Posts Tagged ‘Ronald Reagan’
While much of the country was focused on a former Navy zero (murderer Chris Dorner), a Navy hero was laid to rest in Texas -
Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle had a procession Feb. 12 fit for a head of state.
The procession stretched along the heart of Texas, 200 miles, traveling from Midlothian to Austin, and included police escort, biker escort, and a giant American flag, compliments of area firefighters.
He was buried next to fellow Texas Navy SEALs at the Texas State Cemetery.
200 miles of tears and tribute to the man who died trying to help a buddy through his PTSD.
The procession you’ll see in the video below reminded me of the one for Ronald Reagan that went through Ventura County to the Reagan Library several years ago.
The wife and now widow of Chris somehow kept it together enough to express her heartbreak and showed amazing strength and grace as she eulogized her fallen husband:
Fair winds and following seas, Chief Kyle. Most of America is grateful for the time from your family you sacrificed, and the sacrifice you ultimately gave for your friends.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
You know, it’s funny, San Francisco Democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi are all for economy-killing policies when their own constituents aren’t directly affected: all in the name of “Saving the Environment™.” President B. Hussein Obama has no problem killing job-saving bills that would bring water to California’s parched Central Valley if it saves an ecologically-challenged minnow at the expense of our nation’s fertile farmland, our food supply, and jobs.
Well the infamous San Francisco Dems Pelosi and Feinstein are currently blocking a plan to actually restore part of Yosemite National Park that was flooded by the construction of a dam back in 1923, providing not only water, but electricity to the city of San Francisco over 190 miles west.
On one side are Republican lawmakers and environmentalists, including Ronald Reagan’s former interior secretary, who want the dam removed and valley restored. On the other are Democratic San Franciscans, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, fighting to hold onto the city’s famously pure drinking water in a drought-prone state.
“Eventually it will be broadly understood what an abomination a reservoir in a valley like Yosemite Valley really is,” Donald Hodel, the former interior chief, told The Associated Press. “I think it will be hard to quell this idea (of restoration). It is like ideas of freedom in a totalitarian regime. Once planted they are impossible to repress forever.”
Over the past decade, studies by the state and others have shown it’s possible for San Francisco to continue collecting water from the Tuolumne River further downstream.
But the city never seriously has considered giving up its claim to the valley.
“This is a ridiculous idea,” Mayor Ed Lee said. “It’s a Trojan Horse for those that wish to have our public tricked into believing we have an adequate substitute for the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. We do not. There isn’t any.”
The gravity-fed system serves 7 percent of California’s population, city water officials say. Turbines from its dams generate hydroelectric power for city buildings, streetlights and traffic signals, the airport and the transit system. And two-thirds of the water from the system is sold to neighboring municipalities.
And this at a bargain! [Emphasis mine]
All of this for just $30,000 a year. That was the rent set by Congress when it passed the Raker Act in 1913, giving San Francisco exclusive control and use of the Hetch Hetchy valley, despite opposition by 200 newspapers across the country and after a week of contentious debate.
Now here’s where it gets weird – I agree with the SF Democrats: keep the valley flooded and provide water and power to the people. The damage was done years ago and would cost billions to reverse.
And here’s where it gets impossible to conceive: that Democrats would learn from this and STFU when it comes to people needing water in other areas, like the Central Valley farmers. And since I’m dreaming here anyway, maybe they’ll rein in their EPA and stop them from destroying people’s lives?
No, they’ll never do that. The only thing for it is to cause the Democrat to become endangered and finally extinct.
- S.F. to vote on restoring Yosemite’s lost valley (fresnobee.com)
- Yosemite’s lost valley will be subject of vote (foxnews.com)
- Vote Could Expose Lost Yosemite Gorge to Public (foxnews.com)
- Bring back Yosemite’s lost valley? Voters to decide (msnbc.msn.com)
Obama would have to call his commercial “Miserable, Weak and Worse”
It was 1984, and Ronald Reagan was campaigning for reelection against Walter Mondale. Reagan’s administration was steering the US through calmer waters, after the tumultuous seas of a several year-long deep recession.
After the dust had settled in November, every state but the bluest Minnesota appreciated Reagan’s contribution to making the country stronger. It was Mondale’s home state, so while they could technically be forgiven for that, they later gave us Al Franken, which erases everything.
Is it any wonder conservatives are in a funk? The Democrat incumbent opponent in 2012 is a narcissistic, arrogant, self-serving, destructive little freak, and I have to sit here wondering if the best the establishment GOP can foist on us is up to the task of defeating him?
I need to go to the shooting range.
Nothing new under the sun
In the 40 some odd years since Reagan spoke those words, little did he know how close we’d let the left get to total control of our nation before we finally woke up, got off our butts, and confronted reality; the left means to replace what works best in America with what’s been proven time and time again to fail-socialism or as close as they can get to it.
Well the leftists like Pelosi, Reid and Obama don’t speak for all of us;
This is how a US President gives thanks to his troops, past and present
Today, June 6, 2010, when The “History” Channel is showing some trucker marathon, the rest of us remember a different history. A history of sacrifice and greatness which may not be unique to world history in the modern professorial view, but it’s special to those of us whose families still choose to remember.
It was a nearly 100-meter-high cliff, with perpendicular sides jutting out into the Channel. It looked down on Utah Beach to the left and Omaha Beach to the right. There were six 155mm cannon in heavily reinforced concrete bunkers that were capable of hitting either beach with their big shells. On the outermost edge of the cliff, the Germans had an elaborate, well-protected outpost, where the spotters had a perfect view and could call back coordinates to the gunners at the 155s. Those guns had to be neutralized. The Allied bombardment of Pointe-du-Hoc had begun weeks before D-Day. Heavy bombers from the U.S. Eighth Air Force and British Bomber Command had repeatedly plastered the area, with a climax coming before dawn on June 6. Then the battleship Texas took up the action, sending dozens of 14-inch shells into the position. Altogether, Pointe-du-Hoc got hit by more than ten kilotons of high explosives, the equivalent of the explosive power of the atomic bomb used at Hiroshima. Texas lifted her fire at 0630, the moment the rangers were scheduled to touch down.
President Ronald Reagan tells the rest;
Read the rest of this entry »
The continuing GOP identity crisis
Crisis? No crisis with me.
A strong “conservative thinker”, James Carville, recently quipped;
“I have an announcement to make. Ronald Reagan’s big tent just collapsed in Upstate New York. It no longer exists,” Democratic strategist James Carville said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
This he said following Dede Scozzafava pulling the ripcord on her campaign parachute, but I suppose prior to her proving him once again an idiot by endorsing the Democrat in the race.
I beg to differ with the likes of Carville, and more recently Allahpundit in today’s piece at Hot Air he titled “Poll: 51% of Republicans would rather risk losing elections than win with RINOs”
In it he quotes a CNN Political Ticker poll which says in part;
The poll indicates that a slight majority, 51 percent, of Republicans would prefer to see the GOP in their area nominate candidates who agree with them on all the major the issues even if they have a poor chance of beating the Democratic candidate. Forty-three percent of Republicans say they would rather have candidates with whom they don’t agree on all the important issues but who can beat the Democrats.
He says it’s not a problem at the moment, “…but if/when unemployment starts to recover and the trend stabilizes, it’s a major problem.”
First, speaking for myself I don’t foresee a huge recovery in the cards considering;
- The interest rates are artificially being kept low with the US printing money at an astronomical rate (see “hyperinflation“).
- If to forestall #1 interest rates are raised, so too raises the interest on the debt that the Obama Triad is desperately trying to triple.
What does America produce today that other nations will buy?
America got into this mess because it bought its own information. Its best information said that you can make huge money on debt, that you can give anybody a piece of plastic and move the merchandise, and that while 30% of your cardholders will default–you’ll still make money, gazillions of it. And because money buys power, you can write your own laws. You can make it so those deadbeat thirty-percenters have no choice but to pay you. You can make it so you can take their house, their car–not that you would, just that you could–and you’d be guaranteed at least another gazillion.
I’m no economist, nor do I play one here. I just don’t see anything good coming our way financially as a nation with the fiscal storm clouds on the horizon that even I can see from the ditch I dig. I’m not rooting for failure here, I just can’t see the things being done by this government as it is currently made up leading to anything but consolidation of their power and ruin for the rest of us.
So that leaves us with what kind of party do we want?
Well, what kind of party have we had for the last, oh I don’t know; say eight years? Are you happy with it? Generally speaking, when it comes to standing for conservative principles, I’m not by any means thrilled.
How many times did I yell at the air “Why won’t you idiots fight like ya got a pair?”
The left not only fights for every scrap it gets, it comes back again and again in a mass “human wave” attack for what it didn’t get.
Amnesty; got confidence in the GOP we have today when that comes up again next year? I don’t.
Stopping Obama’s march to plant radical judges from coast to coast-how’s that working out for you? 70-29 vote today on a judge who shouldn’t even be considered? Really, we have to sit and hope they stand up in the confirmation vote and hope it turns out differently?
Speaking again for myself, I’d rather have a strong minority party that will sustain a filibuster than a majority of squishes who constantly cave to the left.
My “Big Tent” includes all races and nationalities, not all ideologies. In a case where we have a clear choice between a conservative and a moderate, or even in a case such as in California with a known conservative like Chuck DeVore versus a mostly unknown, but suspect Carly Fiorina-go with the proven conservative.
Those GOP forces who today misquote Reagan and have misunderstood Reagan’s idea of a big-tent need look no further than Mary Dent Crisp, once a prominent leader in the Republican party, who in 1977 was appointed its co-chair.
Crisp got the message, left the convention and signed on with the third party candidacy of a more moderate/liberal Republican named John Anderson.
Although Crisp had been a Republican longer than Reagan and had worked her way up the ladder of party leadership, Reagan was now defining what the party stood for and Crisp was outraged at the party’s new values on abortion and the ERA.
“Although our party has presented the outward appearance of vibrant health, I’m afraid we are suffering from serious internal sickness,” she said during platform committee meetings in 1980. “Now we are . . . about to bury the rights of over 100 million American women under a heap of platitudes.”
The next day Reagan showcased his big-tent philosophy, telling reporters that Crisp “should look to herself and see how loyal she’s been to the Republican Party for quite some time.”
I know, this is a lot of pasted stuff, but you have to see the finale.
In Reagan’s big tent, the likes of Arlen Specter would always have been welcomed, so long as they were willing to go along with Reagan, but the moment they stood in the way, as Mary Dent Crisp did, and sought to assert their policies on his vision for the party, they were shown the door. Today, the big tent that Reagan stitched together is in disarray, but if its leaders are to return from political oblivion, they’d do well to remember how Reagan went about constructing the tent and the philosophy that swept him, and two weak Republican successors who rode his political coattails into the White House, and build a tent which stands for key principles, yet never fails to welcome those who disagree, as honored guests.
First, he did indeed have a big tent, especially in 1984, which allowed 59% of the electorate to vote for him, but it was a tent of Reagan’s design in which those who disagreed with him had little say about how the tent was constructed, but were welcome to stay anyway. Pro-choice women were welcomed into the tent as voters so long as they didn’t try to change the party’s position on the issue of abortion, one which Reagan held dearly enough to have written a book about while still in office. Union members were courted by Reagan, so long as they didn’t mind Reagan’s tough policies toward organizing which included his firing of striking air traffic controllers and eventually came to be known as “Reagan Democrats.” Those jittery over Reagan’s bellicose statements on foreign policy were also welcomed, provided they could live with his tough posture toward communism. And even Rockefeller Republicans were allowed to stay in the tent so long as they realized that they were joining his party and not the other way around, that while they would be horrified by the new boss’s position on social issues for instance, they’d find something to cheer about in his tax cuts.
Reagan’s big tent also included some unsavory characters on the extreme right. While disavowing any connection to the John Birch Society, accused by some of having racist tendencies, Reagan invited its members into his big tent saying that if members supported him it was in indication that he had “persuaded them to accept my philosophy, not me accepting theirs.”
In contrast, Reagan considered members of what has derisively come to be known as “the religious right” as not a fringe group to be courted, but a foundational element of the big tent he constructed. Meeting with Christian leaders in 1980, he famously declared “You can’t endorse me, but I endorse you,” and made sure that platform committees that were to decide party policy were heavily stacked in their favor.
Interesting things from regarding the “Third Party” infection creeping through the ranks can be found here.
Bottom line for me: when it comes to weak kneed self-seeking squish Republicans whoring out their votes strictly to self-aggrandize and obtain power;
I don’t want ‘em in my tent.
I never thought I’d see the day in my lifetime
To me, East Germany was just a nation behind the Iron Curtain that would always be walled off.
Ronald Reagan saw differently;
Arriving in Berlin on June 12, 1987, President and Mrs. Reagan were taken to the Reichstag, where they viewed the wall from a balcony. Reagan then made his speech at the Brandenburg Gate at 2 PM, in front of two panes of bulletproof glass protecting him from potential snipers in East Berlin. About 45,000 people were in attendance; among the spectators were West German president Richard von Weizsäcker, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and West Berlin mayor Eberhard Diepgen. That afternoon, Reagan said,
“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
Even with Obama building walls in Europe, we celebrate the fall of one;