GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Reagan’s “Fiascos” vs Obama’s “Phony Scandals”

June 6, 2014 by V the K

Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of the passing of the last great American President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Today marks the 70th annitversary of the D-Day invasion and the 30th Anniversary of President Reagan’s speech at the 40th Commemoration of D-Day, a speech remarkable (in this age of the Cult of Obama) for Reagan’s complete lack of self-reference; a speech not about the president, but about history, philosophy, and the men who actually fought the battle.

It was about 29 years ago that the MFM were hyping what was, in the Reagan Era, a monstrous scandal. At the invitation of the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. the president and Mrs. Reagan laid a wreath in a cemetery where German soldiers were buried. In 1985, this was a HUGE scandal.

White House aides have acknowledged that the Bitburg visit is probably the biggest fiasco of Mr. Reagan’s Presidency. The visit, which was made at the insistence of Mr. Kohl, was overwhelmingly opposed by both houses of Congress, Jewish organizations, veterans’ groups and others. [New York Times, 06 May 1985]

Ponder that. Here was a “scandal” in which no one was killed, no one’s rights were violated, no taxpayer dollars were wasted, and the White House never lied about it.

Yet, when the Obama Administration runs thousands of “assault rifles” to Mexican drug gangs, resulting in hundreds of deaths — that’s a “phony scandal.”

When President Obama sits by and does nothing while Americans are under attack in Banghazi, then goes to a party the next day in Las Vegas, then lies about the whole affair being about a YouTube video — that’s a “phony scandal.”

When the Obama Administration uses the IRS to harass and intimidate opponents of their administration’s policies — that’s a “phony scandal.”

And, most recently, the Obama Administration releases five of the world’s most dangerous terrorists without consulting Congress — that is also dismissed as a phony scandal “whipped up in Washington” because Republicans are racists who can’t stand the idea that a black man is president.

Quite remarkable how times have changed, isn’t it?

Filed Under: Obama Watch, Ronald Reagan

Comments

  1. Ignatius says

    June 6, 2014 at 10:24 am - June 6, 2014

    Obama’s race will render him immune from honest criticism for many decades, certainly well after he’s gone. However, once he’s truly part of history, once his attack dogs and minders have withered away, once time and better leadership give us perspective, Obama’s place among past presidents will reflect just how terrible these times have been.

  2. heliotrope says

    June 6, 2014 at 11:25 am - June 6, 2014

    Ben Carson’s race would show the world that black skin is not a genetic marker for loony liberalism, incompetence, laziness, a propensity to golf, lying, being shiftless, narcissism, fumbling doublespeak, preening, malignant mismanagement or dictatorial tendencies.

    Ben Carson must be defeated at all costs to protect the narrative of being authentically black. He is uppity.

  3. Roberto says

    June 6, 2014 at 11:37 am - June 6, 2014

    Times have not changed. People have changed. The moral compass has moved 180 degrees. It is okay to lie, as long as you can spin it to be acceptable to the listeners. It seems as though more people live by Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals instead of the Bible, particularly the Book of Proverbs, which contains much wisdom. High moral values can be found in the thoughts of Buddha, and Lao Tzu. Ronald Reagan set the bar for conduct Barak Obama has set it very low. In vetting future candidates, particularly presidential ones. As the saying goes, show me your company and I’ll tell you what you are. We had an inkling of this in 2008 when it was revealted that Barak Obama attended Trinity UCC, with black liberation pastor, Rev. Wright, for twenty two years. Once known, Obama threw Rev. Wright under the bus.

  4. Rattlesnake says

    June 6, 2014 at 4:22 pm - June 6, 2014

    I can’t fault the German soldiers for being German soldiers. They weren’t necessarily Nazis or even Nazi sympathizers, they were just following orders and fighting for their country like almost anyone else in their position would.

  5. Roberto says

    June 6, 2014 at 6:35 pm - June 6, 2014

    coRattlesnake,

    In 1934 when President Hindenburg died, Hitler, who was chancellor, combined the title of president with that of chancellor.Then the Reichstag gave power to Hitler to rule by decree. hence the title Fuhrer. Before 1938 the army had to take an oath of loyalty to the Hitler. An attack on Germany would be an attack on Hitler. The Nuremburg trials condemned many of the military for failure to take responsibility by saying I was only following orders.

    I don’t doubt that many dictators required a loyalty oath from their military. The only one I know of is that which took place in the middle of the last decade, I watched it on tv, as Hugo Chavez administered the new loyalty oath to the Venezuelan army to defend him, and the 21st Century Socialism. Socialismo o muerte!

    I am an Army vet, and when I was on duty I was told to obey every lawful command. I was also told that if a command was unlawful, I did not have to obey it.

  6. Steve says

    June 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm - June 6, 2014

    @Ignatius- the race card has been played so much it is losing power. He will be remembered as the first Affirmative Action president just like Soyomoto will be remembered as the first affirmative action supreme court judge.

    @Roberto – don’t forget all the moms that say their sons where killed for having sex with Obama. At least 3 of his gay lovers killed
    http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2011/04/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover-speaks-up-543364.html

  7. Louise B says

    June 6, 2014 at 8:30 pm - June 6, 2014

    My father was a Private First Class who served as an Rifleman Scout. He took a camera with him and acquired another one and took photos as he marched/fought across France, Germany and Austria. He wasn’t part of D-Day since he landed in Marseilles in October 1944. He has passed on but left us his diary of that time, which is published and extremely well illustrated with his photos and drawings.

    http://www.103didww2assn.org/books_mementos

  8. Louise B says

    June 6, 2014 at 8:59 pm - June 6, 2014

    I wrote the above comment because I meant to say that my father always believed the German people weren’t totally responsible. He said they just wanted to raise their families and have enough food. He couldn’t stand politicians and those in authority because they were incompetent. I can still here the anger in his voice at the lieutenant who couldn’t read a map. He wasn’t too sure about me marrying an Air Force officer, but we’ve done well together for 28 years.

Categories

Archives