GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label former presidents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label former presidents. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2015

Happy President’s Day… Or Maybe Not?!?

There is a federal holiday Monday, but it’s called 'Washington’s Birthday.' Yet mattress retailers and used-car sales lots tend to make this Presidents Day in their ads.

By Peter Grier, Staff writerCSMonitor -  February 16, 2015  -  Cross-Posted by Marion Algier at AskMarion

George Washington

Presidential portraits, including a 1796 painting of George Washington by artist Gilbert Stuart, are displayed at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, Aug. 27, 2014. The 8-foot-by-5-foot picture is considered the definitive portrait of Washington as president after earlier images in military uniform.  Jacquelyn Martin/AP

There are some great Presidents Day stories out there Monday morning. CNN has a piece on the myths and secrets of presidential monuments: Did you know there’s Civil War-era graffiti at the Washington Monument? NBC tallied the US counties named for presidents, finding that a shocking number – OK, more than 10 – are named for James Polk.

Research organizations are taking a somewhat more abstract approach. Pew Research, in honor of Presidents Day, put up an examination of how presidents have adopted and used the new media of their day, from Abe Lincoln’s use of the telegraph to Barack Obama’s promotion of the "selfie stick." The Brookings Institution unveiled a poll of political scientists that rates the presidents in order of perceived greatness. We won’t spoil it by telling you where Mr. Obama ranks, but we’ll give you a hint: 18th.

OK, we did spoil it.

Like we said, this all great, or at least interesting stuff. Too bad it’s based on a false premise. There is no federal Presidents Day. It’s a myth. The United States as a whole does not have such a holiday.We’ve been ripping the lid off this scandal for years. Shockingly, the charade continues.

There is a federal holiday Monday, but it’s called “Washington’s Birthday.” It’s right there in the Office of Personnel Management’s list of federal days off for 2015. If you click through and look, you’ll notice it has an asterisk, which leads to a note of explanation.

“This holiday is designated as ‘Washington’s Birthday' in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees,” writes OPM. “Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law.”

Section 6103(a) of Title 5 of the US Code! That’s almost as good as being in the Constitution, right?

How did things get this way? Long story short: Washington’s Birthday has been a US holiday since 1886. In the late 1960s, Congress embarked on a renovation of US holidays to make three-day weekends, and Washington’s Birthday got thrown into the mix. Some members of the Illinois congressional delegation thought it would be a great idea to expand the day to honor Lincoln, and so they suggested the “Presidents Day” business. But their Virginia counterparts wanted to protect the singularity of the day for the Father of Our Country. In the end, they prevailed. It’s a lot easier to block change in Congress than it is to bring change about.

States and localities do what they want, and some have voted to make this “Presidents Day” in their environs. Others have not.

Some states always vote to recognize favorite-son presidents. There’s a Lyndon Baines Johnson Day in Texas. It’s Aug. 27, LBJ’s actual birthday.

Mattress retailers and used-car sales lots tend to make this Presidents Day in their ads, wherever they’re located, and they’re the institutions we blame for making this a national holiday that really isn’t. Why “Presidents Day Sales” instead of “George Washington’s Birthday Sales”? Well, the former is shorter and punchier, for one thing. Also, you can use drawings of Lincoln in your ad. The beard and stovepipe hat are a good counterbalance to Washington’s breeches and wig.

Other than that, we have no idea.

It’s not ‘President’s Day.’ It’s Washington’s Birthday

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Happy Birthday, President Reagan

Today marks the birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th president of the United States of America.

Joshua Pundit:

Reagan became president when the United States was in a period of great stress, just after the tenure of Jimmy Carter. Inflation and interest rates were in double digits and unemployment was close to 7%, taxes were at an all time high, America's foreign policy and international prestige were reeling from the Iranian hostage crisis, severe cutbacks in defense and successful Soviet penetration all over the world.

Worse than that, Americans seemed to have lost confidence in themselves and in the country's greatness.

Reagan squared his shoulders, rolled up his sleeves and got to work. He cut government, cut taxes, and oversaw the creation of 16 million new jobs and economic growth at 3.5 % per year. He rebuilt America's military. He was unafraid to call the Soviet Union an evil empire, or to challenge them directly so that their evil empire crumpled into the dust of history.

He left America safer, stronger and wealthier than it was when he came, which is the most you can ask of a president. In simple terms, he was a singularly decent man who honored both himself and the nation he served.

He gave us confidence in ourselves again, reminded us of who we are and that we are a country singularly blessed by G-d's providence. He inspired us as a nation. And he did it with grace, charm, wit and style, and with a sunny optimism that reached out to the best in us.

If ever a president deserved a national holiday to honor him, President Reagan does.

He was by no means perfect, as he would doubtless be the first to say. But in Ronald Reagan, we have an example of what real leadership is, an example especially needed today.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President...We Miss You!!!

** And let us remember this conservative yet practical leader in the upcoming elections of 2014 and 2016.  Reagan's old and proven formula was to unite behind the most conservative and principled candidate(s) available, and to make sure he or she knew that 2-years, let alone 10-months, isn't that far away. It won't be perfect, but it will even put RINO’s who survive on notice that times have changed!!

Reagan at His Best…

Friday, November 22, 2013

Remembering JFK 50-Years Later

Everyone who was alive the day of the Kennedy assassination knows exactly where they were the moment they heard the news that JFK was shot.  The days of coverage are permanently imprinted on their minds… from Jackie crawling out onto the trunk of the limousine to recover the top of her husband’s head, to her blood stained suit worn at LBJ’s swearing-in on Air Force One, to the single black rider-less horse, to the vision of young John John saluting his father’s casket.

Here is a story of a woman who has made a lifetime hobby of researching the possibilities of what really happened that day and who was behind it.

"Kennedy Slain by CIA, Mafia, Castro, LBJ, Teamsters, Freemasons: President shot 129 times from 43 different angles."

Seeking the truth behind the tragedy of Kennedy's assassination

Barb Junkkarinen, a self-described JFK conspiracy theorist and self-taught scholar, has immersed herself in the grittiest details of an assassination that continues to fascinate Americans half a century later. (John M. Glionna / Los Angeles Times)

LA Times: Like most Americans, Barb Junkkarinen thinks there's more to the Kennedy assassination story. She uses hands-on research to bring reason to a debate rife with conspiracy theories.

By John M. Glionna - Reporting from Hillsboro, Ore. - Nov. 22, 2013

Barb Junkkarinen emerges from the bedroom with the gift her husband and son gave her one Christmas.

It's a 1940 Italian-made rifle, like the one Lee Harvey Oswald fired from a sixth-floor window at the Texas School Book Depository, killing President Kennedy on an autumn afternoon in Dallas. He'd spirited the weapon into the building by disguising it as a curtain rod.

"This is how Oswald carried his package," she says, holding the butt of the rifle low, the way witnesses described. "He had it cupped in his hand, like this."

Junkkarinen's husband, Juha, and son, Jason, nod at the demonstration they've seen again and again. They help adjust the unloaded weapon just so. They point out there's also a scope and ammunition.

Over more than half her lifetime, Barb Junkkarinen has made a hobby of delving into rumors, theories and contradictory facts that swirl around a killing that continues to titillate — and divide — Americans on the 50th anniversary of the events of Nov. 22, 1963.

In the world of online Kennedy discussion groups, she learned "lurkers" tune in but never post; "fringies" attribute a political motive to every turn; false witnesses claim to have been places they haven't. Those who believe Oswald acted alone are "lone-nutters."

And people like Junkkarinen are CTs, for conspiracy theorists.

She has amassed a trove of artifacts: autopsy reports, investigation documents, shelves of books and photos, and a model of the Lincoln Continental limousine Kennedy rode in when he was shot in Dealey Plaza. There's also a life-sized plastic model of a human skull she uses to make detailed arguments about bullet entry and exit.

Inside her Portland-area home office, she avidly dissects the latest theories of the paranoid and the emotionally unstable.

They include those who believe Kennedy was first hit in the throat with a bullet made of ice; that a man in Dealey Plaza fatally wounded the president with a dart fired from an umbrella; and that J. Edgar Hoover attended a party the night before the assassination celebrating JFK's imminent demise.

Junkkarinen rejects those theories. She blames gangsters and spies.

Junkkarinen, 62, can still picture where she heard the news: She was 12 years old, a seventh-grader sitting in the second seat in the row by the window at a Catholic school in San Diego. A superior whispered into the ear of her teacher, whose freckled face instantly turned red.

The nuns instructed students to say Hail Marys on Kennedy's behalf. Later, after Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby, Junkkarinen heard her father say, "Something's just not right here."

She recalls thinking: "Nothing's right about any of it, Dad."

By age 15, she'd read the lengthy report published by the Warren Commission, which had conducted the investigation of the killing. She graduated high school and studied to become a medical laboratory technician. She married Juha and moved to Oregon. She would read each new book that purported to solve the Kennedy assassination.

Seconds after the fatal shot, a Secret Service agent climbs aboard the president's limousine as the first lady, her husband slumped over in the backseat, crawls onto the trunk lid. (Ike Altgens / Associated Press)

The year 1980 brought a turning point: "Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" by David Lifton, which focused on medical evidence she understood, with descriptions from attending doctors on the locations of JFK's wounds. Junkkarinen checked it out of the library and read it three times.

She eventually dismissed Lifton's central premise — that the president's body had been altered to suggest gunshots fired from the rear, as a way to help prove the government's argument that Oswald alone killed JFK. But the book led her to pursue theories of her own.

Junkkarinen came to believe JFK's death was not the result of a lone killer, a view shared by many. A nationwide Associated Press-GfK poll of 1,004 adults in April found that 59% thought multiple people participated in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, while 24% thought Oswald acted alone. About 16% were unsure.

Junkkarinen argues there were two conspiracies.

The point is not to say 'I got it!' We simply want to know the truth." 

— Barb Junkkarinen

The first, she says, involved a network of gangsters or spies who executed the killing. The second was a coverup by Cold War-era government officials convinced that Americans were incapable of understanding how such a network could assassinate the president.

A lawyer who has written a book about conspiracies says such theories apply a sensible narrative to troubling historical puzzles like the Kennedy killing, which was the first to mesmerize the entire nation on television.

"There's the suggestion everything changed after the JFK assassination," says Mark Fenster, author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."

And the hero in any conspiracy narrative, says Fenster: "The person who solves the puzzle."

Junkkarinen says she's not trying to be a hero. "We work quietly and diligently," she says. "The point is not to say 'I got it!' We simply want to know the truth."

Junkkarinen's research has taken her to Kennedy archives and to Dealey Plaza. She speaks at conferences and advises fellow conspiracy theorists on their theories.

"In a field known for hysterics, Barb is grounded," said Josiah Thompson, a fellow conspiracy theorist and author of the 1967 book "Six Seconds in Dallas." Thompson is a former Yale philosophy professor who became a private investigator.  

TIMELINE: THE JFK ASSASSINATION

Timeline: A look at the events following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Above, Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy, is shot at point-blank range by nightclub owner Jack Ruby. (Bob Jackson / Dallas Times-Herald / Associated Press)

"She patrols down the center of the freeway of reasoned debate on this topic," he said, "pointing out all the nuttiness along the way."

In one paper published by a group devoted to Kennedy assassination followers, Junkkarinen explains that the small gadgets found in Dealey Plaza today are not government eavesdropping devices, as an online poster claimed, but water sprinkler sensors.

Junkkarinen's family and friends have supported her work. Both husband and son have served as presidential stand-ins, lying atop a gurney with a taped-on plastic wound, when she needed a model for presentations with titles such as "The Back of Kennedy's Head."

During one talk at her home, friends flinched when she produced the autopsy photos. A psychologist had trouble sleeping for weeks.

"I guess she didn't realize all that goes into an autopsy," Junkkarinen says.

Sitting at her desk, Junkkarinen surveys half a dozen storage boxes of Kennedy materials spread across the floor.

"Now, where is that skull?" she says of the item she ordered from a medical supply company. She says it provides context, like the carbine.

When Junkkarinen got the Oswald rifle, her mother asked, "What do you want with that? Let the man be dead."

View map on latimes.com

Junkkarinen took the rifle, widely known as a Mannlicher-Carcano, to a shooting range and fired it. The weapon "kicks like a mule," she says. While she believes Oswald carried the gun into the book depository, she calls him a pawn and theorizes he never fired the weapon that day.

She says shooting the rifle has bolstered her contention that it could not have been fired three times in just seconds, as the government claims. "That's my approach," she says. "I want to see and hold things for myself."

She never finds the skull but shows off a gift from Jason — a mock front page from the satirical publication the Onion with the headline: "Kennedy Slain by CIA, Mafia, Castro, LBJ, Teamsters, Freemasons: President shot 129 times from 43 different angles."

Junkkarinen smiles. She gets the humor.

Like the late-night phone call from a woman with a cigarette-tinged voice: "I just want you to know you're right," she whispered, "and I can prove it." Or the day Jason, now 26, came home from school with a question from his teacher, Sister Mary Ann:

"Why would a second-grader be able to spell the word 'assassination'?"

Still so many questions and no real answers…

Related: 

JACKIE KENNEDY: LYNDON JOHNSON KILLED JFK

PBS Whitewashes Oswald’s KGB Connections 

Facts about JFK

Who Killed the Kennedys?  – Some Great Links and Resources  

For Those Looking To Do Some of Their Own Research:

Who Really Killed Kennedy?: 50 Years Later: Stunning New Revelations About the JFK Assassination (Kindle)

JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President (Kindle)

The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination (Kindle)

Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (Kindle)

JFK, Conservative (Kindle)

Killing JFK: 50 Years, 50 Lies: From the Warren Commission to Bill O'Reilly, A History of Deceit in the Kennedy Assassination

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ (Kindle)

We Were There: Revelations from the Dallas Doctors Who Attended to JFK on November 22, 1963 (Kindle)

They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK

Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (Kindle)

JFK: The Smoking Gun (Kindle)

Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy (Kindle)

Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy (Kindle)

SPECIAL: Jacqueline Kennedy - In Her Own Words: 9/13/11 – Video

The Kennedys [Blu-ray] – Mini-Series Video

JFK [Blu-ray] - Video

Friday, April 26, 2013

Bush Library Opens As His Approval Rating Is Up

Bush 43 Library opens

5-Living Presidents Gather for 43 Library Opening

Former first lady Laura Bush, U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, former President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton and Former first lady Hillary Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush and former President Jimmy Carter attend the opening ceremony of the George W. Bush Presidential Center April 25, 2013 in Dallas, Texas. (Former living first ladies Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan did not attend.)

WAPOGeorge W. Bush will return to the spotlight this week for the dedication of his presidential library, an event likely to trigger fresh public debate about his eight fateful years in office. But he reemerges with a better public image than when he left Washington more than four years ago.

Since then, Bush has absented himself from both policy disputes and political battles. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the passage of time and Bush’s relative invisibility have been beneficial to a chief executive who left office surrounded by controversy.

Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys.

Majorities said they still dis­approve of Bush’s performance on the Iraq war and the economy, but his economic approval numbers nearly doubled between December 2008 and today, from 24 percent to 43 percent, with 53 percent disapproving. Iraq remains the most troublesome part of his legacy. Today, 57 percent say they disapprove of his decision to invade, though that is down from 65 percent in the spring of 2008, the last time the question was asked.

Historians say it will take years, even decades, for any substantial revision of his presidency to take place. Bush has said he is content to let history judge him and told the designers of his presidential museum to present the facts and let visitors decide whether he was right. But some allies see Thursday’s official opening of the library in Dallas as an opportunity to begin to set his presidency into broader perspective.

“Obviously, it’s a big moment for him,” former British prime minister Tony Blair said in a telephone interview from London. “It’s a chance for him to explain that his political philosophy encompasses much more than the decisions he had to take after 9/11. We forget this sometimes. . . . This is a much more rounded person with many more dimensions to him than the caricature often portrays.”

Contemporary judgments of Bush’s presidency have been harsh. The war in Iraq, which he launched on the basis of faulty intelligence in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left this country deeply divided. His final months in office brought a collapse of the financial system that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. In between, his administration’s wobbly response to Hurricane Katrina damaged his image.

But Bush will return to public view at a moment when some parts of his record are being viewed more charitably. His advocacy for immigration reform and his relative success at attracting Hispanic votes, for example, are now seen as a model for a Republican Party that has awakened to its glaring deficit in the Latino community.

Thursday’s events are likely to be shorn of partisanship, though commentary around them may not be. The guest list will be topped by Obama and all living former presidents, including Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. Blair, who stood steadfastly with Bush after the 2001 attacks and his decision to invade Iraq 18 months later, will be among the many dignitaries and Bush administration alumni who will gather on the campus of Southern Methodist University.

Karen Hughes, who served as counselor to Bush, said the former president told her that he considers the day “a joyful opportunity to give thanks” — to the other presidents for being there, to those who served in his administration, to the workers who built the architecturally handsome Bush Center.

Former advisers say no one should expect the opening of the library and museum to bring a notable change in Bush’s generally low-profile post-presidency. “It’s a little too simplistic to say this is some big coming out or that some definitive change will happen that will mark a new approach to things by Bush or his people,” said Karl Rove, who served as Bush’s chief political adviser and White House deputy chief of staff.

Still, members of Bush’s team recognize the significance of the moment and are prepared to take on some of his critics, if necessary, amid the glare of media attention this week. “Clearly some pretty significant distortions have been fostered by the current president and others,” Hughes said. “Those of us who worked for him see it [the dedication ceremony] as an opportunity to set the record straight in some cases.”

Bush advisers believe that over time, more attention will focus on aspects of his presidency that were overshadowed by the controversies of his national security and economic records. They point to his initiative to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, which has helped save hundreds of thousands of lives; his efforts to bring accountability and higher standards to public education; and his advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform, which was rejected by his party.

Bush’s decision to stay out of the public arena in recent years reflects his humility and his belief that he owed his successor “a decent interval of silence,” as Rove called it. He played no role in the 2012 campaign, neither attending the Republican National Convention last summer nor campaigning for Mitt Romney last fall. But there was no clamor among the Republican candidates for his participation.

Instead, Bush has quietly pursued activities that grew out of his presidential agenda. Much of that work, focusing on global health, the role of women in the Middle East, education and the economy, is carried out through the Bush Institute, which was founded in 2009 and shares the 23-acre site at SMU with the presidential library and museum.

The institute and the new museum are designed to highlight the values and principles that guided Bush in office. “Freedom is really the one central axis around which everything revolves,” said Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation.

Bush and former first lady Laura Bush have spent time in Africa on projects related to the AIDS initiative and other health issues. The former president also spends considerable time with wounded veterans and has participated with them in vigorous mountain-biking expeditions. He has taken up painting. He and his wife recently became grandparents for the first time.

He gave 70 speeches last year and plans 60 or so this year, according to Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Bush in the White House. The paid speeches are all off the record, but one adviser said Bush is extremely candid in the question-and-answer sessions. He and former president Bill Clinton have done a series of joint appearances.

Last week’s Boston Marathon bombing was a tragic reminder of the episode that changed Bush’s presidency. After 9/11, Bush ­implemented aggressive ­anti-
terrorism policies, many of which were embraced by the Obama administration, though not the controversial interrogation measures authorized under Bush. A recent report by the Constitution Project concluded that those policies resulted in torture of some detainees.

Some Bush allies say Obama has gone out of his way to be critical of his predecessor and often has not acknowledged what they contend were key policies that have been helpful to him. They highlight two decisions by the former president that have proved beneficial to Obama in office: One was the troop surge in Iraq, which was highly controversial at the time but which, they contend, made it possible for Obama to end the war as quickly as he did.

The other was Bush’s decision in the fall of 2008 to press Congress to pass the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to bail out financial institutions. That was equally controversial, especially among Bush’s fellow Republicans, but his advisers argue that it helped stabilize the financial system before Obama took office.

“Both reflected strong presidential leadership and, as we now see in retrospect, excellent judgment,” said Joshua Bolten, who served as Bush’s White House chief of staff.

Bolten also noted that spending during most years of Bush’s presidency was below 20 percent of gross domestic product, the target now established by House Republicans in their budget blueprint. No president since Richard M. Nixon, other than Clinton, can make such a claim, he said.

But on fiscal issues, Bush draws criticism from both left and right. Tea party Republicans regard him as a reckless spender. Democrats say his tax cuts and two wars that were not paid for helped create larger deficits, though Obama accepted making the bulk of those cuts permanent last December.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the country would be happy to have the deficit levels of Bush’s presidency, but she declined to praise his overall record. She said that his record on neither tax cuts nor spending “was particularly fiscally responsible.”

Bush has continued to bear much of the culpability for the condition of the economy. On Election Day last November, 53 percent of voters said they blamed Bush for the current economic problems, while 38 percent blamed Obama, according to exit polls.

Iraq looms larger than perhaps any other issue over Bush’s legacy, but Blair said the former president’s attitude toward his decisions has not changed. “There was never any doubt while he was in office, and there’s not any doubt now,” he said.

Blair said Bush continues to believe that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power and added: “When you see what is happening in Syria today, the sense of that argument is evident. . . . What it does is just make clear that these decisions are very difficult. If you intervene, it can be very tough. If you don’t intervene, it can also be very tough.”

One section of the Bush museum, known as the Decision Points Theater, focuses on four key decisions: the invasion of Iraq, the troop surge, the financial crisis and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Visitors will hear the information available to the president at the time and then choose what they would do in each case. Bush, on video, will explain his decisions.

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University recently toured the Bush museum; he called it “beautifully designed” but predicted that it would spark controversy. “It’s going to be mocked and trashed by liberal Democrats, and conservative Republicans are going to say what a marvelous place it is,” he said. As for Bush’s potential place in history, he said, “It’s going to be hard for him to rehabilitate fully.”

Stanford University’s David Kennedy predicted that judgments about Bush are not likely to change unless perceptions of Iraq and what triggered the financial crisis change first. Presidents are judged on foreign policy and economic policy, he said, adding: “In neither one of those areas do I see anything on the horizon that will change people’s opinion.”

But H.W. Brands, a professor of history at the University of Texas, said it’s quite possible that Bush’s legacy could undergo a genuine reworking as time passes. “The worse a president’s reputation when he leaves office, the better chance there is for revision,” he said. “Every so often there’s a new generation of historians, and they have to come along and challenge the conventional wisdom.”

BushLibrary-Barney and Mrs Beasley -_2545646b

Busts of presidential pets Barney and Miss Beazley are seen during a tour of the George W. Bush Presidential Center - which will house the George W Bush library.

Related:

Star-Studded Political A-List Gathers for Bush Library Unveiling

George W Bush library to open as former President's popularity soars

Busts of presidential pets Barney and Miss Beazley at George W. Bush Library

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Bush 43 Portraits Hung in White House

Sunday, April 21, 2013

ON HIS KNEES, RONALD REAGAN

Marion Algier – Ask Marion

I posted this video once before, but this week, with the death of Ronald Reagan’s good friend and ally Lady Thatcher, has brought back many memories from that era in history and it seemed only fitting to post it again for those who have not heard it.

Ronald Reagan's church put this together to commemorate the birthday of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately the war against the evil of liberalism is still alive and well, and we fight it even at Bel Air Presbyterian. The liberal Presbyterians are doing all they can to pervert the church from the inside out. Fortunately the conservative Christians are strong at Bel Air. (Those Presbyterians from Reagan’s era might be very surprised at the direction their church has chosen.) Ronald Reagan loved Bel Air Presbyterian as I do...Enjoy!

Video: Ronald Reagan Tribute -- Bel Air Presbyterian Church

Below is a quick transcript of the narration from the video above.

“Someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the president and I had to say, “Yes, I am”. I’ve felt it…..I believe in intercessionary prayer, but I couldn’t help but say to that questioner after -  that sometimes when he was praying if he got a busy signal – it was just me in there [praying] ahead of him.

I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming convictions I have that have nowhere else to go.”

Now I realize it is fashionable in some circles, to believe that no one in government should encourage others to read the Bible. That we are told that will violate the constitutional separation of church and state, established by the founding fathers in the first amendment. The first amendment was NOT written to protect people and their laws from religious values, it was written to protect those [ religious] values from government tyranny.

I’ve said that we must be cautious in claiming God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is  “Are we are on His side?”

No matter where we live, we have a promise that can make all the difference. A promise from Jesus to soothe our sorrows heal our hearts and drive away our fears.

He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night but  joy cometh in the morning

He promised if our hearts are true, His love will be as sure as sunlight.

And by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go – all the way.

For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Inaudible [Spanish]

Americans yearn to  explore life’s deepest truths. To say their entertainment ….their idea of entertainment -  is sex and violence and crime is an insult to their goodness and intelligence.

We are people who believe love can triumph over hate - creativity over destruction and hope over despair.

That’s why so many millions hunger for God’s good News. I have always believed that  we were ….each of us put here for a reason we were put here for a reason that there is a plan.

Somehow A divine plan for all of us

I know now that whatever days are left to me - belong to Him.

I also believe this blessed land was set apart in a very special way.

Our forebearers came not for gold, but mainly in search of  God and the freedom to worship in their own way. We have been a free people living under the law with faith in our maker and our future. I have said before that the most sublime picture in American history is of  George Washington on his  knees in the snow at Valley Forge. That image personifies a people who know it is not enough to depend on our own courage and goodness, we must also seek help from God our Father and preserver.

We’ll never find every answer,  solve every problem or heal every wound, but we can do a lot if we walk together down that one path that we know provides real hope.

The morality and values such faith implies are deeply embedded in our national character. Our country embraces those principles by design and we abandon them at our peril.

My experience in this office I hold has only deepened the belief I have held for many years.

Within the covers of that single Book are all the answers  to all the problems that face us today, if we would only read and believe.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9eQIWKBR-s]

Video:  Eulogy to Reagan by Thatcher

President Ronald Reagan, Blessed (Pope) John Paul II, Prime Minister (Baroness) Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev (the General Secretary Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) ended the Cold War and changed the face of the world. Reagan and Thatcher were political soul mates, making our countries even closer allies than they had been before.

Sadly like relations with our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, The Obama Administration was conspicuous by its absence, at the Thatcher funeral.  It would have greatly surprised, saddened and disappointed President Reagan. Obama and his administration said it was ‘too busy’ to send anyone just now, and this was before the Boston bombings. There was no official American envoy sent to Thatcher’s funeral.  It was a disgrace! America was (unofficially) represented by former Secretaries of State James Baker III, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, all of whom attended as private persons. And by a small private, mostly Republican delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives, including former Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn and Tim Holden. Senator John McCain and former V.P Dick Cheney also attended as private citizens because there was no official American envoy sent.

Obama and company, as well as the Clintons and all the Bushes, all stayed home. Shameful.

*First Lady Nancy Reagan and President George H.W. Bush were too ill to travel.

The American Patriot's Bible

Newly Released: The Founders' Bible

Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion

Monday, November 5, 2012

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

Picking a U.S. President

Every four years, American voters head to the polls to elect a president and a vice president. Yet those votes are just part of a detailed system known as the Electoral College, which is used by the U.S. to determine its executive leaders; a system set up by the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

The number of electoral votes each state receives ranges from 3 to 55 based on the number of Congressional seats the state holds, which is essentially linked to the population of the state. The District of Columbia gets 3 votes because the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants it the same number votes as the least populated state in the union. The territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, etc. get no Electoral College votes.

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

The voting public’s ballots make up what is known as the “popular vote”, and in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in a state will receive all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes among candidates through their state’s system for ‘proportional allocation’ of votes.

In the rare event that no candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the office, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state only gets one vote, so it could be a long process and full of contention among the state representatives to decide on that vote.  That has never happened in U.S. history. 

However, in the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Over the decades the discussion of doing away with the Electoral College has arisen often, but after studying the process, one sees that there is a reason the Founding Fathers put it in place. Little that our Founding Fathers put in place has needed to be altered or changed. Many feel that these scholarly men were inspired and guided by a higher power while creating Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The Choice for 2012:

In some elections there hardly seems to be a difference between the two tickets and in others the two candidates and their party’s platforms could not be further apart. That is where we find ourselves this time, the election of 2012.  In recent years the two parties and their platforms have generally moved farther and farther apart.  America has become a ‘house’ divided which is at the heart of many of our problems.  And in the election of 2012 the top of the two tickets represent two completely different philosophies of government, leadership styles and experience.  Yet, had the Republicans chosen someone like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul the differences would be even greater and that point should appeal to many of the Independents!

2012 is perhaps the most important election in America’s history and definitely of our lifetimes because it is a defining election. 2008 was an election that will go into the history books because it proved America had moved beyond the question whether Americans would ever elect a president of color.  The race also included only the second women and first Republican woman ever to be on a National ticket.  But, 2012 will be the election that will decide whether America will continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans choose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.

So before you vote, if you have not already, make sure that you really know what you are voting for.

A vote for Barack Obama, a community organizer, is a vote for more government control in every aspect of our lives. Four more years of his administration will take us from the position of strength, though waning, on the world scene to one of weakness because his style of leadership will take you and your children… and grandchildren further down the road to greater debt owed to foreign powers who will then control us which will not lead us to a domestic recovery or prosperity. The job numbers we have now or worse will become the norm and so will our dependence on the government and in-turn the government’s control over us.

A vote for Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and a man with experience in turning things around, like the failing Utah Olympics into a financial success and win for America, will turn around our economy, put Americans back to work and as the our debt declines our position in the world will be revived as number one. He will also overturn ObamaCare and will replace it with real reform… something that will work and that we can afford as a nation.  He learned from Romneycare and believes in states rights and individual choice.

And another thing to consider is that we now know, thanks to a few patriotic insiders and a few reporters who are doing their job instead of promoting their political agenda, that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, VP Joe Biden and other leaders in the Obama Administration knew in advance that a terror attack was coming on 9.11.2012; They knew that Ambassador Stevens and others at the Libya Embassy/Consulate in Benghazi were asking for more help with security because they knew they could not defend themselves against an attack, and that the aforementioned leaders watched the terror attack in ‘real-time’ on a video from fed directly from the Consulate and did nothing. Instead they actually told teams and individuals who were in a place to help, to stand down while they watched our Ambassador and his team being murdered.

Can you really trust your life and the life of your children, grandchildren and the future of this country to a Commander in Chief who watches his Ambassador and other Americans being murdered and does nothing and then lies to their families and to you, to us… the American people? What else is he lying about? Think about it before casting your vote.

23 million people are out of work, our national debt has grown to a number that most of us never could have imagined  and our economy is worse under President Obama… and he has no new plan for the next four years; America cannot afford ObamaCare and there are hidden surprises in the Affordable Care Act that you won’t like… And then there is Benghazigate that Team Obama is doing their best to bury until after the election, as the Obama-Hillary foreign policy is unraveling.  Will you let them ‘cool out’ your vote?

"Democracy, as well as the survival of our Republic, demands an educated and informed electorate"

Know why you are voting for the candidate, party and issue you have chosen and the truth behind the issues…

Ask Marion~

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Whether Romney or Obama wins tomorrow… America will begin down a new path, which path is in the American voters’ hands.

h/t to NARA – the Electoral College

Related:

References

Read The Federalist Papers at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html for the founders' views on the Electoral College:

  • Alexander Hamilton's design for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68
  • James Madison's views on the republican form of government in Federalist No. 10

Search the writings of Thomas Jefferson for his views on the Presidency (especially, Letter to George Hay, August 17, 1823) at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Some Noteworthy Facts….

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S................................. 65%

England.......................... 46%

Canada........................... 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S................................. 93%

England.......................... 15%

Canada........................... 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S................................. 90%

England.......................... 15%

Canada........................... 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S................................. 77%

England.......................... 40%

Canada........................... 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S................................. 71

England.......................... 14

Canada........................... 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S................................. 12%

England.......................... 02%

Canada........................... 06%

And now for the last statistic: National Health Insurance?

U.S................................. NO

England.......................... YES

Canada........................... YES

Check this last set of statistics: The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. (You know that the private business sector is a real-life business, not a government job.) Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt.................. 38%

Taft................................ 40%

Wilson........................... 52%

Harding.......................... 49%

Coolidge........................ 48%

Hoover........................... 42%

F. Roosevelt................... 50%

Truman.......................... 50%

Eisenhower.................... 57%

Kennedy......................... 30%

Johnson.......................... 47%

Nixon............................. 53%

Ford................................ 42%

Carter............................. 32%

Reagan........................... 56%

G. H. Bush..................... 51%

Clinton........................... 39%

G. W. Bush.................... 55%

Obama........................... 08%

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business! That's right! Only eight percent; the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers”. They should have been in an employment line.

Share this because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media.

h/t to Ron and Lynne Skinner

Plus…. Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000

clip_image001

While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets.  If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law.  Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income.  Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016.  Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016. 

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011.  This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA).  This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class.  This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts.  Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class?  It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States.  Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income.  This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes.  Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013.  Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses.  Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000).  An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013.  This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons.  While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens.  This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax.  These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers.  This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018.  The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households.  While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners.  Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees. 

The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices. The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees.  The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges.  Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option.  The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax. 

Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100.  This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country.  This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.

The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households.  Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy.  In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%.  This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.

All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public.  The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels! 

These are the facts.  It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy.  Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes.  This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.

For more information, read ATR's analysis of the Affordable Care Act's taxes here.

h/t to Victoria Baer and Anglo at Sovereignty in Colorado

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Ronald Reagan Tribute -- Bel Air Presbyterian Church

Video:  Ronald Reagan Tribute -- Bel Air Presbyterian Church

Ronald Reagan's church put this together to commemorate the birthday of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately the war against the evil of liberalism is still alive and well, and we fight it even at Bel Air Presbyterian. The liberal Presbyterians are doing all they can to pervert the church from the inside out. Fortunately the conservative Christians are strong at Bel Air. Ronald Reagan loved Bel Air Presbyterian as I do...Enjoy!

Why liberals hate him and conservatives love him…

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)