Gay Patriot Header Image

Reagan On My Mind

GP Commenter Trace Phelps must have been channeling my thoughts as I was on an airplane earlier today.

One of the things that’s disappointed me about President Bush was his failure after 9/11 and the commencement of the WOT to challenge the American people. Unlike previous war presidents, he did not ask Americans to make sacrifices for the war effort. Thus only the men and women in the military, and their families, are making sacrifices. Most of the rest of us, sadly, probably don’t think any sacrifices are necessary. Ask an American in any shopping center what he or she is doing to help in the WOT and he or she will stare at you with a dumb look.

The president, unfortunately, is no longer in a position to inspire most Americans to take the WOT seriously. I hope not, but it may take another terrorist attack on American soil to wake us up.

This too is probably my single biggest disappointment and frustration with President Bush.  (Coming in close behind — Skyrocketing Federal spending.)  He seems to have lost (if he ever truly had it), a connection with the American people on the War — or any topic for that matter.  It isn’t so much his bad communication skills, but his lack of interest in being our Communicator-In-Chief.

While on the plane, I finished watching a great NBC News special on my iPod called “The Great Communicator — Ronald Reagan In His Own Words.”   It was somewhat recent as Brian Williams was the host, and perhaps it originally aired after President Reagan’s death.  I highly recommend it.   (I found the iTunes link to the Reagan program!  I think….)

In any case, watching Reagan consistently and passionately make the case against Communism, and for American values, from 1964 to 1989 really hit home as a contrast to how bad a job President Bush has done in communicating to our nation.  I’m inspired to go and read (not watch) some of Reagan’s speeches again.

When will President Bush realize that he must rally this nation in its latest “rendezvous with destiny“?

To make matters more depressing, BORU at The Consortium points out that our alternatives in November are much more scary and ominous.

The GOP has done much to annoy and fracture its internal coalition.  However, if the only other choice is the modern Democrat Party then there is no worthy alternative.  We, who re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, must do what we can to elect Republicans this year.  Especially in the House – our GOP House of Representatives do not deserve to be punished because of the arrogance and elitism of their Senate counterparts.  And our President does not deserve to be impeached because John Conyers is the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  Our country’s purse strings do not deserve to be put into the hands of the likes of Murtha, Pelosi and McDermott.  Are they the ones you want deciding the amount alotted to our Armed Services and Border Patrol?  Are they the men and women you want deciding how much more in taxes you will have to pay??? 

It is an honor and duty to vote in this country.  This November it is also a responsibility.  It is our responsibility to keep our country’s safety and economy in the more sane party’s hands.  The other day, I again visited the Ronald W. Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California, and saw this quote of his from 1994 (the year Newt Gingrich led us to the majority we must this year protect):

“It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad, and the collapse of imperial Communism.  Great nations have responsibilty to lead, and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile, because they might just wind up lowering our flag.”

We should all heed the warning of this great man.

Indeed.  I guess there is a lot of Reagan in the air this week.  We are again at A Time For Choosing in America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

53 Comments

  1. Ah, yes, the war thing. Ahmadinejad goes to Malaysia and calls for the destruction of Israel. Hugo Chavez goes to Iran and calls for the destruction of the United States. What’s the biggest news story in American? Mel Gibson gets drink and reveals that the nut doesn’t fall far from the anti-semitic tree.

    WTF, mate.

    Meanwhile, the one Democrat who actually wants to fight terrorists (but is otherwise an uber-liberal) is on the verge of being drummed out of his party for heresy.

    WTF, mate.

    Meanwhile, the only decent country in the region is being bombarded by missiles from terrorist organizations, and the world is condemning them for defending themselves.

    WTF, mate.

    Comment by V the K — August 3, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - August 3, 2006

  2. I’ m reading his (reagan) autobiography “an american life” It’s very good, especially his economic ideas.

    Bush didn’t need to ask america for much. we were all basically with him up until the war drums for iraq started beating. I’ve always thought that if he had said ” in order to fight this war, we are going to raise gas prices 25 cents” we would have had a MUCH more thorough examination of the counter arguments before going in. as it was, they made it sound like it was going to be basically free and over in 5 seconds and what kind of a jerk wouldn’t do this for a country we’ve screwed so bad in the past? scam of the century.

    “government isn’t the solution to the problem, government IS the problem”

    damn straight ronnie. no where is the folly of the leviathon state more evident than a bunch of career politicians with no military experiance or knowledge of the middle east wrestling control of a war on Iraq from the likes of Colin Powell.

    Comment by lester — August 3, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - August 3, 2006

  3. BORU asked in referring to , “Are they the ones you want deciding the amount alotted to our Armed Services and Border Patrol? Are they the men and women you want deciding how much more in taxes you will have to pay???” I am curious about this because republican spending in the past several years is frightening…and the money hasn’t been going to the men and women in the armed services. As has been the case in the past, later governments have to raise taxes for the spending decisions of the previous. Even if the Republicans retain control, they’re going to have to raise taxes at some point ,or cut the budget. The government cannot continue to spend and spend and spend without taxpayers paying for it eventually and at some point. That said, what difference does it make if Democrats do it or Republicans do it? Armed Services and Border Patrol (and by that phrase I am assuming that BORU means the men and women of those organizations) may actually get more than they have been getting under the current government.

    Comment by DanielFTL — August 3, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - August 3, 2006

  4. A good wake-up or reminder post; thank you. You are a special person Gaypatriot and I value your insight and writing contributions highly. Cheers, keep the faith –
    DA

    Comment by Das — August 3, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - August 3, 2006

  5. I take issue, somewhat, with the notion that President Bush failed to call for American sacrifice after 9/11. In an press conference with the Japanese PM back in October 2001, he answered a question with this response –

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Steve, I think the American people understand that ours will be a long struggle against terror. And they understand there will be sacrifice. After all, there was no greater example of that sacrifice than on Flight 93, when American citizens, after having said the Lord’s Prayer, said, “let’s roll.” And they stormed that airplane so as to save lives on the ground.

    I think the American people now fully understand that we are in an important struggle, a struggle that will take time, and that the country — there will be moments of sacrifice.

    He clearly called for sacrifice. I will admit that he failed to make that point clearly in most of his major speeches immediately after 9/11, but I think he adequately prepared Americans by calling for national unity, service from American citizens and adjusted expectations on the nature of this war. He admitted it wasn’t going to be easy. Go back and read his speeches in 2001. These were all consistent themes.

    The notion that Bush failed in communicating with the American people doesn’t seem accurate. I think the major problem is that Americans do not see Iraq as a logical extension of the war on terror (I disagree totally). The fault for that lies not with the President but rather with the Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media. Let’s place blame where blame is due.

    Comment by Philip — August 3, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - August 3, 2006

  6. It was under Reagan that the Christian Right began to equate Christianity with political identity. It was the beginning of the current downfall of the Party, a change for the GOP of leadership of classical conservatives into leadership by radical zealots.

    The Republican Party as it currently stands would never have accepted Reagan as a Presidential candidate if were to run today. Too soft on Liberals.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 3, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - August 3, 2006

  7. Sounds like Glyph was a fan of Ollie North, Ed Meese and the Pornography Commission. {giggle}

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - August 3, 2006

  8. Lester –

    Colin Powell was Secretary of State, not Secretary of Defense.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - August 3, 2006

  9. I think at least part of the problem is the Bush’s use of the idiotic phrase “War On Terror”. The equivalent for WWII would be “War on Blitzkrieg”, for Israel’s current battle, “War on Katyushas”.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - August 3, 2006

  10. Gramps writes: “It was the beginning of the current downfall of the Party, a change for the GOP of leadership of classical conservatives into leadership by radical zealots” and “The Republican Party as it currently stands would never have accepted Reagan as a Presidential candidate”.

    Once again proving that someone on the very outside ledge of the Democrat Party (getting ready to jump) is giving insights into a political party he doesn’t understand, one he doesn’t know and hasn’t had even a twit’s worth of contact with the GOP.

    It would be like me making political strategy calls for the ACLU, Code Pink, or the USA Communist Party.

    When it comes to the GOP, you don’t know jack Gramps. It’s that blinding hatred of religion which brings you to hate the GOP.

    Actually, Bruce can probably tell you that during the Bush-Reagan campaigns in the primaries of 1980, the religious right was around and operating quite nicely. In 1976, the future Moral Majority folks were just putting their baby toes in the water of GOP politics and many political pundits thought that the bigger pie was on the Democrat Party side for mobilizing progressive religious voters for the polls –ie the black vote, the Catholic vote that wasn’t consumed with pro-life, etc. They ended up being dead wrong, too Gramps.

    I can tell you that RR won the 1980 primaries because of the influence and presence of the Religious Right –they understood his values, his unquestioning belief in the good of America and his interest in correcting the mistakes of Democrat Party influence on culture, the WH, the Stock Mkt, the Congress, Hollywood, etc.

    He was in-sync with their issues. His agenda dovetailed with their agenda. WHen he said “God Bless America” at the end of his speeches on the campaign trail, you believed he meant it. Far cry from JimmineyCricketCarter’s malaise ‘tude and failed leadership from the gas pumps to Iran, from the Olympics to rotten, corrupt inner cities.

    Nope Gramps, RR would have been right at home with the religious right of today. Nancy still would have done the astrology thing, but RR knew how to pick allies, cultivate political loyalties, rebuild American resolve.

    You might want to think the religious right wasn’t a part of GOP politics in 1976-80-84-88. But you’d be dead wrong again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 3, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - August 3, 2006

  11. As I recall, Jimmy Carter appealed to the Religious Right during the 1976 election, too, much more than Ford ever did.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 8:56 pm - August 3, 2006

  12. The assumption that the “Religious Right” is an exclusively “white” phenomenon is yet another example of how the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - August 3, 2006

  13. Why is it lefties are always whining about Republicans pandering to the Religious Right, but never complain when Democrats make campaign appearances at black churches?

    Oh, yeah, it’s because they know the Democrats are faking it.

    Comment by V the K — August 3, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - August 3, 2006

  14. I’ve lately been pondering (no, Ian, that is not swimming in a small body of water) about the likelyhood that the Dems are going to take at least one house in congress. Lets face it. if the political landscape remains similar to those we currently see, ceteris paribus, then the elections coming in November are the Dems to lose. I’m convinced they will take at least one body of congress. I ask myself, the part of me that is politically detatched, what would be the consequences for the party in charge if they lose one house?

    If the Dems take the House, we will almost certainly see impeachment hearings. Not great during a war, but who knows what the outcome will be. If those hearings stick to the torture and NSA spying issues, they may have a shot. If they try the “Bush Lied” meme, they will probably look like fools, as there are too many Dems who proclaimed, pre 9/11, pre G W Bush, that Saddam was hiding WMD’s.

    If the Dems take the Senate, the republicans can say ta-ta to any more Roberts / Alito type judges getting any chance of a fair shake in confirmation hearings.

    No matter which house the Dems might win, you can bet there will be a boat load of investigations going on, either as a result of those that are currently stalled, or new ones. Either way, the Republicans are in for a very rough ride for the next two years.

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 3, 2006 @ 9:19 pm - August 3, 2006

  15. PS. If the Dems persue a, ahem, strategy simillar to the propaganda spouted on the Air America Randi Rhodes or Mike Maloy shows, then the Repubs have no worries for the fall — R. R. = Bush in on 9/11, M. M. = Bush an Nazi psychopath. Howard Dean — being Howard Dean. That’s a winning campaign for sure — for the Republicans!

    Comment by sonicfrog — August 3, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - August 3, 2006

  16. Whenever I’m on a left-of-center blog, and one of the “locals” blurts out “Impeach Bush NOW!!!”, I always ask,

    “But why do you want to see Cheney become President?”

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 9:36 pm - August 3, 2006

  17. Meanwhile, the tolerant, pro-gay progressives at DailyKos are now bashing Lieberman with gay slurs

    Comment by V the K — August 3, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - August 3, 2006

  18. rendezvous with destiny. aren’t those scary words. it’s the same reason the moth goes to the flame. those people (insert irony) can’t help themselves. why the rest of us have to be along for the ride? hmm.

    Comment by Billiam — August 3, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - August 3, 2006

  19. 13: Because there’s a big difference between speaking to religious groups and making fundamentalist religion a cornerstone of your political ideology. unlike some republicans, I can’t recall any democratic candidates who have promised religious groups that they would make inroads into our constitutional government by writing their religious beliefs into laws.

    Comment by Kevin — August 3, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - August 3, 2006

  20. Perhaps your beloved Bush would be in a better position if we had, oh, say….stayed with a strong presence in Afghanistan and actually captured Bin Laden and more of his thugs before he went on his ideological joy ride in Iraq. Then again, you can’t keep people in fear if that symbol of fear is captured/killed.

    Oh yeah, lots of people thought it was so great and kickass to get rid of Saddam, but no one seriously considered how to handle the single most important issue that would face iraq without Saddam: how to avoid civil war. Well, by golly, if we just set up a democracy there, everything would be just hunky dory. Wrong. This is a region of the world steeped in many traditions thousands of years old. All the strife, attacks, ongoing conflict are not being caused by just terrorists….Iraq is poised for a civil war between the shiites and the sunnis.

    Comment by Kevin — August 3, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - August 3, 2006

  21. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21924_New_Lieberman_Art_at_Daily_Kos#comments

    Off topic–look what the progressive libs are doing to leiberman at Daily Kos. The party off inclusion (spit)

    Comment by greenmiler — August 3, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - August 3, 2006

  22. Kevin –

    Is it possible for you and your ilk to make an argument without throwing in the idiotic non-sequitor “your beloved Bush”?

    I don’t vote on the basis of who I “love”, I vote on the basis of who I consider the strongest candidate. If Lieberman or Bradley had won the Democratic nomination two years ago, I might have voted Democrat in 2004. But since all the Democrats had to offer was Kerry and Dean, the choice was easy indeed.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 12:07 am - August 4, 2006

  23. Given that a united front between the Sunni Al-Qa’idah/Hamas/Islamic Brotherhood and the Shi’ah Iranians/Hezbullah has been a serious threat to the USA, is a civil war between those two groups necessarily a BAD thing for the USA, Kevin?

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 12:10 am - August 4, 2006

  24. they would make inroads into our constitutional government by writing their religious beliefs into laws.

    Apart from the teaching of “Scientific Creationism” and/or “Intelligent Design” in some scattered jurisdictions – which I oppose – where have “religious beliefs been written into law”, Kevin?

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 12:15 am - August 4, 2006

  25. #3
    republican spending in the past several years is frightening…and the money hasn’t been going to the men and women in the armed services. As has been the case in the past, later governments have to raise taxes for the spending decisions of the previous. Even if the Republicans retain control, they’re going to have to raise taxes at some point ,or cut the budget. The government cannot continue to spend and spend and spend without taxpayers paying for it eventually and at some point.

    First of all, government spending now is pretty average . (pdf file; table 2) At approximately 20% of GDP it bests any spending during the Reagan era. The only time it fell below that mark in recent history is during the 90s when specific budgets were cut (for example the military/defense department)or increased at a slower rate.

    Anyway, it’s called economic growth. Yes taxpayers will pay for it but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to raise taxes. A larger economy means more more tax dollars with the same tax rates. I’m all for that.

    Before anyone responds, let me say this: I am not defending the necessity of any current spending but I am so tired of hearing about “frightening” and “skyrocketing” federal spending. Democrats complain about spending. Republicans complain about spending. Both accuse the other of being big spenders. How about changing the debate to what is an acceptable level of spending (and debt) and then debate what we want to spend it on? Or would that take too much of the demagogy out of it?

    Comment by John in IL — August 4, 2006 @ 12:15 am - August 4, 2006

  26. The only time it fell below that mark in recent history is during the 90s when specific budgets were cut (for example the military/defense department)or increased at a slower rate.

    A classic case of “pay now or pay later”. We’re paying now, through the nose, for all those Clinton-era defense cuts.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 12:23 am - August 4, 2006

  27. Because there’s a big difference between speaking to religious groups and making fundamentalist religion a cornerstone of your political ideology.

    Let’s see now, shall we?

    Have a gander at Clinton and Gray Davis arguing that voting Davis out of office would be against God’s Word.

    So let’s see……vote against Dems, and you’re not a good Christian. Got it. No fundamentalist theology there.

    Now let’s see Kevin spin how good it was for Massa Clinton to do that and how that should have in no way jeopardized the tax-exempt status of that church for political endorsement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 4, 2006 @ 12:35 am - August 4, 2006

  28. #27. Massa Dallas Man, Amen!!

    Comment by sean — August 4, 2006 @ 12:54 am - August 4, 2006

  29. “Massa Dallas”?

    Don’t tempt me to PhotoShop a “blackface” version the photo of ND30 in all his glory. 🙂

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 1:16 am - August 4, 2006

  30. Fine let’s change the question in the debate on spending, final quip aside.

    “How about changing the debate to what is an acceptable level of spending (and debt) and then debate what we want to spend it on? Or would that take too much of the demagogy out of it?”

    The current spending, particularly on what has been termed the War on Terror, is approach 1/2 trillion dollars. Now those on the right believe it is necessary and right and will have some beneficial outcome at some point. Those on the left think that money could have been spent in other ways that could have had some beneficial outcome at some point. I am not arguing against a strong defense, but I believe this war in Iraq, was the wrong one and is far too expensive for what we’re supposed to get out of it eventually.

    How high should the debt level be? It should not be so high that the US is in a place that the only thing the government can do is pay interest on debt. That’s treading water, and with bound hands. We already see that doesn’t work very well for individuals and it isn’t likely to go well for the government either.

    Comment by DanielFTL — August 4, 2006 @ 3:29 am - August 4, 2006

  31. 27: I wonder if Bruce is now editing for linking to quotes that don’t exist. hmmmm.

    “Have a gander at Clinton and Gray Davis arguing that voting Davis out of office would be against God’s Word.”

    Besides saying that Clinton spoke in a church, where does it say “voting Davis out of office would be against God’s Word”? I find no such statement in the article you linked to. It simply says he spoke in a church on behalf of Davis.

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2006 @ 5:05 am - August 4, 2006

  32. 24: I think the embracing of “faith based initiatives” has been a good start. These organizations do provide help (as do non-faith based organizations). In addition, though, they are free to discriminate as they wish to those who they don’t wish to provide services for and, in addition, it gives them government blessing (note irony here) to prostelitize and indoctrinate people in exchange for receiving help from these groups.

    Bush himself said that “our rights are derived from God” (funny, I thought our rights came from the constitution and laws which were written by people, not God).

    More and more bills are being introduced that recognize God and religion in them. Not only that but, like other bills these days being introduced by conservatives, they want to try to make them exempt from constitutional/judicial review.

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2006 @ 5:28 am - August 4, 2006

  33. 5: Why should it surprise you that Bush failed to ask for sacrifice? True leaders not only ask others to sacrifice, but do it themselves. Aside from separated military families and those who’ve lost loved ones in combat or from the 9/11 attacks, who in this country has truly sacrificed anything because of all of this?

    The “war on terror” has just been a big feeding frenzy for the businesses in this country who have profited handsomely since 9/11/01. Companies like Halliburton are sure having a hell of a time and oil companies are laughing themselves all the way to congressional hearings.

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2006 @ 6:05 am - August 4, 2006

  34. Kevin –

    So you don’t believe that rights exist, until politicians decree that they do?

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 7:21 am - August 4, 2006

  35. #17 V the K — August 3, 2006 @ 9:44 pm – August 3, 2006

    Meanwhile, the tolerant, pro-gay progressives at DailyKos are now bashing Lieberman with gay slurs

    You aren’t really so naive as to believe that people who comment on a web site necesarily agree with the proprietors of the web side, are you?

    Comment by raj — August 4, 2006 @ 10:26 am - August 4, 2006

  36. #16 Frank IBC — August 3, 2006 @ 9:36 pm – August 3, 2006

    Whenever I’m on a left-of-center blog, and one of the “locals” blurts out “Impeach Bush NOW!!!”, I always ask,

    “But why do you want to see Cheney become President?”

    And that’s why Bush will never be impeached or convicted and removed from office. If he was, the real pResident will become the real pResident. I don’t understand the rhetoric devoted to impeaching Bush. If they were to actually try to do something like that, it would be a symbolic “stub your toe.”

    After Shrub leaves office, he might want to watch where he goes if he travels abroad. Kind of like Henry Kissinger and Gen. Pinochet. But it is highly unlikely that he’ll have to worry, since Incurious George hasn’t shown much interest in foreign travel anyway.

    Comment by raj — August 4, 2006 @ 10:32 am - August 4, 2006

  37. Kevin writes, true to his inner radical Democrat anti-corporate soul: “The “war on terror” has just been a big feeding frenzy for the businesses in this country who have profited handsomely since 9/11/01.”

    LOL. The only feeding frenzy since 9/11 have been those RedStates like NY and Maryland and CA and MI feasting –yeah, feasting– on the federal govt pork under the guise of homeland security, first responders training and equipment, and “administrative fees” to local and state govts for implementing security features which should have been in place 10-15-20-25 years ago. Here in Michigan, the clock was ticking on state expenditures of Homeland funds –use it or lose it– and the answer was to force local school districts to retrofit all exit/entry doors with better door jams, stronger jam screws, and steel suicide bars on the interiors, while rekeying all the locks in the school. $31.4 million Kevin. Thank you Governor GoodSmile Granholm and Senators Stabenow and Levin –who have taken credit for the expenditures.

    Great Homeland Security measures there. I can just imagine what happened in other states but didn’t see the light of inquiry.

    Now, how loudly did the corrupt local and state govt “feeders” at the federal trough squeal when Hurricane Katrina blew through the corrupt RedState of LA? That gravy train is still in high gear and no amount of common sense could halt the express from reaching the end of the line.

    Right, Kevin. From the radical Democrat Left it’s all about corporations and big business stealing money from the federal govt. Same with the World Bank plundering like pirates the poor 3rd world. LOL

    It’s the old rube about the military-industrial complex taking America’s soul, Kevin? Your side needs to get some new talking points –something after 1958.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 4, 2006 @ 11:51 am - August 4, 2006

  38. Some genius whined…

    “After Shrub leaves office, he might want to watch where he goes if he travels abroad.”

    Gotta love the “Shrub” business, though. Making fun of the the guy’s name is about as offensive as making fun of my bubble-butt…

    Bush is still the president, and my boyfriend still thinks this 40 year-old is the shiz-nit.

    Mock away, raj-ian-whoever-the-hell-you-are. Most people prefer NOT to live their lives in a state of perpetual hate.

    But on topic, just finished “Dutch”, a wonderful biography written by Edmund Morris. I know it’s been out awhile, but a clearer picture of Ronaldus Maximus cannot be had anywhere.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — August 4, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - August 4, 2006

  39. Kevin (#32) said:

    Bush himself said that “our rights are derived from God” (funny, I thought our rights came from the constitution and laws which were written by people, not God).

    Kevin — I’d strongly suggest that you actually READ the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 4, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - August 4, 2006

  40. Bruce, Kevin and the others aren’t going to be bothered by reading the original documents nor the words of our Founding Fathers or their opponents…. “dead guys? Why read dead guys? What I want NOW is all that’s important to the discussion.”

    But if Kevin did… he’d read, largely in Jefferson’s own words & plagerized from multiple sources (hey, Biden-Leahy-Clinton weren’t the 1st plagerizers that are Democrats)

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia.

    I love it when the Left’s own savoir of the day –Thos Jefferson or Ben Franklin– are used to correct the Left’s misunderstandings.

    Kevin, in case the language is over the top for you… it means our Creator (read God) gave us rights which are not subject to government’s or king’s command.

    God, Kevin. That guy the religious bigots and Lefties here like to slam at every point… the guy who has hijacked the GOP. God.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 4, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - August 4, 2006

  41. 39: I would suggest, you read your own post about “we wish to keep the conversation civil”. If you do, then stop using the that madlibdemocrat term in your posts.

    And yes, I’ve read both documents, especially the constitution on more than one occassion. Unfortunately, members of our current, conservative led government apparently are more interested in wiping their butts with the constitution than upholding it.

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2006 @ 9:41 pm - August 4, 2006

  42. Kevin, that’s a big surprise that you’ve read the documents! Your depth of knowledge on critical, turning point issues appears you did not.

    This isn’t a little matter you raised, Kevin –Jefferson’s and the words of others are pretty clear on the fundamental nature of where our rights reside and flow from –our Creator. It’d be like saying America is a socialist state (well, outside of Massachusetts)… it’s kind of, sort of a big picture concept Kevin.

    Now, given that you thought our rights lie with the government… maybe you should head back and read them for comprehension?

    What is it with all the GayLefties not being able to comprehend? Could they all be public school graduates?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 4, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - August 4, 2006

  43. 42: So, you’re the product of some sort of elite, conservative, snobish education then?

    Comment by Kevin — August 5, 2006 @ 7:24 am - August 5, 2006

  44. #39 Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 4, 2006 @ 12:31 pm – August 4, 2006

    Kevin:>>>Bush himself said that “our rights are derived from God” (funny, I thought our rights came from the constitution and laws which were written by people, not God).

    Kevin — I’d strongly suggest that you actually READ the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Aside from the fact that the DoI has no legal effect in the US–though it really is a very persuasive piece of propaganda–as far as I can tell, nothing in the Constitution suggests that any rights recited therein are derived from “God.” I suppose that you might be able to persuade me to the contrary, but I doubt it.

    And, even if you attempt an argument, please specify which “God” you are referring to. As far as I can tell the “God” referenced in the phrase “In God We Trust” on the US currency is Mammon, and that’s one reason why I don’t object to the usage of the phrase on the currency under the Establishment Clause.

    Comment by raj — August 5, 2006 @ 9:18 am - August 5, 2006

  45. raj, you’re not worthy of debate or discussion.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 5, 2006 @ 9:47 am - August 5, 2006

  46. #45 Michigan-Matt — August 5, 2006 @ 9:47 am – August 5, 2006

    Sorry to post a comment to which you were completely unable to respond.

    I’ll be polite. Mir egal

    Comment by raj — August 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am - August 5, 2006

  47. Yeah, so what if most of the people who wrote the Constitution also had written the Declaration of Independence. Doesn’t mean a thing, right, Raj?

    As far as I can tell the “God” referenced in the phrase “In God We Trust” on the US currency is Mammon,

    Divert… distract… divert… distract… divert… distract….

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 5, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - August 5, 2006

  48. Some genius wrote:

    “Aside from the fact that the [Declaration of Independence] has no legal effect in the US–though it really is a very persuasive piece of propaganda–as far as I can tell…”

    Why am I not shocked that Comrade raj-ian-whoever refers to this document as “propaganda”?

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — August 5, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - August 5, 2006

  49. i have made my sacrifice for this f-ed up WOT. i willingly forgo any money that could be used for US port security, education, and infrastructure, while these dollars are used to build infrastructure in Iraq where not surprisingly insurgents bomb the shit out of them

    Comment by ralph — August 6, 2006 @ 12:02 am - August 6, 2006

  50. #48 HollywoodNeoCon — August 5, 2006 @ 6:44 pm – August 5, 2006

    Why am I not shocked that Comrade raj-ian-whoever refers to this document as “propaganda”?

    Maybe because it was propaganda.

    From Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Britannica 2005 edition):

    Propaganda

    1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction overmissionary territories and related institutions
    2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
    3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

    The first obviously is inapplicable, but the other two are. Your apparent belief that “propaganda” is necessarily lies or disinformation is obviously misplaced.

    Comment by raj — August 6, 2006 @ 8:45 am - August 6, 2006

  51. [Comment deleted.]

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 6, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - August 6, 2006

  52. Concerning Bruce’s title “Reagan On My Mind”……The question is: “Why?”

    Hell!!

    Reagan wasn’t even on Reagan’s mind!!

    monty

    Comment by monty — August 6, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - August 6, 2006

  53. […] Reagan on My Mind (August 3, 2006) […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Posts* Where We Criticized GOP on Spending in Bush Era — April 17, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - April 17, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.