Or was this part of a ploy to appear more fiscally and economically conservative to our center right nation (
see)?
Unlike the ball and chain of Obamanomics creating uncertainty, misery, depression and fear Reagan the liberator of millions in Eastern Europe revived patriotic nationalism and economic optimism with his liberating, business friendly, pro-growth policies making us the "city on the hill" again. This is an act that Obama (the power grabbing statist control freak) can't follow as he heads into history a failed one term president.
Postscript I: Krugman's New York Times Article Blaming Reagan for 2008 Crash
It's practically certain that Obama's inspiration for signing FINREG at the Reagan Building was Paul Krugman's 2009 NY Times hit piece "Reagan Did It (see)." In this article Krugman advances the ridiculous notion that both the S&L Crisis of 1987 and the financial/housing collapse of 2008 were due to Reagan's deregulatory policies (not Jimmy Carter's*). The culprit, says Krugman, was the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act signed into law by Reagan in 1982. This allowed banks to provide adjustable rate mortgage loans to borrowers, which had little or nothing to do with the S&L collapse let alone the crash of 2008. What caused the S&L debacle was the recklessness of these institutions issuing billions in risky loans-a practice that started in the late 1970s under Jimmy Carter and continued during the Reagan years. Moreover, it was outrageous of Krugman to suggest that Garn-St. Germain had anything to do with the 2008 crash as this was caused by millions of sub-prime loans given to uncreditworthy families insanely started by Bill Clinton's National Homeownship Strategy for the poor.
But Obama, perhaps the most partisan president in US history, swallowed Krugman's disingenuous article hook, line and sinker. He wanted to believe the lie that Reagan ultimately created the mess that he inherited; and that he was somehow redeeming the country from Reaganism with his economic stimulus, healthcare and financial reform programs.
Postscript II: Reagan the Compromiser.
I don't get the analogy. Reagan a Conservative Republican President compromised with Tip O'Neil and the Democrat led House to raise taxes; while Obama, a Progressive Democrat President and anti-Reagan, wants John Boehner and the Republican led House to compromise with him in raising taxes on the rich. How then would the House be following Reagan's example when it's not the executive branch? Obama as usual got things upside down. If Obama were like Reagan he'd compromise with Boehner and not the other way around. He'd either agree not to raise taxes or agree to reform and simplify the tax code by flattening rates and taxing the 51% who pay nothing*.
*30% of these are wage earners.
///////