Obama is Secretly Talking with the Taliban, Says It’s What Reagan Would Do

Obama is Secretly Talking with the Taliban, Says It’s What Reagan
Would Do

February 22nd, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

With Islamic
riots
, skyrocketing deficits, and state-skipping Democratic legislators
hogging the headlines, this item has not yet gotten the attention it deserves.
Steve Coll writes
in The New Yorker
, “The Obama Administration has entered into
direct, secret talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, several people briefed
about the talks told me last week.” Obama mentioned reaching
out to “Taliban moderates” in 2009
, only to drop the idea after public
backlash. Apparently, the Obama administration has decided now is the
time it wishes to look weak, hopeless, and pathetic.
Hillary Clinton detailed the American stance before a meeting of the Asia
Society recently. She emphasized that if the Taliban returned to its history of
repression and terror incubation, it would risk being branded “an enemy of the
international community.” Mullah Omar and his buddies must be shaking in their
turbans.
Hillary tried to calm the situation, saying, “I know that reconciling with an
adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even
unimaginable.” But she insisted, this is what Reagan would do.
She attributed her policy to Ronald Reagan and Richard Holbrooke. The lesson
she and Obama learned from The Gipper is….
Read
more
.

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

By Toby Harnden WorldLast updated:  February 5th, 2011

207 CommentsComment on this article

For many Americans, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library is a place of solemn pilgrimage. This weekend, it is also the site of lavish celebrations marking what would have been the 100th birthday of “the great communicator”.

On Sunday, his widow Nancy will lay a wreath at his gravesite as F-18s launch from the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and a 21-gun salute is fired. There will be a Beach Boys concert, a six-feet-by-six-feet birthday cake topped with 20,000 jelly beans (Reagan’s favourite). And a bill of $5 million (pounds 3.1 million), to be settled using funds raised privately.

Among those paying homage in person are Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, both with presumed presidential aspirations in 2012. The formal start of the Republican presidential campaign will take place in May with a debate at, naturally, the Reagan library.

Perhaps more surprising is that there is a new claimant to the Reagan throne this year: President Barack Obama. Having once routinely derided Reagan as, in the words of Democratic greybeard Clark Clifford, an “amiable dunce”, the liberal establishment is now seeking to embrace him.

Obama first tried to grab Reagan’s mantle three years ago when he cited the Gipper as a way of taking a shot at the Clintons by saying that the Republican had “changed the trajectory of America” in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. Reagan, he added, responded to a feeling that “we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship”.

Now, Obama sees Reagan’s aura as a potential political lifeline as he hopes to emulate his forerunner’s feat of receiving a drubbing in mid-term elections after two years (in 1982) followed by a landslide re-election victory two years after that (in 1984).

Obama’s recent State of the Union speech was full of self-conscious optimism (though the slogan “winning the future” is a pygmy compared with Reagan’s “morning in America”) and appeals to bipartisanship – a nod to the celebrated fact that Reagan managed to work with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, a liberal Democrat.

Other Democrats, taking this a step further, are using Reagan as a stick to beat the modern Republican party, painting him as a moderate pragmatist who would be out of step with today’s hard-right ideologues.

Republicans treat all this with weary disdain. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s famous 1988 put down of Senator Dan Quayle, the older ones are saying: “I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is an idol of mine. President Obama, you’re no Ronald Reagan.”

Rich Galen, a Republican strategist who was working on Capitol Hill in the Reagan era, says that conservatives giggle at Obama’s attempts to be Reaganesque. “Obama is diametrically opposed to everything Reagan stood for.”

Reagan nurtured a coalition that included Reagan Democrats, who stayed with the party for decades, he points out, but the term Obama Republicans has not been heard since the 2008 campaign. Even on style, there’s little comparison. “Obama is cold and distant whereas Reagan was warm and liked to be around people,” says Galen.

Some Republicans fear that Reagan is facing a posthumous political emasculation by Democrats who play down his conservatism and recast him as a squishy conciliator.

There is little doubt that Reagan would have been dryly derisive of Obama’s policies and presidency. “Government is like a baby,” Reagan once quipped. “An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Obama, by contrast, views government as a kindly nurse and the people as the baby. According to his mindset, the people should submit to those in government who know better and whose role is to make decisions and control the purse strings.

Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist who grew up in the post-Reagan era, views his country’s 40th president, primarily as “the embodiment of American exceptionalism”, a stark contrast with Obama.

Although Obama has been paying lip service to American greatness in recent months, he made it clear in his first two years in office that he saw the United States as a flawed nation with much to apologise for and dismissed the notion of American exceptionalism as mere patriotism.

Despite the comical transparency of Obama’s attempts to portray himself as the new Reagan, Democratic attempts to redefine the conservative hero as some kind of big cuddly jelly bean do leave Republicans with a dilemma.

Reagan’s sunny optimism was all about looking forward. He was not a nostalgic man. To do battle with Democrats over who Reagan was leads Republicans into a debate over the past when they need to be setting out a vision for the future.

The opening event of the weekend birthday celebrations was a Friday night speech by Palin in Santa Barbara, close to the Reagan ranch. In it, she focused on a Reagan speech from 47 years ago, declaring that “the choices before us are as clear now as they were in 1964”.

Relatively few American voters can remember 1964 but those who can will note that Barry Goldwater suffered an overwhelming defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson that year.

Palin, who happened to be born in 1964, recently compared herself to Reagan, dismissing a criticism by Karl Rove about her reality show series with the retort: “Wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn’t he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo or something?” Relegating Reagan to having been a mere actor did not exactly endear Palin to those who revere the man who ended the Cold War. So now, it seems, the former Alaska governor is over-compensating.

It would, however, be best for the Republicans who hope to oust Obama next year if the current 100th birthday celebrations mark the moment that Reagan was finally consigned to the history books.

Tussles over who Reagan was and futile attempts by Republican candidates to define themselves in terms of how they measure up with his legacy are exactly what Obama and the Democrats want.

Toby Harnden’s American Way column is published in the Sunday Telegraph each week.

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[//  

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