Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Phil Boehmke

 

Today we celebrate the Ronald Reagan Centennial. Revisionists on the left
have been busy reinterpreting and recasting the life of President Reagan in an
attempt to explain his continued popularity. Time magazine photo-shopped President Reagan with his hand on Barack Obama’s
shoulder for last week’s cover in a curious attempt to link the two polar
opposites.
The gulf that separates Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama cannot be bridged by
media hype and superficial comparisons. Perhaps no issue defines the differences
between President Reagan and Mr. Obama more closely than their views on
abortion. Last month Barack Obama marked the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade by
re-affirming his unyielding support of abortion. During his lack-luster career
in the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama revealed his extreme and radical pro-abortion
agenda.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak
against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term
labor-induced abortions…Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a
nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to
be a person who had the right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to
take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law
deemed a child who survived a late-term abortion had a right to live, “then this
would be an anti-abortion statute.” [1]
In stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s radical views on abortion, Ronald Reagan
as a Christian, believed in the sanctity of life and sought ways to educate and
convince pro-abortion supporters to consider the rights of the unborn. In The
Reagan Diaries the president relates that he had received a wire from a woman in
Peoria, Il in response to his State of the Union speech. The woman was unhappy
with his stance on abortion and felt that he wanted to take away her freedom of
choice. Rather than write a response, President Reagan called her on the
telephone and explained that “there were 2 people‘s rights involved in
abortion-the mother‘s & the unborn child.” After what he termed “a nice
visit,” the woman promised to give the matter further thought. Ronald Reagan
noted that “I think I made a friend.” [2]
During his presidency Ronald Reagan was impressed with the new ultra-sound
procedure and predicted that the new technology would have a powerful impact on
the abortion issue. In a meeting with leaders from the Right to Life movement he
viewed a short film which showed an ultra-sound of an actual abortion being
performed. President Reagan related that the Doctor who had performed the
abortion (and some 10,000 others) was so moved by the evidence that he joined
the pro-life movement. He wrote in his diary “The movie (28 minutes long) was
most impressive & how anyone could deny that the fetus is a living human
being is beyond me.” [3]
Of course President Reagan never met Barack Obama. Standing in stark and
bloody contrast to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama was never swayed by evidence which
would assert that a fetus is “a living human being.”
More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, relating the following story of an aborted
Down syndrome baby who survived a late-term induced-labor abortion and was
abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because the baby’s parents did
not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in
a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the
Illinois Senate. “So I cradled him and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived.” Stanek reported Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony. [4]
Ronald Reagan embraced life and had a confident and simple way of
expressing the importance of each life. On July 6, 1983 he wrote:
Nancy’s Birthday! Life would be miserable if there wasn’t a Nancy’s
birthday. What if she’d never been born. I don’t want to think about that.
[5]
On Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday if we pause to ask, what if he had never
been born? The response would clearly be, “I don’t want to think about that.”
The United States of America was truly blessed to have had President Ronald
Reagan at the helm for eight wonderful years.
[1] Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of
Personality (New York: Threshold Editions, 2008), p. 238.
[2] Douglas Brinkley Editor, The Reagan Diaries (New York: HarperCollins,
2007), p. 217-8.
[3] Ibid., p. 296.
[4] Corsi, The Obama Nation, p. 238.
[5] Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, p. 164.
February 6, 2010

Page
Printed from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/ronald_reagan_vs_barack_obama.html

at February 06, 2011 – 11:15:54 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Census hands big advantage to GOP

Census hands big advantage to GOP

Thomas
Lifson

 

The just-released official Census data means that
Democrat-leaning states will lose congressional representation, while
Republican-leaning states will gain. Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics:

The apportionment winners were: Texas (4 seats), Florida (2 seats), Arizona
(1 seat), Georgia (1 seat), Nevada (1 seat), South Carolina (1 seat), Utah (1
seat), Washington (1 seat). The losers were: New York (2 seats), Ohio (2 seats),
Illinois (1 seat), Iowa (1 seat), Louisiana (1 seat), Massachusetts (1 seat),
Michigan (1 seat), Missouri (1 seat), New Jersey (1 seat), Pennsylvania (1
seat).

Overall, this represents a continued shift in the Electoral
College from blue-leaning states to red-leaning states. If the 2008 election had
been held under these census numbers, President Obama’s 365-173 victory over
John McCain would have become a 359-179 win. For 2004, the numbers are starker
still: Bush’s 286-251 victory would become a 292-246 win, meaning that even if
Kerry had won Ohio, he still would have lost (in 2004, flipping Ohio would have
been sufficient to give Kerry the win).

Americans are voting with their feet — abandoning the high tax and
regulation states run by Democrats in favor of the freedom offered by
GOP-dominated states in the Sun Belt. The sight of East Germans felling to West
Germany during the Cold War comes to mind. Luckily, New York, Illionois, and
California are unable to build fences to keep their citizens from leaving, the
way the German commies did. But I bet they’d rather build that kind of fence
than fences along our Mexican border keeping illegal immigrants
out.

Page Printed from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/census_hands_big_advantage_to.html

at December 21, 2010 – 01:27:34 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is ‘on the table’

Republican congressional
candidate says violent overthrow of government is ‘on the table’


12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October
22, 2010


By MELANIE MASON / The Dallas
Morning News
mmason@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Republican
congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying
he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not
produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas
pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on
the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County
GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice
Johnson
in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional
District. Johnson’s campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad
Watson
, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked
Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort
Worth
in which he described the nation’s government as
tyrannical.

“We have a constitutional remedy,” Broden said then. “And the Framers say if
that don’t work, revolution.”

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of
the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to
explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive
government is to “alter it or abolish it.”

“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to
the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to
get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was
founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s
King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current
government.

“The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything
from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said,
without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

The War on Sarah Palin Really is a War on Conservatives

2010 June 26

It’s getting rather old, but the Left continues to attack one of the most influential conservative women alive today: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

When she was invited to speak at Stanislaus university in California last Friday, leftist students immediately went through trash cans, trying to figure out how much Palin was being paid. They organized protests, asked their friends of the mainstream media for help, and altogether did their best to ruin what eventually became the most successful fundraising dinner in the university’s history.

The material recovered by the students, which detailed perks such as first-class airfare for two and deluxe hotel accommodations, prompted California Attorney General Jerry Brown to launch an investigation into the finances of the university’s foundation arm and allegations that the nonprofit violated public disclosure laws.

Would they have done the same thing if Palin was a leftist? Have you ever heard of progressive students protesting against the speaking fees of, say, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton? No, of course you haven’t. That’s because this is not about fairness or money but about Palin’s ideology. She is a conservative, and that’s reason enough for leftist students to ruin her evening and to disgrace the university that invited her.

This non-scandal once again proves that conservatives are engaged in a political war with progressives. Too often conservative pundits and politicians think we should be ‘civilized’. We should not, because our enemies certainly are not either. When you are engaged in a war all that matters is that you win. If this means you have to fight dirty every now and then, so be it. The Left understands this, too many on the Right do not. Let Palin’s treatment at Stanislaus serve as a wake up call for those who still believe that manners matter.

Lincoln Won With Anti-Union Message

Lincoln Won With Anti-Union Message

June 9th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

APTOPIX Arkansas Primary

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln survived a bruising Democratic runoff thanks to former President Bill Clinton’s starpower and her argument that labor unions were trying to interfere in state politics.

In winning the Senate primary Tuesday, Lincoln overcame a flood of outside money from labor unions and liberal groups that had backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter’s challenge. She’ll fight for her seat against Republican Rep. John Boozman in the fall.

“I think this race became bigger than me and bigger than Bill Halter,” Lincoln told The Associated Press on Tuesday night. “It became about whether or not the people of Arkansas, who are great people, were going to continue to be hammered by special interest groups that simply wanted to manipulate them and their vote.”

Playing off that theme, national Democrats pivoted to the fall campaign by casting her as a free-thinking champion of her state. Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine hailed her victory, calling her “a strong, independent voice who fights for what she believes in.”

In the final days of the campaign, Lincoln’s campaign increasingly relied on an ad from Clinton, the former governor who remains popular in his home state, that warned about special interests.

“This is about using you and manipulating your votes,” Clinton said in ad, which featured a clip of a speech the former president made at a rally for Lincoln last month.

Lincoln’s campaign said it believed the former president’s clout helped further an argument that Lincoln had made for weeks, that outside groups and labor unions were trying to buy Arkansans’ votes.

“It really did help frame the race,” Lincoln campaign manager Steve Patterson said last week. “Coming from our campaign, it wasn’t quite as resounding and I think it was viewed by people in your profession as whining.”

Lincoln’s next-to-last ad also featured the incumbent senator telling voters she heard their anger at Washington when they sent her into a runoff with Halter on May 18. She added: “I’d rather lose this election fighting for what’s right than win by turning my back on Arkansas.”

“I think she pulled it out because I think people realize, one, what she meant to Arkansas and that she had been a fighter for Arkansas and she was willing to tell them, ‘I’m willing to lose this race rather than turn my back on Arkansas,’” Lincoln strategist Jim Duffy said Tuesday. “She made it clear she got the (anti-Washington) message from the primary. And I think Clinton framing the race in the sense that the unions were making her a poster child. Those two messages made all the difference.”

Lincoln also used the clout she had gained in Washington as one of her chief selling points, reminding voters in the farm-heavy state that she was the first Arkansan to chair the Senate Agriculture Committee.

That argument sealed the deal with some voters.

“She’s head of the Agriculture Committee, which is one of the most important committees we have in Washington,” Lori Ritchie said after voting in the library of an elementary school west of Little Rock. “It’s all about power and what committee you’re on. It will take Halter eight to 11 years to get to the position Blanche is at now.”

Added Stephanie Jackson, who cast a vote for Lincoln in Little Rock: “She’s been up there and knows how it works. But she’s not too much Washington.”

After months of distancing herself from the Obama administration and national Democrats, Lincoln tacked left in the runoff campaign. She ran ads portraying herself as a parter with Obama on health care reform, and another showing a liberal talk show host talking about the financial overhaul legislation she worked on.

Lincoln said Tuesday that she hoped the labor unions and other groups backing Halter would now support her in the general election, but it remained unclear if they would do so. Labor leaders said they hoped the incumbent senator learned a lesson from the pressure they applied in the 14-week campaign.

“Tonight, Senator Lincoln won a narrow victory after a bruising runoff election where each and every day she was reminded that her success is only measured by doing right by working people and their families,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union

Sarah Palin: Remembering D-Day

Sarah Palin: Remembering D-Day

Remembering D-Day
 Today at 12:15pm
Today, on the 66th Anniversary of D-Day, let’s remember the courage and sacrifice of our Greatest Generation whose actions helped liberate a continent. I’d like to share with you excerpts from President Reagan’s beautiful speech on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day honoring the Rangers who took the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc:

“Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them here. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life and left the vivid air singed with your honor.”….

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.” – Ronald Reagan

May we never forget the sacrifices made for liberty.

- Sarah Palin

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.
History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.
They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.
The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn’t changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.
They read it in Plutarch’s Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.
You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia’s serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)
America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.
The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.
Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.
America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history — because they understood that human nature hasn’t changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama.  It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.
The Left seems to believe that Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.
Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas — not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.
Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.
Russian president Medvedev said this last week – said it out loud, to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:
“President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights.  He also condemned Joseph Stalin’s record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.
… “Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven.”…
Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.
That’s why you liberals scare us.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers