STEP AWAY FROM THE CASKET...
I cringed when I saw President Bush touch Ronald Reagan's flag-draped casket. It appeared the president was flicking crumbs off a tablecloth. I wondered if anyone else got that impression. It seemed so�odd. That's really neither here nor there, because what was more worrisome were the week-long efforts to characterize the current president and the late 40th president as being in any way alike.
While many have tried to frame the two as similar ideologically, let me just say that not only were their political paths worlds apart, but Mr. Bush lacks the class, demeanor, communication skills and thoughtfulness that Mr. Reagan brought to his presidency. Why I'd daresay G.W. would not have been fit to muck the stalls of the Reagan stables.
Bush's odd behavior as he and Laura stood casket side in Washington, D.C. said it all. Bush's bizarre hand strokes on the casket were strange, to be sure, but despite the man's lack of social graces, couth and demeanor (that stand in such contrast to the late Mr. Reagan) I'd also take exception to those characterizations we've heard -ad nauseam- over the last week that suggest Bush Jr. and Ronald Reagan had the same political agenda.
They had no such thing.
Reagan was a limited-government Republican. Back when there was actually a difference between the parties. Although Reagan certainly disappointed those of us who believed he'd abolish the U.S. Department of Education as he promised, no one has done more to retrofit that huge (and by the way wholly un-Constitutional) department with jack boots than George W. Bush. While many Americans have been fooled into thinking the president's No Child Left Behind program has benefited students and teachers alike, few realize the act was, in part, designed to give this bloated department more unfettered access to children in ways that should send chills down our collective spine.
One little-known provision of the 2001 law requires high schools to give military recruiters contact information for their students or face losing federal bucks. Though, technically, students can "opt-out" by sending a written request, student's privacy rights aren't being addressed for the most part. Seeing as how the Bush-Cheney team appears hell-bent on sending our children to an increasing number of foreign entanglements this military recruiting provision should speak volumes about the Globo-cop intentions of this administration.
Those who've bothered to read the NCLB act have seen this is but one area of concern cloaked in the mantle of improving government education. The Bush-Reagan road diverges on oh-so-many issues; I thought I'd share just a few with you.
Bush allowed for the rejoining of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), -which Reagan withdrew from in 1984. That U.N. agency alone costs you, the taxpayer, more than $60 million�a year. In short, UNESCO is the agency from which UN causes like "international abortion and population control, politically-correct UN curriculum for U.S. schools, UN control of federal land in America, cultural relativism and global taxation" get a leg up.
President Reagan wisely got us out of UNESCO. George W. Bush got us back in. Still think UNESCO's just your basic for-the-children-love fest?
Read what Sir Julian Huxley, (brother of Aldous Huxley) founding director-general of UNESCO had to say:
"The �philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific, world humanism�it can stress the transfer of (the) full sovereignty for separate nations to a world political organization...to help the emergence of a single world culture." Huxley also saw something bigger for UNESCO to do. Regarding the use of eugenics, or genetic engineering of people, he said "it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined�and that the public mind is informed�so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable"
Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. wrote, "How much more hostility will the American people accept before we realize that the UN represents a very real threat to our way of life?"
Christian "conservative" group Concerned Women for America which bills itself as the "largest public policy women's organization" lauds Bush for continuing Reagan's legacy as a "pro-life" president. Ladies, ladies, ladies, once again it makes me wonder whether women should have been given the right to vote. They blew it big time when they scattered accolades at Bush for his commitment to "life."
Here's the hard, cold truth, gals: President Bush is not "pro-life."
A few examples: "Alberto Gonzales, President-elect George W. Bush's White House counsel appointee, was the tie-breaking vote �in his capacity as Texas Supreme Court justice against requiring a minor to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion."
Bush's cabinet is wholly pro-abort. Not only Condi and Colin and Tommy, but his own wife Laura and mother Barbara say they are "pro-choice".
Concerned Women for America ignores this in issuing a press release earlier this week stating Bush should be praised "for the courage of his moral conviction to protect the smallest of humans from exploitation" regarding stem cell research. CWA never did grasp the fact the G.W. didn't close the door on fetal stem cell research, he opened it. Bush said he will allow taxpayer money to be used for research into stem cells from embryos which have already been killed. According to the Dickey Amendment that is illegal. The amendment states that no federal funding of experiments on embryonic human beings is lawful. So which is it George? You for it or agin it? The accolades Wendy Wright of CWA heaps on Bush in last week's press release, whereby she compares his moral convictions to Reagan's stands in stark contrast to something she said a few years ago. Ms. Wright is quoted as saying, in response to President Bush's stance on allowing experimentation on embryonic stem cells "The president's position contradicts the Nuremburg Code�we should be horrified at the prospect of participating in research on embryos...deliberately killed for the same reason that we were horrified that gold fillings were taken from the teeth of Holocaust victims." Time has a way of making even the most vehement pro-lifers turn squishy when a politician or a president has an "R" after his name.
The fact is, Bush has okayed stem cell research by making sure researchers could continue their grisly work with private cash.
In essence, each and every issue being used- at this election year juncture- to compare Reagan to Bush doesn't add up. Efforts to capitalize on the emotion we feel as a nation in losing our 40th president are both transparent and laughable. Ronald Reagan embodied class, character, kindness and conviction.
Bush, it appears is simply advancing a global agenda none of us should welcome.
Whether it's the un- Constitutional war we're in engaged in in Iraq, the liberty-squashing Patriot Act or the federal funding of "faith-based" institutions (which will mean the ever-increasing secularization of religious groups), allowing Mexican trucks and illegal immigrants free run of our country, the bloated federal spending-highest ever since LBJ's drunken-sailor days-the Bush-backed high-tech transfers to Red China, or the attacks on the fourth and second amendments; as your daddy once said "read my lips"�
Mr. Bush, you're no Ronald Reagan.
� 2004 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved
Mary Starrett was on television for 21 years as a news anchor, morning talk show host and medical reporter. For the last 5 years she hosted a radio program. Mary is a frequent guest on radio talk shows. E-Mail [email protected]�
"Reagan was a limited-government Republican. Back when there was actually a difference between the parties."