The Plagiarist In Chief

There is much discussion today about the SOTU speech last night, naturally.

The top of Memeorandum links to a Politico story in which Marc Thiessen suggests that Obama plagiarized George W. Bush's 2007 SOTU speech.

I don't know if he did or not because I didn't watch it and don't plan on reading the transcript.  I can't tolerate the man's voice anymore and his words are lies so there's no sense reading them.  He means nothing to me; I just want him to go away, back to Chicago, retire to Hawaii, wherever it is that he wants to go.  Just go.

As to the charge of plagiarism, I think Bride of Rove is more on target than Thiessen.  Obama plagiarized Reagan.

Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan

SIGIS is remembering Ronald Reagan today.  He would be 101.

Here are Ten Reagan Quotes from CSM.

Marathon Pundit relives his Reagan centennial trip.

The Patriot Post has several links for the occasion.

 Americans for Prosperity has an ad out for the occasion:

Yes, I Do

Via Hot Air - LOVE this one (and no, it's not a photoshop):

Who is Smarter?

One of the memes of the day seems to be "who is smarter, Democrats or Republicans?" Jeffrey Lord, writing for American Spectator, nails the problem succinctly:

In short, as with Tiger Woods and his woman problem, Barack Obama and his liberal allies have a superiority problem. Liberals/progressives really do see themselves as "entitled" to make decisions for everyone else. They really do believe, as did Tiger, that the rules do not apply to them. Why? Because they are addicted to the idea they are smarter than everyone else.

Yes, yes, yes, their very-smart predecessors gave the nation Vietnam, caused the Great Depression (Herbert Hoover was a "progressive Republican," lest we forget) and then FDR's liberal intellectuals prolonged it.

Jennifer Rubin points to a similar idea from Rachel Abrams:

When you’re comparing the men who brought down the Berlin Wall and the Cold War along with it, liberated the people of Iraq from their butcher dictator and declared war against our terrorist enemies with the men who presided over the Iranian hostage crisis, gas lines, and our national malaise, and sullied the office of the president in a very big way, does it really matter who scored higher on his SATs?

Exactly. Go back to Jeffrey Lord who shares a Ronald Reagan story:

Several times during his presidency, Reagan found himself in the hospital for various ailments. A gunshot wound to the chest plus a couple surgeries. On one of these occasions he was discovered on his hands and knees in his hospital bathroom, wiping up some water. Aghast, the person who discovered the President of the United States so employed received this explanation from Reagan. He had knocked a glass of water on the floor. Quite aware that he was the president, he was concerned that someone -- most probably a nurse -- would get in trouble for allowing such a thing to occur to "the President." Instead of summoning someone to clean up the mess he himself had made -- and thus potentially getting that someone else in trouble -- he had grabbed a towel and dropped to his hands and knees to mop up the water himself.

Lord draws a brilliant and spot on comparison between Tiger Woods and his foibles and Barack Obama. Be sure to read the whole thing.

I'd comment further but I have to go to work and you're smart people and can draw your own conclusions.

Is a Little Sensitivity Too Much to Ask?

Via Bride of Rove, this news caught my eye this morning:

"This holiday season more than 50,000 people will visit the White
House's 17 holiday parties and 11 open houses. Social Office staff will
be present to continue to assist guests and the United States Secret
Service should any confusion arise. As always, the United States Secret
Service will provide security and will control who has access to the
White House grounds."

Doesn't that sound rather excessive? We are in a heavy recession, after all, and unemployment is in double digits. Many Americans are hurting right now - broke, jobless, worried, and scared. And the White House is livin' large. Partying it up.

I can't help but wonder what the backlash would be if it were George Bush?

Actually, the Bushes did party hearty last year with sixty thousand visitors, 25 lavish receptions, seven dinners and White House tours, but unemployment was 7.2%, still high, but not as bad as what we're facing today.

Bush was regularly criticized for playing golf and going to Crawford, Texas.

It seems to me that no matter who is in the White House, we're going to analyze and criticize them. I certainly don't agree with everything Bush did. I don't agree with most of what Obama is doing.

I'm not advocating a joyless White House Christmas. I don't think Christmas should be canceled just because people are unemployed and having a hard time paying for it. But I do think, whether it is the Bushes or the Obamas, or whoever comes next, that some sensitivity is a good thing. Garish excess, like building a heated pavilion for a State Dinner, is poor taste.

All I'm saying is just scale it back a little. The Bushes probably should have, even with lower unemployment figures, and the Obamas should as well.

That's just my two cents.

Here is a nifty little site on how previous administrations have celebrated Christmas, including photos of the yearly Christmas cards (Regan's 1981 card is pictured above).

Bloodless Barack?

Clearly the British press is not an Obama fan. And why would they be? He's snubbed the British on more than one occasion and has demonstrated that their alliance isn't high on his list of importance.

Today the Telegraph (via Memeorandum) makes note of Obama's "cool detachment," explaining that during the campaign that was seen as a good thing, but now, not so much. Through a series of examples, Toby Harmden makes the case that Obama is "bloodless."

The most notable example is Obama's reaction to the Fort Hood massacre, calling his reaction a "strange disconnectedness":

Maybe Mr Obama had been reading the American press, much of which somehow contrived to present the atrocity as a result of combat stress due to soldiers going on repeated war deployments (though Major Nadal Hasan had not been on any) and therefore, no doubt, Mr Bush's fault.

Of course it's all Bush's fault; isn't everything? Those Democrats voting FOR the Stupak amendment? Probably Bush's fault. Those voting AGAINST HR3962? Bush's fault. It's only a matter of time.

More from the Telegraph:

When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their "extraordinary" and "extremely productive" conference, pausing to give a cheery "shout out" to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow. Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas.

On Friday, when most of the basic facts were available, Mr Obama tried again. It was scarcely any better. He began by offering "an update on the tragedy that took place" - as if it was an earthquake and not a terrorist attack from an enemy within - and ended with a promise for more "updates in the coming days and weeks".

Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised [sic] with the families and comrades of those murdered.

Not to delve into psychobabble, but doesn't all this display serious signs of narcissism?

And what's wrong with being cool and detached, anyway, you might ask. It seems to me that in a president, we appreciate those that are human, and that empathize with us. If he can't seem to get on the same plane as the common people, how can he lead or represent us? He becomes imperial and monarchist, even. Removed.

Bush caught criticism when, immediately learning of the World Trade Center attacks, he continued reading to the small schoolchildren for a few minutes before he made his necessary exit. I never thought that criticism was fair. Who could fathom, much less immediately process, such an act? And would scaring the beejezus out of those kids have helped anything?

There was no doubt about the emotion Bush felt in the following days; the tear in his eye and the emotion in his voice. Similarly, with Ronald Reagan, you always knew how he felt. Happy, elated, sad, you always knew. Not that it's appropriate all the time; nobody wants a sobbing, emotional leader in charge of the free world. Control, we want. Coldness, not so much.

Back to Fort Hood, Obama has drawn criticism for his retreat to Camp David this weekend rather than a visit to Fort Hood. He hasn't ventured to the base at all as of yet. Yet on Friday, very quietly, George and Laura Bush went to visit the wounded and the traumatized. They spent two hours at the base offering whatever support they could. They asked for no press.

In 1987, after the attack on the USS Stark, there was no question how Ronald Reagan felt. You could tell by his face and by his remarks:

I have an announcement here that I would like to make that is aimed directly at you of the press. I know and I share the sense of concern and anger that Americans feel over the yesterday's tragedy in the Persian Gulf. We have protested this attack in the strongest terms and are investigating the circumstances of the incident. When our investigation of the facts is completed, I will report to the American people about this matter and any further steps that are warranted. For that reason I have convened a meeting of the National Security Planning Group to review the entire situation in the Persian Gulf.

In the meanwhile, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the families of the brave men killed and injured yesterday aboard the U.S.S. Stark. Their loss and suffering will not be in vain. The mission of the men of the U.S.S. Stark, safeguarding the interests of the United States and the free world in the Gulf, remains crucial to our national security and to the security of our friends throughout the world. The hazards to our men and women in uniform in the defense of freedom can never be understated. The officers and crew of the U.S.S. Stark deserve our highest admiration and appreciation. And I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain for their prompt assistance in responding to the stricken U.S.S. Stark.

No "shout outs" in that speech. Additionally, he made it a point to meet with family members of the victims.

Obviously, wherever the president goes, there is fuss. Obama could claim that he didn't want to create more of a scene at the base than what is already ongoing at Fort Hood, but it seems to me if he can drop in and out of Afghanistan or Iraq in secret, he could go to Fort Hood.

Not that he gives a damn, but Obama would do well to show the American people that he cares about them, whether he does or not.

Second Quote of the Day: Reagan on Israel in 1984

And let me assure you, we will never attempt to impose a solution on Israel, nor will we ever weaken in our opposition to terrorism by the PLO or by anybody else. As I said when I addressed you in 1980, terrorists are not guerillas or commandos or freedom fighters or anything else. They're terrorists, and should be identified as such. We will go on working with all our hearts to help the people of the Middle East achieve a just and lasting settlement -- a settlement that agrees, in the words of my statement of September 1982, that Israel ``has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders, and it has a right to expect its neighbors to recognize this.''

Reagan Speech to N'nai B'rith
September 6, 1984

Nancy Reagan's Speech and The Statue

Obama to Shun National Day of Prayer

Tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer, a day which encourages Americans to pray for our country, its people and its leaders.

The day first began in 1775. The Second Continental Congress set aside a day for Americans to pray as they began the struggle for independence. It continued on various dates each year and in 1952 Congress and Truman established it as a yearly event.

This is President Ronald Regan's declaration in 1981 (in 1988 he amended the declaration to designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.)

Proclamation 4826 - National Day of Prayer, 1981

Our Nation's motto "In God We Trust"—was not chosen lightly. It reflects a basic recognition that there is a divine authority in the universe to which this Nation owes homage.

Throughout our history Americans have put their faith in God and no one can doubt that we have been blessed for it. The earliest settlers of this land came came in search of religious freedom. Landing on a desolate shoreline, they established a spiritual foundation that has served us ever since.

It was the hard work of our people, the freedom they enjoyed and their faith in God that built this country and made it the envy of the world. In all of our great cities and towns evidence of the faith of our people is found: houses of worship of every denomination are among the oldest structures.

While never willing to bow to a tyrant, our forefathers were always willing to get to their knees before God. When catastrophe threatened, they turned to God for deliverance. When the harvest was bountiful the first thought was thanksgiving to God.

Prayer is today as powerful a force in our Nation as it has ever been. We as a Nation should never forget this source of strength. And while recognizing that the freedom to choose a Godly path is the essence of liberty, as a Nation we cannot but hope that more of our citizens would, through prayer, come into a closer relationship with their Maker.

Recognizing our great heritage, the Congress, by Joint Resolution approved April 17, 1952 ( 36 U.S.C. 169h; 66 Stat. 64), has called upon the President to set aside a suitable day each year as a National Day of. Prayer.

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 7, 1981, National Day of Prayer. On that day I ask all who believe to join with me in giving thanks to Almighty God for the blessings He has bestowed on this land and the protection He affords us as a people. Let us as a Nation join together before God, fully aware of the trials that lie ahead and the need, yes, the necessity, for divine guidance. With unshakeable faith in God and the liberty which is heritage, we as a free Nation will surely survive and prosper.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of March, in year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fifth.

RONALD REAGAN

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:33 a.m., March 20, 1981]

But here's this from the Washington Times:

"President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the next morning.

"All Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the observance.

"For the past eight years, President George W. Bush invited selected Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House East Room, where he typically would give a short speech and several leaders offered prayers."

It's my humble opinion but I think a little prayer would do us all some good. Our nation is in trouble. I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, we're in trouble. And all those that would scream "separation of church and state" and bellow about bringing God into politics would do well to sit back and read Reagan's words. George W. Bush was excoriated for using his faith to make decisions, but I think a little more faith in the God that got us here, so to speak, would be a good thing. As my mother used to say, "Dance with the one who 'brung' you

Our nation needs help right now because we are sliding down more than one slippery slope. So remember, it's National Day of Prayer, and a prayer might be a good idea.

What Would Reagan Do?

The case of the Chinese Uighurs continues to move through the Obamaland system. From Fox News:

"President Obama's Guantanamo task force, which will recommend where the 240 detainees will go once the prison closes next year, are likely to advise that some of the prisoners from China be settled in the U.S., a person familiar with the review process told FOX News.

Members of the task force met with 17 Uyghurs held at the prison last week and quizzed them for at least an hour on where they would like to go, their feelings about the U.S. and their training in Afghanistan, multiple sources confirmed to FOX News."

Did I fall through the looking-glass and wake up in a land of Cheshire cats and giant mushrooms? Where is the smoking caterpillar? When did we start asking terrorists "where they would like to go" and about "their feelings about the U.S."? And at the same time we are also asking them about their "training in Afghanistan" in al Qaeda terrorist camps? Have we also asked them how large they'd like their settlement check to be?

Does it not alarm anyone that these men will be settled here, especially given that "tension exists over the Uyghurs and how 'safe' they are. One source says at least six have a violent history at Guantanamo, including attacks on guards -- attempting to break arms -- and 'bodily fluid cocktails.'"

We are reverting back to a 9/10 mentality. And make no mistake, the world is watching. When Castro is your new best friend and Dmitry Medvedev is your new comrade, the world is seriously askew. Pass me the pipe, caterpillar.

What would Reagan do?

Peace The Old Fashioned Way

Do you feel safer now? Cuba and Venezuela could soon be hosting Russian bombers.

What would Reagan do?

My guess: Peace Through Superior Firepower.

You Can Too! Yes You Can!

Elvis Presley once said, "I don't like people who are in politics for themselves and not for others. You want that, you can go into show business." I couldn't agree more.

It seems that everywhere I look Obama kitsch is alive and well. I started thinking about it this week when Michelle Obama gave Prime Minister Brown's children replica helicopter models of Marine One, as if to say, "Barack Obama travels in this! Barack Obama is president!" It seemed to be a little presumptive and a bit of self-promotion. Michelle Malkin has written about the Obama schlock which was at its peak during the inauguration. On November 27, 2008, The Washington Post reported that there were at least 96,000 different Obama designs for sale. One could purchase Obama bottle openers, posters, lapel pins, tote bags, lighters, mugs even a life-size cardboard cutout of Obama.

Now I have this billboard at the end of my street. My first thought when I saw it was of those images of Saddam Hussein or other dictators looking down on their people from these huge self-promoting images of themselves.

The history of self-promotion and propaganda art is well documented. Hussein, for example, had huge statues erected of himself, murals on buildings and public walls, posters and banners all about displaying his image for all to see. A reminder of his power. It's a pattern with many dictators: Stalin, Mao, Chavez, ... Even Hitler participated through architecture.

I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama is behind this billboard. It clearly states that the North Louisiana Medical Association, Inc. is involved and that the display is sponsored by the African American Physician's Network. The only reference I can find to that online is that local physician Dr. Albert Powell is the president of this group. To date, I've been unable to uncover much else about the promotion or the organization.

What exactly is the message here? Is Barack Obama going to "empower" my community? Or am I supposed to take my inspiration from what he has accomplished and use that to "empower" my community? And what exactly am I to empower my community to do? Run for president? Go to the doctor? It's all rather vague.

One of the things I admired about Ronald Reagan was that the presidency was never about him. It was about the office, about service to country, about the people of the United States. Peggy Noonan said, "He changed history for the better and was modest about it. He didn't bray about his accomplishments but saw them as the work of the American people. He did not see himself as entitled, never demanded respect, preferred talking to hotel doormen rather than State Department functionaries because he thought the doormen brighter and more interesting."

Mr. Obama and his minions could learn a thing or two from Ronnie.