Category — Ronald Reagan

Liberals, none too appreciative of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments on Obama’s lack of qualifications, dusted off their poison pens and opened fire. That’s not surprising, but the opening line of this Harvard Crimson editorial writer’s column was amusing:

In an unsettling return to the Reagan Era-still the cause of some mourning in America-…

So I checked the Crimson’s web site to find out that James Maxwell Larkin graduates in ‘10. So, assuming that doesn’t mean 1910, Mr. Larkin most likely wasn’t even potty trained during the decade. Therefore, I’d suggest he leave commentary on the decade to people who lived through it and remember it instead of channeling his liberal professors’ angst.

By the way, we still don’t have any takers willing to defend Barack Obama’s qualifications. Millions of you voted for him, but not one of you can put a cogent, fact based qualification listing together to back it up. Things that make you go hmmm….

The latest Howie Carr article is both entertaining and sadly true. An excerpt for you:

I’m not the first person to admit contracting this debilitating illness. Former Bush supporters are coming out, you might say, all over the Internet. If you’re wondering whether you, too, are at risk for contracting BDS, ask yourself the following questions:

Have you recently screamed at an RNC telephone fund-raiser - all of whom were just fired because everyone in the Republican base has stopped giving money since “shamnesty”?

Do you find yourself calling the president “Jorge”?

Have you dreamed of the day Jeb Bush runs for president, so you can vote against him?

Have you asked yourself, “Where can I get me one of those Z-visas so I don’t have to pay back taxes?”

If you answered “yes” to more than one of the above questions, consult your physician immediately. Before you can say, “Mission accomplished!” you may find yourself repeating Ronald Reagan’s great line about the Democratic Party: “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.”

It’s a great read and well worth your time.

The Republican Party better hope the illegal immigrant block provides a lot of votes and money because they’ve devastated their base today. They’ll at least need to replace my donation since I’ll be hanging up the phone when the RNC calls and depositing their mailings in the circular filing cabinet. This illegal amnesty bill is a complete slap in the face to every American citizen that obeys the law, pays their taxes, and works everyday.

And it’s not just illegal immigration that the Republican Party and President Bush have failed us on. I cringe to think of everything Ronald Reagan could have accomplished with a Republican House and Senate at his disposal. It’s really shameful how little of the conservative agenda has been implemented under the “compassionate” conservative.

Let’s face the facts—when you examine most of the issues, you’ll be hard pressed to find many substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats today. Republicans might spend a bit less than their Democratic counterparts, but the debate is never about less government, only how much it should spend.

Now a lot of the Bush apologists are probably using the lesser of two evils argument to justify Republican failures. Republicans might be bad they say, but Democrats are far worse. Although this argument is compelling, I ultimately reject it because it cuts against my beliefs in personal responsibility and accountability. Republicans are ultimately accountable for their actions and a policy that gives them a blank check is irresponsible. It’s kind of like putting Republicans on lifetime welfare because woe to us if we hold them responsible for their actions.

It’s time to hold the Republican Party responsible for its actions. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we didn’t abandon them; they abandoned us. Republicans are going to spend a long time out of power. Let’s hope they eventually learn something from it.

Things are looking up for the Romney campaign: 

The poll, conducted by Survey USA for WBZ-TV, was taken after the first debate among Republican presidential candidates last week. It shows 32 percent of likely GOP voters in New Hampshire favor Romney, compared with 23 percent for former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and 22 percent for Arizona Senator John McCain.

None of these candidates is Ronald Reagan’s legatee.  Mitt’s campaigning to the right of his rivals, but was previously a “compassionate” conservative.  Giuliani is socially liberal, and McCain took great pleasure in tweaking the party’s conservative base. 

The door is open for a real conservative to grab this nomination.  However, I don’t see anyone with the money, organization, and name recognition to oust the current frontrunners.  Unless something happens to shake this race up, we’ll be choosing between the lesser of 3 “compassionate” conservatives. 

If keeping both thoughts congruent is difficlt, re-education is in your future.

This is a course in liberal logical thought. Take notes, there is a pop quiz.
One wrong answer and you will spend the time between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox in a re-education camp of the strict regime run by the ACLU.

A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film “The Nativity Story” might offend non-Christians.

A) The showing of the film “The Nativity Story” in a German Christmas market, during a Christmas festival may be offensive to:

1. Jews
2. Unitarians
3. Wiccians
4. Muslims
5. Liberals
6. Cretins
7. Not being offended is anti-social behavior

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
[snip]

A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline’s ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

B) Repeatedly shouting “Allah” in an airport during the boarding process may be offensive to:

1. Hate mongers and Bushites
2. Zionists and radical Christians
3. Xenophobes and misanthropes
4. Being offended is anti-social behavior

Failure to take the test will be considered revanchist and inimical to the state.

Ahmadinejad welcomes them; he won’t be at the airport however.

TEHRAN, Iran — Shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran to mark the anniversary of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover.

The protest comes as Iran continues massive war games that began ten days ago and have included the test-firing of new missiles.

The demonstrators, including war veterans and school children, have burned U.S. and Israeli flags outside the former embassy compound. Iran’s Parliament speaker invoked the current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, declaring America hasn’t learned the lesson that “threats will not affect the Iranian nation.”

Militant students seized the compound 27 years ago Saturday, holding 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, letting them go the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president.

Iran invites Americans to visit the celebration with a $20 gift just for showing up. I’m surprised Howard Dean hasn’t booked the entire Democratic Party on this fantabulous spree. At $20 a pop, it is a great fund raising excursion. Call it the “Solidarity Junket” deprecating Reagan for showing up the Boiled Goober from Georgia.

At last, a missile technology receiving Pelosi’s wholehearted approval. Kerry can endorse a military more to his ideals. A fun time for all except for Unca Teddy! Certain strictures you know.

Here’s a story you won’t find in the Boston Globe. A declassified Soviet memo details Ted Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union win a propaganda war in the United States. Kennedy, convinced that Soviet aggression was President Reagan’s fault, offered his help in presenting the Soviet case to the American people in an attempt to unseat President Reagan.

Sadly, you see the same pattern from liberals today who have shifted their sympathy to Iran, North Korea, and various terrorists. It’s our fault these nations are exporting terrorism and building nuclear weapons. Bay State Senators are not covering our state in glory that’s for sure.

Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese has a very thoughtful Op-Ed in the New Times today:

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, and you’ll find it says, “the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.”

Supporters of the current Senate bill need to come clean with the public and admit their proposal is amnesty.  The “straight talking” John McCain’s glib suggestion we call it a “banana” as long as we do not call it amnesty just highlights the ridiculous nature of this claim.

America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to “humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

Thomas Jefferson noted that, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”  If none cherish citizenship, then who will defend it?

Republicans who think the current rift in the party will be healed once the immigration furor subsides could be sadly mistaken. Immigration only calcified what conservatives knew in their hearts already, but had hoped was not true—this President and GOP are more “compassionate” than they are conservative.

The conservative agenda is not moving forward and the evidence is everywhere you look. The government budget is expanding at rates not seen since LBJ was crafting the Great Society. Republicans pass massive FDR style entitlement programs like Medicare prescription drug benefits without even blinking. The President signed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform after having explicitly campaigned against it in his presidential run. Republicans allowed Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act. After promising us Scalias and Thomases for the Supreme Court, the President nominated his personal lawyer. Even if Harriet Miers became the Court’s most conservative member, did the President expect us to believe she was the most qualified candidate he could find? And even on the rare occasions when they try to reform the welfare state with personal savings accounts for Social Security they cannot muster the strength to push it through.

The President’s failure to implement a conservative agenda is all the more painful because conservatives gave him every tool they could to implement it. Conservatives entrusted the party with both Houses of Congress by ousting Democrats from the Senate. They poured 10s of millions into Republican campaign coffers. They went door-to-door registering voters. They staved off midterm election malaise in 2002 to keep both Houses of Congress firmly under Republican control. One can only dream what a similarly blessed Ronald Reagan might have accomplished with these advantages.

No, the dissatisfaction with the President and party has been growing for a long time. Its roots run much deeper than immigration. Until now events have conspired to paper over the differences. Conservatives disliked President Clinton to such an extent that any Republican president was going to get a honeymoon period. After 9/11, conservatives put their own desires on hold believing it was their duty to support a wartime president. In 2004, they believed promises that a President Bush freed from election concerns would really govern in a conservative fashion.

Except for strong efforts in the War on Terror and small tax cuts they cannot make permanent, the Bush presidency is unsatisfying like a cake without frosting. But we are told maintaining power is important because a Democratic takeover would be disastrous and this logic is not without merit. It might even be undeniable if the party was not spending billions advancing the nanny state while congratulating itself on spending a few billion less than their Democratic counterparts.

Ultimately, it really comes down to your goals. If holding power, tapping on the breaks of government growth, and electing candidates with the R after their name is your definition of success, you probably feel very comfortable in today’s GOP. However, those wishing to shrink government and implement a conservative agenda are left wanting something much more. Ask President Bush 41 what happens when you abandon the base of your party. Bush 41 drove conservatives to Ross Perot and gave the presidency to a man who could never muster over 50% of the popular vote even with a split opposition and good economy the media actually acknowledged. Many will blame conservatives for not supporting the party if a November disaster occurs, but I am left to wonder who really abandoned who?

If you have never read or heard “A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan, I highly recommend it.  President Reagan’s delivery is superb and the audio is stirring.  I am always struck by how accurately President Reagan describes liberalism and you will be amazed by how little liberalism has changed over the last 40 years.  This speech, with only a few tweaks, would be as topical today as it was in 1964.

Here is an excerpt:

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down — [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

The full audio and speech can be found here.

Good Morning Everyone

This is my first entry on this blog and I thank you for taking the time in reading my political views as well as my observations in all aspects of American life as we know it today.

Most of the bloggers I have read here seem to be highly conservative, well educated, and still laughing at the idea that Al Gore still thinks he truly won an election a few years ago. I am a bit different. I am also still laughing at Gore, but have a different sort of life that I hope will add a unique flavor to the Blog. For one thing…I am a stand-up comedian. Yes..I know..what is a stand-up comedian doing on a conservative Blog page? hey..I felt somebody had to do it. I have voted Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1980, when I was a mere 20 years old. I went to college in the 80’s, watched Reagan dominate the political world, became a true Conservative, and then basically watched Bill Clinton come in during the 90’s and give stand-up comedy more topical possiblities since the premise of Michael Dukakis as a world leader.

I am married 16 years this Friday, have 2 sons, live in Connecticut and ..oh yeah…have a real way of earning an income…own a small sales rep business, in the plastics industry, which I started up just two years ago. I travel quite a bit, pay outrageous amounts of taxes, scream at kids, do a lousy job at fertilizing the lawn, and go to Catholic Mass each Sunday. I also coach Little League (my last 3 years of seasons have given me a records of 8 wins and 28 losses), teach CCD on Saturday mornings (that’s Catechism for those that haven’t been through Catholocism), and truly do stand-up comedy professionally-although just part time on the side.

It was suggested by my accountant from Philadelphia, that I write in and do a Blog once in awhile, as he enjoys analyzing my weekly activities as he knows them , as well as my receipts that I send him, which allows him to follow my insane day to day life-through various expnse receipts, bar tabs, speeding tickets, toll violations, and plane tickets.

I suppose I will write in on occassion when the moment strikes me on issues such as immigration, my Little League record this season, and hopefully the replacement for Dennis Hastert (Is that guy really the Speaker of the House???).

It was nice writing to you here and hope to read any follow-ups you may have for me. Please watch the language .

In October, I essentially predicted the outcome of Alito’s nomination:

Prediction: NO filibuster, final vote 57-43 to confirm Alito.

After John Kerry’s filibuster flopped, the senate confirmed Alito 58-42. Last January, I wondered what any good Republican would wonder:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will publicly declare in summer 2005 who she would prefer to appoint her successor. A GOP senate majority enusres a more conservative replacement so if O’Connor does not step down this summer, Bush will only have an opportunity if she passes during his term… AND Ronald Reagan will have made his first mistake.

She declared, by the way. Of course, I missed a few too:

Blowhards like myself will not rest until we get our judges. If people like McCain and Warner want to be in a constant battle over the judiciary, that’s fine by me. At this point, I agree with New England Republican - NOT A DIME. AND now for the smear campaigns in the GOP primaries….

The Gang of 14 was actually a good thing. It kept both Democrats and Republicans from going into unchartered territory. Even though I am still angry about the left’s first term tactics, they weren’t allowed to stand. Ultimately, Democrats were forced to relent when the public was actually watching and Republicans preserved a senate tradition. In the end, good sense prevailed and the majority party got their way.

Here are some interesting predictions I made in early January…..

A nice one: On the Supreme Court - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will publicly
declare in summer 2005 who she would prefer to appoint her successor. A GOP
senate majority enusres a more conservative replacement so if O’Connor does not
step down this summer, Bush will only have an opportunity if she passes during
his term… AND Ronald Reagan will have made his first mistake.

A wrong one: On Bush - Bush’s overall approval rating will have much less to do with Iraq in 2005. It will be higher than his 50% average in 2004, but lower than his total average which stands at 63%.

Not all predictions pan out. But Bush’s fall will last only 6 months to a year tops…. Justice O’Connor’s replacement is forever…

Second term presidencies are usually met with unglued partisanship that battle over the question of impeaching the President by the opposition party. Liberals successfully derailed President Nixon’s second term in 1974 with the might of Congress and Nixon’s unbelievably guilty behavior on a lone Saturday night. The left was unsuccessful in ousting Ronald Reagan, even though he was implicated in the Iran Contra scandal. After Reagan’s Vice President, then President George Bush, was ousted from office in 1992, conservatives obsessed about defeating his Democratic rival, Bill Clinton. However, in 1998, the right realized ousting a President over a blue dress and a consentual encounter, would not advance the conservative agenda.

Today, President George W. Bush battles a liberal media that is still angry over his decisive re-election and the GOP’s majority padding in Congress. They don’t have the votes to even question his Supreme Court nominee and that angers all the more. The president’s second term encounters have gotten nastier and more partisan, but at this point, discount the chance of impeachment. If the President were to suffer a political setback that gave Democrats majority power in next year mid-term elections, the landscape would change and he would immediately become vulnerable. However, the President’s loss would make his predecessor’s challenge less great come 2008. The second term hysterics that we see today are just that - hysterics…

The new liberal talking point is that Republicans, led by conservatives, seek to blur the lines between separation of church and state. Liberal Democrats like Howard Dean and Al Gore have given us a primer on what is ahead in the next election cycle - those who oppose abortion, gay marriage or euthanasia are religious zealots. Liberals cite the Schiavo affair and the judicial filibuster as evidence the GOP is hell bent on making America a theocracy.

The most conservative Republicans have responded by calling liberals “anti-Christian.” GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist was attacked for his appearance on Justice Sunday because of the religious association. Republican leaders have cautioned to attack the Democrats on religion, most likely because they fear a backlash in the MSM.

However, throughout this entire debate, Democrats have never had to explain the origin of their positions on “values” issue. On the other hand, it is widely accepted that the GOP’s positions, for the most part, are rooted in Judeo-Christian values. No one has ever really looked at the origin of the left’s positions on the most divisive issues facing this country. So I will.

Liberal values gained traction in the late 1960’s after the Civil Rights movement. Liberals successfully coupled civil rights for minorities and women with social policy such as abortion and the death penalty. And, who advanced most of these ideas? - the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision to legalize abortion, was the birth of the culture war in America. Overnight, the Court became the final arbiter of all things controversial and more importantly, unsettled.

Liberals then formed a counter-culture based on humanistic values purposely disassociated from anything remotely religious. The value system was based on a morally relative view of values and was used to advance some of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings in this country’s history such as Roe. The movement suffered serious setbacks in national elections soon after because Ronald Reagan’s 1980 platform created a home for socially conservative (and active) voters.

The culture war has seesawed back and forth throughout the years with conservatives having most of their success in the 1980’s and liberals in the 1990’s. President Clinton’s impeachment was probably when the fight reached fever pitch and the liberal movement has suffered electorally ever since. Last fall, President Bush successfully used Reagan’s formula to become the first President since his father to win a national mandate.

As a conservative who does value the separation of church and state, I ask Republican leaders to start questioning the origin of liberal philosophy. The GOP has to expose the roots of modern day liberalism for what it is - a cult formed in the post-War, post- Civil Rights period designed to remove everything remotely religious from the public sphere.

True conservatives seek to give the states the right to choose what religion they want to follow - a humanistic counter-culture that was founded on moral relativism or the Judeo-Christian values this country was founded on. I am willing to let the people decide. Are liberals?