The Reagan Doctrine and Obama's Disgrace

Compare/contrast stellar examples of strength in foreign policy, such as Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Winston Churchill in Great Britain on the one hand, with stark examples of failure, such as Barack Obama in the U.S. and Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain on the other.

Columbia Conservative Examiner does exactly that today in this article entitled, 'The Reagan Doctrine and Obama's Disgrace.'

It won't take long for astute readers to realize that what we are witnessing today in the White House is a recipe for abject failure and an intensification of danger around the world.

He Lied Right Out of the Starting Gate

In Barack Obama's very first prime-time news conference as President, he lied right out of the starting gate.

Continuing with the false mantra that 'we face the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,' Obama attempted once again to scare the American public, and Congress, into accepting without question his trillion-dollar stimulus package.

I remember the Presidency of Jimmy Carter very well. That was 1976-1981. The financial fiasco of those years led to a landslide victory over Carter by Ronald Reagan.

As one of the ones who suffered personally through the Carter years, I can tell you with the authority of one who has been there that what we are now experiencing is clearly NOT the worst since the Great Depression. I remember long gasoline lines due to shortages. I remember gasoline prices rising from roughly .44 cents per gallon to over $1.00 per gallon. I remember inflation running at 13%, as compared to a meager 5-6% today. I remember interest rates at 24% as compared to 4-5% today. And, I remember unemployment rising to 11% as compared to 7-8% today.

So, don't tell me that what we are presently experiencing is 'the worst since the Great Depression.' If you say that, I immediately know you are a liar of the worst sort, which is what our illustrious 'President' truly is.

Following Obama's barefaced lies right out of the starting gate in his news conference, I tuned him out for the rest of the way except to note his demeanor and performance. Personally I am not interested in listening to the words of a known and proven liar.

Barack 'I Am Like Jesus' Obama Turns Up Heat

'The One,' the man whom supporters say is 'like Jesus' because he was a 'community organizer,' is turning up the heat by going on the attack against John McCain and Sarah Palin.

It's too bad he can't tell the truth like Jesus.

Barack Obama is not actually rolling out a new attack but ratcheting up the rhetoric in the same old attack he's been using--'the McCain-Palin ticket represents 4 more years of the last 8 years of George Bush,' and other such silly rubbish.

Of course, Obama ducks every time someone mentions that his administration would be like 4 more years of the last President who talked about Jesus incessantly--James Earl Carter, one of the most unsuccessful Presidents in the history of the U.S.

Christian cringe every time they hear one of Carter's latest foot-in-mouth debacles, given that many of them were duped into voting for him in 1976 because he spoke of Jesus and being 'born again.'

My friends, as a Christian I can tell you that believing in Jesus and being 'born again' does not automatically give one an astute brain or make one a good President!

The majority of my Christian friends in the South are embarrassed by Carter, not just because of his ineptitude as President but because of his ultra-liberal ideology that is closer to Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson.

Obama, taking a page from the playbook of Jimmy Carter, is playing up the 'Jesus motif,' with the exception that Carter had the decency to refrain from directly comparing himself to Jesus. Carter's operatives certainly never dared doing such a despicable thing that most Christian view as blasphemous. Their tactic was to talk up the fact that Carter was 'a born again Christian' rather than outright compare Carter to Jesus.

But Obama is not as honorable as Carter. Carter is basically a good man who is misguided and who was not up for job as President. Obama is a typical corrupt Chicago politician who is calculating.

Obama does, however, share one characteristic with Carter. His political views are similar. And the policies he would implement would be just as disastrous as those that Carter implemented from 1976-1980, and which the American people overwhelmingly rejected 4 years later and which Reagan spent the next 8 years cleaning up.

We can only hope the American people this time around will see through the ruse before going to the polls and casting a vote for Obama. It's much better to avoid a disaster than to clean up after one.

Obama--Jimmy Carter's 2nd Term

It has become very clear during Campaign '08 that Jimmy Carter's 2nd term of office will be fulfilled by Obama if he is elected.

And we all know what the electorate thought of Carter after one term. He lost to Reagan in a landslide.

But Obama's outlook on the world, politics, the military, and American free enterprise mirrors very closely that of Jimmy Carter.

The question thus becomes, why would anyone in the country wish to elect a man whose views closely mirror the failed policies of Jimmy Carter?

Perhaps the GOP could use the following mantra to taunt Obama--WWCD? 'What would Carter do?' Apparently this is the guiding influence of Barack Obama.

Hillary Claims Oil Prices Drop Immediately if Elected

In a stunning display of desperation, Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed on Sunday in Iowa that if she is elected oil prices will experience a dramatic sudden drop.

FACT CHECK! In actuality, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated during her campaign for President that the federal tax on oil should be dramatically increased and that she plans on 'taking that money from oil companies,' referring to robbing the corporations and their stockholders of millions of dollars of profits in order to set up a federal fund to explore alternative fuels.

These proposals will do anything but cause oil prices to drop.

The government already gets roughly 6 times the amount per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. Yet Mrs. Clinton proposes raising the federal tax on gas at the pump, where by the time you add local, state, and federal taxes we are already paying between 50 and 60 cents per gallon.

The oil companies make a mere 13 cents per gallon in profits.

In addition, if Mrs. Clinton is going to raid the profits of the oil companies and their shareholders, you can bet your last drop of Texas-T that gas prices will go through the roof. This kind of anti-capitalism and anti-business, closely akin to Hugo Chavez, will not exactly reassure oil company execs that they can safely reduce prices.

Mrs. Clinton went further to make some of the most outlandishly erroneous statements she has ever uttered. She claims that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' in the late 70s in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

FACT CHECK!! I remember those days very well because I had to travel by car extensively. During Jimmy Carter's term in office, 1976-1980, gas prices went from roughly 44 cents per gallon to over ONE DOLLAR per gallon in 1979.

There were long gas lines and shortages as well.

Yet Hillary states that Brother Jimmy was 'on the right track.'

Well, if that was the right track, I would surely hate to see what the WRONG track would have been. And if we were 'on the right track' then Ronald Reagan would not have beaten the socks off of politically impotent Carter.

But stay with me. There's even more.

Hillary went further to state that Ronald Reagan 'dismantled' the 'good work' Carter was doing with regard to energy.

FACT CHECK!! The only thing President Reagan dismantled was the asinine, boneheaded, and imbecilic policies of the Carter Administration, which led to gas shortages, long lines at the pump, and gas prices that more than doubled.

After Reagan had been in office less than a year, gas prices settled back down to below 75 cents per gallon. Long lines at the pump vanished. And there were no more shortages.

You see, my friends, liberals/socialists like Hillary Clinton believe that the citizens should be forced to endure pain and suffering as a means of mandating a change in their lifestyle. And, since they have always had a Freudian issue with oil, the objective is to make it as expensive and hard to get as possible so that Americans will be forced to turn to something else.

The only reason husband Bill didn't do this in the 1990s is that he is much more of a shrewd politician than Hillary. Even so, Clinton raised federal taxes on oil.

No doubt Hillary sincerely believes the balderdash she has just unleashed. But I never thought she was dumb enough to say so right out in the open just days before the Iowa Caucuses.

She is desperate, no doubt. And she is betting on picking up some votes from those who merely hear the 5-second sound-byte, 'Oil prices will drop immediately if I am elected.'

But then again, maybe the stress of the campaign trail is really starting to get to her. This is the stuff of loony-'toons, not serious leaders.

Religious Questions Surface During Campaigns

As regular as clockwork political campaigns evoke the inevitable religious questions that are bound to come up as the electorate attempts to determine which of the candidates they prefer to be President.

That the voters would ask these questions is as natural a part of being human in civilized society as, say, wanting to know if a candidate has Nazi tendencies once it has become known that he/she once stated they admired Adolf Hitler.

Religion and spirituality are all-pervasive aspects of human life. One's views on the subject tell us much about their character, their values, how they view humanity, and how they would react in a crisis.

Thus, John Kennedy's Catholicism became an issue in the 1960 election until the candidate reassured the populace that although his religious views inform his decisions and provide solace, they would in no way usurp his oath of office to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Contrary to these questions being tantamount to a 'religious litmus test' as Mitt Romney suggested during his now-famous religion speech, they are merely attempts by the voters to get at the heart of just who is this person who is asking for their vote. Are they trustworthy? Can I relate to them at all on a personal level? Will they understand the feelings and views of someone like me?

Thus, it is only natural that the American people would have questions concerning the Mormon faith if they are considering a vote for Mitt Romney, particularly in light of the fact that most Protestants and Catholics have been taught at some time or another that Mormonism is a 'cult.'

And the answer that most are looking for is whether or not the Mormon faith that Romney espouses is too big a hurdle for them to get past. They may well decide that the candidate appears entirely reasonable and that there is nothing to fear. On the other hand they may well decide that they are entirely uncomfortable with a President who believes the teachings of the Mormon church.

But this is part of the process, and it is entirely reasonable, just as it was reasonable for Americans to inquire into Jimmy Carter's membership in a Baptist Church during the 1976 Presidential campaign. As it turns out, it was not Carter's Baptist faith that ruined him but his utter inability to lead effectively, not to mention his horrendous foreign and domestic policies.

In like manner, it is reasonable to expect Americans to have questions concerning Mike Huckabee both as a Baptist and as an ordained minister within the Baptist denomination. Are Americans comfortable with a Baptist minister as President? It may well turn out that this is totally a non-issue, since Baptists form the single largest non-Catholic denomination in the U.S.

On the other hand, the issue may be a sticking point for Huckabee. He claims, for example, that giving children of illegal aliens college tuition breaks, allowing them to move ahead of many of our own people, is the 'good and right thing to do.'

Religiously oriented people often let their emotions dictate their stance on issues which demand purely rational views. Thus, we have Catholic churches providing safe haven for illegal aliens. We have liberal Protestant churches sending money to Mexico, supposedly for 'missions,' but in actuality their generosity is only used to promote causes that hurt our own country.

It is for this reason that I could vote for an agnostic who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights over a liberal Baptist who espouses statism or socialistic solutions to problems. I could vote for an atheist who doesn't have an ax to grind with religious folk, provided he/she espouses views similar to the Founders, over a deeply committed Christian who believes that it is somehow 'moral and ethical' to commit robbery (through higher taxes) in order to 'help the poor children of illegal immigrants.'

As Walter Williams often quips, 'For me to voluntarily reach in my pocket to help the poor is an honorable act of compassion, but for you or government to reach into my pocket and take my money for that purpose is stealing and should be punished by law.'

I fully relate to Huckabee as a Baptist, though I suspect that my brand of Baptist is much different from his southern-evangelical brand. I tend to be a Baptist in the classic, Calvinistic, reformed, non-conformist tradition--that sector of Christianity that began in England in the early 1600s as a congregational protest movement against the highly organized hierarchy of the Church of England.

These hearty souls saw no problem with alcohol, or tobacco, or some of the other so-called 'vices' that some groups identify. Huckabee's brand of Baptist comes out of southern evangelical Christianity which views 'al-kee-hol,' 't'bacee,' and 'dayncin' as horrible sins (if you recognize the three words you qualify as a bona fide southerner).

Yet I fully understand the mindset, and I am thoroughly familiar with its ramifications. Most of these folk are the salt-of-the-earth types who wouldn't hurt a flea, in spite of their rather restrictive moral standards.

It is therefore not Huckabee the Baptist that bothers me.

What bothers me is that Huckabee leads with his religion, just as did Jimmy Carter. Both have made it a central issue. At least Romney doesn't talk about his Mormonism and did so only after being hounded about it.

Fred Thompson is the perfect role model on the religion issue. In response to reporters' questions he stated, 'I am a Christian who was baptized into the Christian Church, and who believes in Jesus Christ. And that is really all that needs to be said about the matter.'

The way I see it, this was answering a legitimate question without turning the religion issue into some sort of litmus test.

Worst President in U.S. History Condemns Bush

James Earl Carter, the worst President in the 20th century if not the entirety of U.S. History, has condemned President Bush for supposedly approving the torture of war prisoners.

Wolf Blitzer of CNN admittedly turned in one of the finest interviews of his career when he played host to ex-President Carter on Wednesday.

A good reporter knows when to interrupt an interviewee and when to simply sit back and let the person talk. Blitzer's instincts in this case told him that he needed to simply let Carter talk.

The thing about Jimmy Carter is that by letting him talk you give him enough rope to hang him. It is difficult to understand or ascertain the internal 'logic' that leads Carter to make the outlandish statements for which he is known.

It is also chilling to think that we actually elected this man to the U.S. Presidency in 1976.

Carter asserted that not only did he suspect that Bush approved torture but that he 'knows it for a fact.'

How? Was he there when such a decision was made? Was he present at Gitmo to witness torture? And if so, who was tortured and who did it?

Of course Carter has not witnessed any of these things. Nor does he have any 'inside knowledge' that the U.S. tortures prisoners of war.

But this is not the only fantasy land assertion made by Carter. He further stated that with regard to Iran, they are no threat to the U.S., Bush should not authorize limited strategic attacks on their nuclear bomb facilities, and that the U.S. 'should simply talk to the Iranians.'

In the first place, Iran is a real threat not only to the U.S. but to our friends in Europe. Our European allies have expressed grave concern about Iran's ability to plunge the world into another World War.

That fact aside, Carter would deal with the threat by simply 'talking.'

Remember, there is a long history here that must be kept in mind. While President, James Earl Carter was faced with the gravity of the Iranian threat and dealt with it by 'talking.'

The result? American hostages were seized by the new Ayatollah regime after the exile of the Shah of Iran, and this nation was plunged into over a year's worth of tension regarding our citizens.

And why were the hostages finally released? Because one Ronald Reagan had promised during the 1980 Presidential campaign that he would unleash the full force of the U.S. military against Iran unless the hostages were released.

On the day Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office in January of 1981, Iran released the hostages.

The abject failure of 'the Carter Doctrine' from top to bottom, including domestic economic policy, gives the ex-President very little credibility with which to condemn a sitting U.S. President.

JIMMY CARTER THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY

Washington, DC (TLS). James Earl Carter, the worst President in U.S. history, has mouthed off yet again concerning matters he knows nothing about. This time, however, his statement is so outlandish that it defies all logic.

Ex-President Carter stated on Saturday that George W. Bush is 'absolutely the worst President in U.S. history.'


Excuse me, Mr. Carter, but I thought you had carved out for yourself that designation many years ago. No one since has even come close to bumping you out of your place in history as the absolute biggest mistake the American electorate ever made.


I remember full well the days leading up to 'the Reagan Revolution.' In the four years prior to President Reagan's landslide defeat of Jimmy Carter, the U.S. had faced the following dire circumstances:


--interest rates hit a whopping 21%, effectively killing the housing market dead cold

--inflation was running at 13 - 18% per year

--for the first time in American history gasoline prices reached one dollar per gallon

--in the 1978-79 economy, one dollar per gallon fuel put many truckers out of business

--America had become the laughing stock on the world stage, portraying an image of weakness

--this perceived weakness led to the former Soviet Union invading Afghanistan

--this perceived weakness also led to the kidnapping of hostages by the Iranian dictator

--foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East always favored Islamic extremists

--Israel was looked upon as a pariah (Carter still looks at it this way, as his latest book shows)

--cutbacks in military spending and the lack of development of new weapons systems emboldened Communists in the USSR to attempt to beat us in the Cold War arms race

--Carter brought with him to Washington the most inept team of Administration officials in the history of the republic, leading the late Senator Barry Goldwater to refer to them as 'numbskulls'

--Carter was not respected even within his own Party, as Ted Kennedy mounted a strong campaign to wrest the nomination away from Carter in 1980 to run against Reagan (Kennedy lost, but Carter was severely weakened going into the general election)

--Carter blamed the American people for our woes rather than his own ineptitude, referring to Americans as being held in the grip of a 'malaise.'


In short, by the time James Earl Carter got through with the country after four years, we were nearly in shambles both at home and abroad.


Ronald Reagan won the Presidency by reminding Americans of our greatness and that we could recapture that greatness again with the right leadership. He promised lower taxes, lower government spending, building up the military, and facing down the Soviet Union and our other enemies.


He also warned the Iranians that they would have hell to pay if they did not release the hostages once he was elected President.


As Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as President, Iran released the hostages.


My dear friends, if you think George W. Bush is the worst President in history, remember the Carter days. 21% interest rates and 18% inflation. Today we think 7% interest is high and anything above 5% is 'runaway inflation.' I remember all too well when it was MUCH MUCH worse.


Rest assured, the one thing I will NOT do is to allow a demagogue like Jimmy Carter to try to hide his dismal record as President by calling attention to George W. Bush. I lived through those years and I know what it was like. And as long as I have breath I will remind people that James Earl Carter came as close to ruining this nation as any other person in my lifetime.

Katie Couric on Guns, Christians, Castro, Conservatives

Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere blew the lid on the dishonest reporting techniques employed by Katie Couric and CBS News when describing a poll that supposedly showed a 55% majority of Americans either did not support the funding of the troop surge in Iraq or did not support funding the War at all. As we reported, through a deft slight-of-hand maneuver, Couric manipulated the figures to say something they did not say.

In actuality, 45% of those who responded to the poll said they did not support funding the troop surge. That means 55% either support it or had no opinion. This was not mentioned by Couric. In addition, she stated that 8% of those polled said they did not support funding the War at all. She failed to mention that this means that fully 92% of Americans apparently SUPPORT funding the War.

This blatant act of deliberately misrepresenting poll numbers raised the suspicions of this writer. The result was a bit of research conducted by The Liberty Sphere. It did not take long to discover nearly a 20-year history of Liberal bias, Leftist slant, denigration of Conservatives, Republicans, evangelical Christians and Catholics, and a glowing adoration of Democrats, Liberals, Communists such as Fidel Castro, and our anti-Semitic ex-President, Jimmy Carter.

In addition, Couric is an avid supporter of gun control, even going so far as to lecture Charlton Heston when he was head of the NRA.

The following quotations span much of Couric's career, both at NBC and now as anchor of CBS Evening News. We are greatly indebted to the Media Research Center for providing much of this information.

As you will see, Couric can hardly hide her obvious Leftist bent. She is one of the prime examples of why Americans should oppose with all of our might the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' that Democrats wish to use to gain equal time on conservative talk radio. We do not need a Fairness Doctrine. With Couric and her Leftist comrades at NBC, ABC, and CNN, the only method conservatives have to be heard is radio and Fox News.

If Democrats wish equal time to respond to Rush Limbaugh, then we should demand equal time to respond to the propaganda spouted each evening by Couric and company.

Here are the words straight from the horse's mouth:

Castro, Charismatic Success Story
"Considered one of the most charismatic leaders of the 20th century....[Fidel] Castro traveled the country cultivating his image and his revolution delivered. Campaigns stamped out illiteracy and even today, Cuba has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world."— February 13, 1992.

Carve Carter into Mt. Rushmore
"And finally President Carter, you are now considered one of the world’s foremost statesmen. You’ve been called the best ex-President this country has ever had. Your reputation has been bolstered tremendously since you left office. How does that make you feel?"— November 13, 1991

One More Gun Restriction, That’s The Ticket!
Katie Couric: "Getting back to kids and guns, if you will indulge me for a moment. You cannot think of any other position the NRA could take in terms of trying to decrease the number of school shootings? You feel like this is not your bailiwick, this is not your problem?"
Charlton Heston: "Not at all. As I told you the NRA spends more money, more time..."
Couric, cutting him off: "Other than education."
Heston: "Well what would you suppose? What would you suggest?"
Couric: "I don’t know, perhaps greater restrictions."— Exchange on June 8, 1998

Blaming Right Wing for Murder
"Let’s talk a little bit more about the right wing because I know that’s something you feel very strongly about. But this is actually not necessarily about the right wing, but perhaps a climate that some say has been established by religious zealots or Christian conservatives. There have been two recent incidents in the news, I think, that upset most people in this country, that is the dragging death of James Byrd Junior and the beating death of Matthew Shepard. I just would like you to reflect on whether you feel people in this country are increasingly intolerant, mean-spirited, et cetera, and what, if anything, can be done about that because a lot of people get very discouraged when they hear and see this kind of brutality taking place."— To former Texas Governor Ann Richards as she hosted a 92nd Street Y appearance in New York City on March 3 shown by C-SPAN on April 3, 1999.

Real Dictatorship in Miami
"Some suggested over the weekend that it’s wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami. All eyes on south Florida and its image this morning. Another writer this weekend called it ‘an out of control banana republic within America.’ What effect is the Elian Gonzalez story having on perception of Miami? We will talk with a well-known columnist for the Miami Herald about that."— April 3, 2000.

Happy Mother’s Day to a Liberal Activist
"With Mother’s Day coming up this Sunday, we wanted to salute the hard work, integrity and love moms show us every day, so this morning we invited three women who have made their own special contribution to motherhood and, as I said earlier, to all of mankind, in fact. Donna Dees-Thomases founded the Million Mom March...Donna, you organized the Million Mom March, and it really was such a grassroots movement of stroller moms, right? Tell me how it came about."— Introduction and question to anti-gun activist Donna Dees-Thomases, May 11, 2001.

(By the way, the so-called 'Million Mom March' did not involve anywhere near millions of stroller moms, as touted by Couric, Bill Clinton, and Donna Dees-Thomases. Estimates by officers on the ground indicated that perhaps 100,000--TOPS--attended that rally in Washington).

Is the New Pope a Nazi?
"Cardinal Ratzinger’s past includes a brief membership in the Hitler Youth movement, service in the German army in World War II, which was mandatory. But given his past associations do you think that will create a rift between Christians and Jews, and what can he do to fix that?"— To liberal priest Father Andrew Greeley, April 20, 2005. Greeley, a critic of Cardinal Ratzinger, dismissed her concern.

A Catholic Town? How Awful!
"Some of the values, depending on your perspective... may be deemed wholesome, but in other ways, I think, people will see this community as eschewing diversity and promoting intolerance....Do you think the tenets of the community might result in de facto segregation as a result of some of the beliefs that are being espoused by the majority of the residents there?...You can understand how people would hear some of these things and be like, wow, this is really infringing on civil liberties and freedom of speech and right to privacy and all sorts of basic tenets that this country was founded on. Right?"— March 3, 2006, interviewing Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan and real-estate developer Paul Marinelli, who are building a community based on Catholic values in Ave Maria, Florida

And why do we need the 'fairness doctrine' again? In fact, I say, BRING IT ON. I would love to gain equal time to respond to Couric's pro-Commie, Liberal, anti-Christian, gun-grabbing propaganda!