Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2020

Ronald Reagan-- Believer In Americans

Ronald Reagan was so clear-eyed, so intelligent, and so wise!  He also was such a great communicator and a person whose humor was disarming.

In this clip, it shows how much faith he has in Americans and their ability to understand and to do what is right.  No wonder the Democrats hated him--he set back their plans by generations!

Please take a few seconds and reflect on the message and how it applies to today!

Conservative Tom

https://www.instagram.com/p/CAVII72Ah6x/

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Reagan's Words On Gun Control Are As Powerful Now As They Were Then!

Watch: Ronald Reagan’s Stance on Gun Control Is What Every American Needs to Hear

 Print
President Ronald Reagan spoke the words almost 35 years ago, but they could have been part of an argument yesterday.
Because with the gun control movement galvanized by the Valentine’s Day massacre in Parkland, Florida, gun grabbers are trying to use the blood of innocent victims to open another front in their war on constitutional liberty.
But in a speech to the National Rifle Association in May of 1983, Reagan laid out the basic reality that every Second Amendment supporter understands.
“It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun control laws,” Reagan said.
Reagan knew what he was talking about – having felt the “nasty truth” personally when a madman trying to impress a movie star put a bullet in the president during an assassination attempt in March of 1981.

Conservative Tribune Daily Email

Facebook
 
But he knew is more than just personally. As a former governor of California who signed laws that stiffened penalties for using a firearm to commit a crime, he knew it as a lawmaker who understood the Constitution as the framers wrote it.
And he knew the NRA understood that, too.
“You know, I’ve always felt a special bond with the members of your group,” he said in that speech in Phoenix, according to a transcript from the American Presidency Project.
“You live by Lincoln’s words, ‘Important principles may and must be inflexible.’ Your philosophy put its trust in people. So, you insist on individuals being held responsible for their actions. The NRA believes that America’s laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago.”

Do you think most Americans agree with Reagan?

 
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Then he got to the heart of the matter:
“And by the way, the Constitution does not say that government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’”
Check out the video here:

RELATED: Steve Scalise Defiantly Defends 2nd Amendment, Attacks Lawmakers
And that’s exactly the argument the gun grabbers are trying desperately to avoid amid the ginned-up, media-fomented outrage over supposedly lax gun control laws in the wake of the Parkland massacre.
At its core, the gun control movement simply does not accept the fact that the Constitution guarantees the natural rights of American citizens to own firearms.
The American Civil Liberties Union makes the leftist position crystal clear:
”Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”
In other words, for liberals, American gun owners are like teenagers constantly being reminded by vigilant parents that “driving is a privilege, not a right.”
Gun ownership, in this warped view, is not a fundamental right of self-defense against crime, or a right of preparation to defend the country against tyranny, as the Founders intended. It’s a hobby, for rural hicks who enjoy hunting, for instance – and it exists solely at the sufferance of those who rule.
After an atrocity like the Parkland massacre, the Democrats who want to rule the country are making it clear that their patience with what they consider the wayward children of the gun-rights movement is running out.
And the Democrats’ willing acolytes in the mainstream media are doing everything they can to manufacture the belief that the majority of the American public are behind moves to curtail a fundamental American liberty.
Ronald Reagan knew better — and the NRA does, too. Reagan was not the gun-rights absolutist many Second Amendment activists would prefer, or that gun grabbers would caricature. As Bearing Arms pointed out, he supported some gun control measures during his governor days amid 1960s social convulsions and the rise of the Black Panther movement.
But he knew that Americans have and support the individual right to bear arms. Remember, Reagan was also the president who, surrounded by the finest, deadliest security staff in the world, carried his own gun while in office, according to Brad Meltzer.
“It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun control laws,” Reagan said, in that speech to the NRA in Phoenix.
That speech was from almost 35 years ago.
But it could have been from an argument yesterday.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter to spread the message from former President Ronald Reagan’s pro-Second Amendment speech.
What do you think of Reagan's statement? 

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Attacking First Ladies Always Ends Up Bad For The Attacker

Trump SILENCES Melania Trump attackers

Bill Clinton once wanted to punch a newspaper columnist in the nose for calling Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.” Ronald Reagan complained about the “bum rap” Nancy Reagan got for buying White House china. George H.W. Bush defended Barbara Bush after female students objected to her as their commencement speaker because she dropped out of college to marry him.
There’s a long tradition of presidents defending their first ladies, and it’s now President Donald Trump’s turn.
Trump pushed back recently after Vanity Fair magazine, citing an anonymous source, reported that Melania Trump didn’t want to become first lady “come hell or high water” and that she didn’t think it would happen. Trump also took offense at the magazine’s assertion that he also never thought he’d be elected.
Not known to back away when he feels that he or a loved one has been slighted, the president rose to his wife’s defense hours after she pulled off one of the most high-profile first lady projects: decorating the White House for Christmas.
“Melania, our great and very hard working First Lady, who truly loves what she is doing, always thought that ‘if you run, you will win,’ Trump tweeted. “She would tell everyone that, ‘no doubt, he will win.’ I also felt I would win (or I would not have run) – and Country is doing great!”
It wasn’t the first time, or the last time Trump felt compelled to stand up for his former fashion model spouse.
He complained in an October television interview about the “tremendous abuse” she endured for leaving the White House in her signature stilettos as she joined him on a recent trip to survey hurricane damage in Texas. Sharp critiques about her footwear lit up social media as soon as departure photos of the Trumps were posted. Mrs. Trump changed into sneakers during the flight.

“She’s taken tremendous abuse,” Trump said in the interview with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Trinity Broadcasting Network. “She wants to look, out of respect for the White House, wants to look good leaving the front entrance to the White House. So she dresses up and she puts on formal shoes, high heels, and she leaves the White House going to Texas.”
Trump said his wife is a private person and “she doesn’t need this,” meaning the criticism. “But she does like to help people. She sees how important it is.”
Vanity Fair also took a big hit on Thursday from Trump, following their release of a video mocking Hillary Clinton — that has sparked a major uproar.
After the publication shared their video, they received plenty of backlash that called their staff sexist towards women. Vanity Fair was quick to apologize and state that they had “missed the mark.”
Trump took to Twitter to share their annoyance with how the publication handled their latest scandal — how could they so easily apologize for a minor mockery of Hillary, but not apologize for slandering the Trump family?

Katherine Jellison, an Ohio University history professor who studies first ladies, said other presidents’ wives had experience in the political spotlight where everything is dissected, unlike Melania Trump, whose professional experience before the White House largely consisted of fashion runways, red carpets and motherhood.
“This kind of scrutiny that Melania Trump is encountering as first lady and follows every first lady is a new experience for her,” Jellison said. “And another difference is she’s married to a man who is quick to respond to anything he sees as a slight or a criticism. I guess that includes comments regarding his wife.”

The first lady is no pushover, though. Like her husband, Mrs. Trump will fight back and did so after the president’s first wife, Ivana, referred to herself as “first lady” while promoting her memoir. Ivana Trump also said she speaks with the president about every two weeks and has a direct line to the White House.
The first lady’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted Ivana Trump’s statement as “attention-seeking and self-serving noise.”
Presidents are spouses, too, and some have reacted as would any husband who thinks his wife is being unfairly criticized, Jellison said.
Reagan complained at a 1981 news conference about the “bum rap” his wife was getting over the purchase of new china settings at the same time the administration was cutting school lunches. Reagan said the White House hadn’t had a complete set of china since Harry Truman, some three decades earlier, and that a full table couldn’t be set for a state dinner without mixing existing china patterns.

Nancy Reagan had ordered a Lenox service for 220 people, each setting containing 19 pieces, “at cost” or $209,000. Reagan said it was a private gift at no expense to taxpayers.
George H.W. Bush defended Barbara Bush’s role as a wife and mother after Wellesley College’s invitation for her to speak at commencement in 1990 irritated some in the all-female student body. The first lady had dropped out of Smith College after two years to marry Bush.
Asked about the dustup, the president joked at a news conference that he wouldn’t argue with the students’ view that his wife’s accomplishments were largely derived from marriage to him. He added that “these young women can have a lot to learn from Barbara Bush and from her unselfishness and from her advocacy of literacy and of being a good mother and a lot of other things.”
Clinton had a more forceful reaction in 1996 after New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar” following revelations about her involvement in an Arkansas land deal known as Whitewater, and her role in a controversy involving dismissals at the White House travel office.

Mike McCurry, the White House spokesman, said Clinton, “if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response to that on the bridge of Mr. Safire’s nose.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Pew Poll Clearly Illustrates America Heading For Socialism At Break Neck Speed. A Sad Commentary!

FAIL: Poll Shows MORE Americans Now Want Bigger Government With More Services In Trump Era

Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images
727863629
On Monday, Pew released a poll demonstrating that most Americans now want
 a bigger government with more services rather than a smaller government with
fewer services. The poll, as reported by Allahpundit at Hot Air, shows
 that Americans now want more spending on programs ranging from veterans
benefits and services to infrastructure, from Medicare to health care, from
 defense to environmental protection, from Social Security to assistance to
 the needy. Public opinion on every single aspect of government spending
 has shifted in the direction of bigger government since February 2013.
What happened?
Trump.
As Allahpundit points out:
In 2013, just 28 percent of GOPers supported increased spending on roads and infrastructure versus 21 percent who wanted less spending on those things. Today the share of Republicans who support increased spending has nearly doubled to 55 percent, just six points behind Democrats.
Indeed, the great move in the polls comes not from Democrats but from
Republicans, who now seem willing to embrace big government because
President Obama isn’t in charge. That reflects poorly on Republicans, who
maintained through the Tea Party that smaller government was an issue of
 principle, not convenience.
Was it? There are two possible answers. First, that Republicans weren’t
all that concerned with spending until Obama arrived on the scene, and they
 don’t care about it now that he’s gone; second, that Republicans have
 internalized the Democratic talking point that they can’t win without
 spending big dollars on particular interest groups.
Either way, smaller government comes out the loser.
And this isn’t Trump’s fault – it’s the fault of Republicans who supported his
program. Trump, despite his promises to cut regulations and fight waste,
fraud, and abuse, campaigned as a big government anti-immigration
 protectionist. He vowed to increase spending in every area but foreign
aid and environmental protection. His most ardent followers knew that he
was promising them the help of big government, and they embraced it.
 Trump spent the campaign guaranteeing that he wouldn’t touch the great
 drivers of America’s debt, entitlement programs – in fact, he said he
 wanted to expand them.
This is the difference between George W. Bush and Trump. Bush, too, blew
out spending. But much of his base opposed him for doing so. Not so with
Trump: he has made the case that he needs to spend in order to win the
votes of those in swing states, and many Republicans have signed on.
They’re doing so either out of hypocrisy or out of the pure political
calculation that the day of small government is done, so we might as well
have a Republican running a massive government. In either case, that’s a
 bleak denouement for a movement built on the back of Ronald Reagan’s
 foundational belief that government is the problem.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

The West Must Respond To Islam In New And Different Ways



  • "According to one estimate, 10−15 percent of the world's Muslims are Islamists. Out of well over 1.6 billion, or 23 percent of the globe's population, that implies more than 160 million individuals." – Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in her new book, The Challenge of Dawa.
  • That was Ronald Reagan's major achievement in his long war against the Soviet Union: presenting communism as a joke -- exposing the lies of the Soviet regime, exposing the misery under which its people were living, and explaining why Western values were preferable to Communist ones. This is exactly what the West, Hirsi Ali explains, should be doing with radical Islam.
  • Western civilization is a humanist vision in which Christianity integrated Jewish wisdom, Greek philosophy and Roman law, thereby giving Western culture its distinctive character: freedom of speech and of the press, equal justice under law, the primacy of the individual, separation of religion and state, freedom of religion and from religion, property rights, sexual equality, an independent judiciary, and independent education, among other values. This is what radical Islam wants to destroy. That is why terrorists are attacking our churches, the State of Israel and why they are subverting democracy to turn it into Islamic law, sharia.
Jihad is spreading violence -- and succeeding. "Of the last sixteen years," notes Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her new book, The Challenge of Dawa, "the worst year for terrorism was 2014, with ninety-three countries experiencing attacks and 32,765 people killed."
"The second worst was 2015, with 29,376 deaths. Last year, four radical Islamic groups were responsible for 74 percent of all deaths from terrorism: the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. Although the Muslim world itself bears the heaviest burden of jihadist violence, the West is increasingly under attack".


Hirsi Ali's research, supported by the Hoover Institution, is a summary of the war on terror since the extremist Muslim attacks on the United States in September 2001:
"Since 9/11, at least $1.7 trillion has been spent on combat and reconstruction costs in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The total budgetary cost of the wars and homeland security from 2001 through 2016 is more than $3.6 trillion. Yet in spite of the sacrifices of more than 5,000 armed service personnel who have lost their lives since 9/11, today political Islam is on the rise around the world".
According to Hirsi Ali, the West is "obsessed" with terror and this makes it blind to the broader threat, dawa, outreach: the ideology behind the terror attacks.
How large is the worldwide jihadist movement? More than we thought.
"In Pakistan alone, where the population is almost entirely Muslim, 13 percent of Muslims surveyed—more than 20 million people—said that bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets are often or sometimes justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies... According to one estimate, 10−15 percent of the world's Muslims are Islamists. Out of well over 1.6 billion, or 23 percent of the globe's population, that implies more than 160 million individuals".
According to Hirsi Ali, along with drones, counter-terrorism and security measures, the West needs to invest in an ideological war against radical Islam. If terrorist violence is the jihadi hardware, its software is radical Islam. To cripple the hardware, you have first to block the software.
The Islamic world is investing in "dawa", or Islamic propaganda. "Since the early 1970s, Middle Eastern charities have distributed $110 billion, $40 billion of which found its way to sub-Saharan Africa and contributed heavily to Islamist ideological indoctrination there", Hirsi Ali writes.
Under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union's leader in the 1970s, Communism started failing to seduce the masses with its promise of a new society. The Communist utopia started to creak much before the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It began when the powerful ideological myth of Communism was replaced by socialism, which has been visibly destroying one economy after another. That was Ronald Reagan's major achievement in his long war against the Soviet Union: presenting Communism as a joke -- exposing the lies of the Soviet regime, exposing the misery under which its people were living, and explaining why Western values were preferable to Communist ones. This is exactly what the West, Hirsi Ali explains, should be doing with radical Islam.
William Rosenau observed that, "the United States has so far failed to conduct anything approaching an effective counterideological campaign against al-Qaida". That was also former U.S. President Barack Obama's fatal approach to dealing with the Islamic State: apparently for his own reasons, he refused to name what ISIS was really about: a global caliphate secured through a global war.
U.S. President Donald Trump's major achievement so far is to have named the enemy: "radical Islamic terrorism". Those are the three words that separate Trump from the rest of establishment. Trump's several appointees, such as Steve Bannon, have rightly described this war, like the wars against Nazism and Communism, as primarily an "ideological struggle to preserve Western civilization".
"Western civilization", however, does not seem to be what many liberals have in mind. Instead, they have been advocating multiculturalism, gender ideology, feminism, pacifism, and militant secularism.
Western civilization is a humanist vision in which Christianity integrated Jewish wisdom, Greek philosophy and Roman law, thereby giving Western culture its distinctive character: freedom of speech and of the press, equal justice under law, the primacy of the individual, separation of religion and state, freedom of religion and from religion, property rights, sexual equality, an independent judiciary, and independent education, among other values. This is what radical Islam wants to destroy. That is why terrorists are attacking our churches, the State of Israel and why they are subverting democracy to turn it into Islamic law, sharia.
David Thomson in his new book, Les Revenants, interviews French jihadists. One of them, Zubair, who grew up in a social housing project in Seine-Saint-Denis, defines jihad as a "response to the ideological vacuum" of the West. Islamic extremists in Europe are now filling the Western ideological vacuum by appealing to the masses. This is how radical Islam convinced 160 million Muslims to hate and fight the West.
Like communism, radical Islam is a powerful ideology based on a cultural war against these Western humanistic values: the Mohammed cartoons and the murders of the editors of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo -- as well as the torrent of laws and trials criminalizing freedom of expression -- are a war against freedom of speech and of the press. The battle for women to wear the Islamic veil is a war against the freedom of women to wear what they like and not be looked on as prostitutes. The global appeal for "transformation" is a war against the democratic governance by men and for establishing a Caliphate ruled by Allah.
The supposed rejection of class and ethnic distinctions means that a huge number of Europeans are converting to Islam. Agitation and propaganda -- especially against Jews, Christians, minority groups and supposed Muslim "apostates" -- lays bare a conspiratorial mindset.
During the Cold War, the West supported organizations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which financed the anti-Communist publishing industry through books and magazines, as well as media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe, and an aggressive ideological warfare in Europe with pro-American and pro-Western messages. But today?
Worse, the opposite is taking place: Western governments are blaming newspapers and journalists for the Mohammed cartoons affair. The publishing industry, every time it censors books about Islam, is betraying freedom of expression. When the Arab-Islamic bloc in the corrupt United Nations erased the Jewish-Christian history of Jerusalem and other sites, Western democracies abstained. Western liberal media defended symbols of Islamic propaganda, such as the female veil, as symbols of emancipation instead of oppression. And instead of supporting Islamic reformers and dissidents, Western elites are abandoning them. The elites seem to prefer dialogue with "non-violent Islamists". Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali. After being targeted by a petition of Muslim activists and human rights militants, she was recently forced to cancel a tour in Australia, ostensibly for "security reasons".
In France, Islamists continue to build "two new mosques per week". Why are Western democracies, as part of their diplomatic relations with the Arab-Islamic world, not requiring churches to be built? Instead, Western public opinion has become accustomed to the idea that mosques belong to Europe's landscape while extremist Muslims go about destroying churches in Syria and Iraq.
If we do not want to lose the ideological war against Islam, it is not too late to reverse the trend -- but time is running out fast.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.