Showing posts with label First Ladies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Ladies. Show all posts

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Remembering Ronnie: Nancy Reagan Places Bouquet of Roses on Ronnie’s Gravesite

Image: Nancy Reagan Places Bouquet of Roses on Ronnie’s Gravesite

Victoria Angulo/The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

Newsmax

Nancy Reagan placed a bouquet of white roses on the gravesite of her late husband Ronald Reagan Tuesday to mark the eighth anniversary of the passing of one of America’s most beloved presidents.

Appearing frail in a red coat, the former first lady then sat by the 40th president’s gravesite at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

Now 90, Nancy Reagan recently suffered broken ribs in a fall, and was reported to be recovering slowly.

The widow of President Reagan also made news recently by announcing her endorsement of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Having served lemonade and cookies to Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, at her Los Angeles home, she said that she is firmly behind the former Massachusetts governor.

She said that Romney has the experience and leadership skills that, in her words, "our country so desperately needs."

Reagan added that her "Ronnie" would have liked Romney's business background and what she calls his "strong principles."

 

On Anniversary Of His Death Watch Ronald Reagan Warn Us About Obama 40 yrs Ago

Daily Rushbo - 6-5-12 – h/t to GunnyG

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del...

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(Excerpt) Read more at dailyrushbo.com … via On Anniversary Of His Death Watch Ronald Reagan Warn Us About Obama 40 yrs Ago

--> Video: Reagan summed up Obama in the first 5 minutes of a speech over 40 years ago  <--

Related Articles:

Replica of Reagan Oval Office at the Reagan Library (Photo: the UCLA Shutterbug)

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

All This Just For a Flag? Asks Michelle Obama

The Washington Times (September 13, 2011):

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Michelle Obama steps into 2012 presidential campaigning on Thursday with a speech to the Democratic National Committee's Women's Leadership Forum.

Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS Michelle Obama steps into 2012 presidential campaigning on Thursday with a speech to the Democratic National Committee's Women's Leadership Forum

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs.... Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr.... Obama nods. (This is not the first she has been caught making similar comments about the flag and for a very long Time candidate Obama did not salute the flag or wear a flag pin on his lapel).

Just for a flag? If that is what she said it is regrettable. Even with all her years being around those who hold high public office Mrs....... Obama does not seem to understand the purpose and importance of ceremonies. They reaffirm the bonds of loyalty and fellowship that cement our national unity. Yes, at one level a flag is just a colorful piece of cloth. But it symbolizes much more. It is the emblem of our land and all its ideals. It has been present at every major event of any importance to the country, battles, celebrations, meetings, and the lunar landings. It is a symbol of unity that transcends party, faction and time. It is something uniquely and explicitly American. Men and women have fought and died for it. Our enemies hate us for it and burn it in the streets. All that should mean something.

Perhaps Mrs...... Obama thinks that all the pomp and circumstance she experiences in her daily life has something to do with her, rather than the unofficial office she holds. If so she should disabuse herself of that notion quickly. The official gestures of respect shown to her are the same shown to any First Lady, and if she wasn’t married to the president she would be just another citizen. Ruffles and flourishes are not hers by right, but by coincidence of marriage. Yet this is the same woman who said she had never in her adult life been really proud of America before her husband ran for president, so it is no wonder she might dismiss a flag ceremony as just so much nonsense.

All this just for a flag? Has anyone said, “All this just for Michelle Obama?”

Troops will and have risked their lives all over the world to raise and defend the American flag

That question, All this just for a flag?, is the same attitude that has created a situation where U.S. Military for 20 years, risk their lives protecting freedom and our flag, and only get 50% of their pay on retirement.  While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full-pay retirement after serving one term. Troops will and have risked their lives all over the world to raise and defend the American flag, a symbol of freedom and hope, but our first lady and president don’t understand that. That should worry every American!

clip_image001[5]

This is what having a first family who doesn’t understand or doesn’t value America, the flag and the Constitution leads to

clip_image001
clip_image002 clip_image003
clip_image004
clip_image005

We are not far from the end folks.  We can't take much more political correctness.  This picture was taken at the AZ state capitol yesterday (don’t have the specific date).

The news will not show it and the Capitol Police and Homeland Security would not let Americans or any of the Veterans that were there do anything about it.  My husband and his friends were threatened with arrest and were told they would be booked under federal charges if they did anything. 

I am sending this to you so that you in turn can all start Emailing/Sharing it with everyone they know.  It is totally uncalled for and people need to see it.  This is not about politics and rhetoric, it is about a direct threat to our country, disrespect and hate. Those of you that don't live in Arizona will maybe get a chance to see the other side of what the news is telling you.  If this offends you greatly, then I have truly accomplished what I set out to do. I understand that sometimes we don't see eye to eye on certain things, but that is the right our forefathers fought for.  I am an American before anything else. 

For those of you who choose to dismiss this: If you believe that this is okay I believe you are a traitor to this country and everything it stands for.  I am not a racist and I am not a Nazi, this has nothing to do with race, it has to do with respect to the country that is continually taking you in and turning a blind eye to your agenda.  Homeland Security was designed to identify and defend America from Terrorist acts yet yesterday it let illegal and legal citizens of this country desecrate the Flag.  People were spitting on it, stomping on it and burning it with cigarettes.  One soldier who had just returned from Iraq tried to grab the flag and was thrown to the ground by the Capitol Police and Homeland Security.  It amazes me how many people will stand against the American People while prospering from our system and our government.  To those of you that will forward this to your friends or post it on your blogs I applaud you for the courage to stand up for the country in which you live.

A proud Arizonan… a proud American

Sad and Disgusting - Please Share

Election 2012 is not a choice between two men or two parties.  It is the choice between two ideologies and the survival of the America and the Constitution given us by our Founding Fathers. 

There is no room to remain uninvolved or neutral this time around.

Ask Marion~

Fight for Old Glory… Will Media Help Sell the New Obama Flag

Raising the Colors – Ten Years Later

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Who Killed The Kennedys?

Jack Kennedy was shot on my twentieth birthday.

I was a Dartmouth student, getting ready to drive down to Skidmore to celebrate with my girlfriend, when the news ricocheted around the dormitory. I went down to Skidmore anyway, spending the weekend in a Saratoga Springs motel room, watching the TV coverage, including that astonishing moment when Ruby shot Oswald in front of our eyes in living black and white.

Does this mean I have more insight than others into the Kennedy assassination? No. But that coincidence did give me an extra frisson when the date “November 22, 1963” was superimposed at the beginning of Episode 7 of the new The Kennedys miniseries.

I spent the last couple of days watching all eight episodes of the series, courtesy of the production company. It was certainly a trip down memory lane. Like so many of my generation, my life had intersected with the Kennedys in the world of political imagination and sometimes even in reality.

I had been in the audience, close enough to shake his hand, for an East L.A. speech of Bobby’s two days before he was shot, the largely Chicano and Mexican crowd yelling “Viva! Viva!” as if the California primary voters were about to elect him dictator, not president.

And then, a few years later, I had a literary agent who, it turned out, was one of the six young women at that Chappaquiddick reunion party for RFK’s campaign the fateful night Ted Kennedy took his chauffeur’s car keys to drive the late Mary Jo Kopechne home himself. The agent never spoke of what happened. (This hugely dramatic incident does not appear in the series, nor is there even a mention of Ted Kennedy. More on this later.)

So what did I think of the miniseries? No one could mistake it for Citizen Kane — television political biopics tend to the humdrum and stilted, as most of us know — but it is nowhere near as bad as the fulminating critics would have us believe. Their major objection seems to be that the series emphasizes the soap opera aspects of the Kennedy lives — Jack’s parade of women that would make Bill Clinton envious, his and Jackie’s amphetamine cocktails from “Dr. Feelgood,” the Mafia connections via Giancana, Sinatra, and Judith Exner, Joe Sr.’s having his troubled daughter (Jack’s younger sister) lobotomized, not to mention the patriarch’s infamous flirtation with the Third Reich, etc.

Well, why not? These things are the stuff of drama (cf. the House of Atreus), not endless discussions of policy. The latter are much better handled in a book. But never mind. When the early drafts of the screenplay leaked out, JFK’s speechwriter, the late Ted Sorenson — among several others — joined a campaign organized by filmmaker Robert Greenwald aimed at preventing the film from being made and attacking it as a right-wing hit piece led by that known conservative attack dog Joel Surnow of 24 fame.

But here’s the surprising thing — and I should put this in bold because it is the linchpin of this article — The Kennedys (made by right-wingers though it may be) is tremendously respectful of JFK as a president. Indeed, the JFK it portrays is arguably one of the best presidents of the post-war period, if not of all time.

In the three key events dramatized in the series — his taking personal blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his steadfastness in supporting racial integration at the University of Mississippi and, of course, his resolute behavior in confrontation with Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis — the Jack Kennedy of The Kennedys is a superlative and courageous decision maker.

This makes the miniseries — unlike the fuddy-duddy Greenwald site — oddly modern and heroic and pro-JFK.The Kennedys filmmakers have respected their audience and allowed them to reflect on the fascinating question of how someone so lacking in his personal life could achieve so much good in his public life. (Missing from this film is another positive action with a contemporary twist — JFK’s cutting of tax rates to stimulate the economy.)

That question — the relationship of doer and deed — is as old as drama. Shakespeare reveled in it. Nevertheless, as many of you know, the series was rejected by the channel for which it was originally made, the History Channel. It was eventually sold and is now showing on the lesser-known Reelz.

I had assumed the History Channel was to blame in this but, in an interview with Lionel Chetwynd and me, Joel Surnow said the rejection came from a higher corporate source. The History Channel is owned by AETN, A&E Television Networks, which is a joint venture of The Hearst Corporation, Disney-ABC Television Group and NBC Universal.

Some unknown person or persons in the upper reaches of these huge media companies apparently succumbed to pressure and suppressed The Kennedys. This pressure most likely came from the Kennedy family (Caroline?) and friends. The family has been quite successful over the years in their attempts to keep their detractors quiet.

I have no way of knowing, but they may have succeeded inside the making of The Kennedys as well as outside. Curiously, “The Lion of the Senate” and youngest son of Joe and Rose Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, is never seen or even mentioned in any of the eight episodes of the miniseries. What is the reason for this extraordinary omission?

The aforementioned Chappaquiddick incident is easily the most extreme case of Kennedy personal malfeasance. Jack may have been a serial adulterer, but he was never involved in death from his dalliances, nor did he leave the scene of a fatal accident. Teddy did and got away with it.

There has been some debate about the extent of his culpability, but how do you dramatize this event in any way without making him look really bad? And how do you tell the story of Ted Kennedy without Chappaquiddick? It becomes an almost comical whitewash. So Teddy is a non-person in The Kennedys, the man who was never there. I don’t know if this was true in earlier drafts, but it is in the series as it is being broadcast.

So whoever really killed The Kennedys is out hiding somewhere in an impenetrable corporate tower. I’m not into conspiracy theories, so I’m not going to pursue it further.

But I will say this. Whoever did this has conflated politics and religion. The Kennedys are not religious icons. They are highly fallible human beings. To show them as they were is the duty of the artist as well as the mission of America, that is freedom of speech. Surnow and company had their speech temporarily eclipsed. That was not good for them, but more than that, it is not good for our country.

Source:  Pajama’s Media

If you are not familiar with the history of the Kennedy’s this miniseries is a good place to start.  There are presidents and leaders, in general, who inspire us to become better and who are are larger than the office they hold.  In modern times, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan fill that place in American history, in spite of their personal flaws.  Even though they were of different parties and different in many ways, Kennedy and Reagan were also the same in many ways that matter!  They were both Irish descended Americans who loved America and the opportunities she gave to their families and to all legal immigrants; they loved the Constitution and knew it was their job to uphold the law and keep America safe; they were excellent inspiring speakers and they were strong in their convictions, ideals and leadership abilities.  They made the tough decisions and then took responsibility for the outcome of their decisions!  They both also had strong wives, Jackie and Nancy, who supported them and filled their roles as First Ladies with style and grace.

The re-writing of history and minimal focus on our true history, both good and bad, is what had made us weaker.

“He who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it!” and America has sadly done a poor job of teaching her children…

Related:

Camelot Fights Back: Who Killed ‘The Kennedy’s’ Miniseries?

–> JFK on Taxes and the Economy <–

–> The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Federal Reserve <–

Kennedy United States Notes actually circulated shortly

We Choose to go to the Moon

Resources on the Kennedys:

America's Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

Grace and Power: The Private World of the Kennedy White House

Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Jackie, Ethel, Joan : Women of Camelot

The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy

The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty he Founded

Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died

LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination

American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America's First Family for 150 Years

A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House

Kennedy vs. Carter: The 1980 Battle for the Democratic Party's Soul

A Nation of Immigrants by JFK

Kevin Costner’s JFK - Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition)

The Kennedys miniseries

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Thought For The Day - 09.16.08

“Over the years I have learned that what is important in a dress is the woman who is wearing it.”   Yves Saint Laurent

This is a stunning election season that is ablaze with drama. Regardless of what happens in November, we will either have the First Black President or the First Woman Vice President. It is also a stunning season of contrasts.

On the one hand, we have a true American War Hero. John McCain was tortured, maimed, and kept in a virtual box by a ruthless enemy. He suffered for years, refusing special

 treatment that would place him ahead of fellow prisoners of war. He came out of this experience a physically broken man, but with an enormous gratitude and devotion to his country.

On the other hand, we have an educated, polished, talented orator. A man who has proven to be unaccountable as a state legislator, voting “present” rather than yes or no  on nearly a hundred controversial issues. As Newt Gingrich put it so eloquently, this is a  man who has really done nothing but talk and write.

If the differences in Presidential candidates were not enough, we have two potential first ladies that offer stunning contrasts as well. They hold no constitutional power, but there is no doubt that the “better half” dynamic has a significant influence on the man who stands at the Bully Pulpit.  

On the one hand, we have Cindy McCain. She is a lovely woman, educated with a Masters degree in Special Education from USC. She comes from a hard-earned family legacy that has left her with a good fortune; a resource she manages  with a servant’s heart, sharing large sums for the benefit of those who are in need.

Cindy McCain is deeply concerned for the plight of children, especially in parts of the world where circumstances are desperate, and where life hangs by a slender thread. She even brought two of them home, one to adopt as her own and the other by close friends. Cindy’s views on abortion are not perfect in my opinion, but at least she limits her tolerance to cases of rape and incest. I hope that she and others will see that rape and incest are not crimes that should condemn an innocent child to death.

On the other hand, we have Michelle Obama. She is also a lovely woman and a Harvard educated lawyer. She comes from a regular middle-class family. Although she has mothered two children, her affection for children ends apparently at the birth canal. Michelle campaigned hard to fight the ban on partial birth abortion procedures and is a fervent advocate for abortion rights.

Michelle Obama advises and is proud of her husband and the causes he champions. One such cause was his opposition to the passage in Illinois of the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”. Babies who somehow managed to survive abortion procedures were simply left to die alone, cold, and unloved with no medical attention whatsoever. Mind you, these are not quivering blobs of tissue, but are human children who are essentially killed by intention after they have been born.

Thankfully, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” was passed by the U.S. Senate in 2002, but I dare say that such may be at risk for reversal if Barack and Michelle have any say in the matter.

Michelle Obama seems to believe that parenthood is a “sacred” matter, having said this about Barack… “He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood.”

Infanticide and the word sacred, gathered together in the same thought strikes me as bizarre and repulsive.

I am not certain why Barack Obama has such a callous view of infant death. Perhaps, it is a genetic holdover from the culture of his father’s Kenyan goat-herding legacy. I suppose defective baby goats were routinely cast onto the rocks and left to die. That way, only the best qualified would grow to become members of the goat-herd community.

We have seen such an attitude before in history, regarding who is deemed worthy to live. It seems to me that this election season is a moment in time that will define us beyond the norm. This election decision is all about life and death in so many ways. Please, listen to that little voice so often ignored, and choose wisely.

By:  Phil Harris, a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil

And Then There’s Biden… 

What is important is not whether we agree, but that we can and do have open discussions which promote awareness!!