Reagan Conservatism Lives

A Video Tour of the Reagan Library with Host Gary Sinise

2012-01-06T07:18:00.000-08:00

Thankful that I was able to visit the Reagan Library. For those who have and wish to, the below video link will make you want to go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BiVPyfQAOs

Ronald Reagan Statue Erected at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

2012-01-02T11:44:00.000-08:00

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/reagan_statue_unveiled_at_name.html

You can watch the unveiling presentation here

You can watch the dedication ceremony here

Ronald Reagan Statue Erected in Tbilisi, Georgia

2012-01-02T11:38:00.000-08:00

http://www.eurasiareview.com/24112011-georgia-unveils-ronald-reagan-statue-in-tbilisi/

This is not the Georgia of the United States; however, it would be a great idea for them to erect one too.

Ronald Reagan Statue Erected in Budapest, Hundary June 2011

2012-01-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/06/29/ronald-reagan-statue-unveiled-in-budapest/

One wonders what the people of Budapest remember that some in our own country have forgotten...

Ronald Reagan Statue Erected in London, England July 2011

2012-01-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/ronald-reagan-honoured-london-statue

Ronald Reagan: 100 Years by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

2012-01-02T10:42:00.000-08:00

Ronald Reagan: 100 Years

by Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

February 6, 2011 was the 100 year anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s birth in Tampico, Illinois. Reagan’s story is an inspiring one of someone who came from poverty but believed in the American dream taking it all the way to the White House. He inspired millions and moved a Nation from a state of lethargy and paralysis to one of leadership and action to spread democracy and freedom across the world. Young people today have a brighter future than they would have had if it were not for Reagan’s faith in God and love for the American Dream. It is difficult for a young person (and some of us who were there) to imagine what the world would have been like if Ronald Reagan was not elected President. However, we know what the world was like before Ronald Reagan became President, and we know that the direction our nation’s history was changed for the better because of his leadership. In spite of opponents to Reagan’s ideology, the evidence is manifest.

I have always appreciated what the conservative columnist George F. Will stated about Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments: “If you seek his monument look around at what you don't see. You don't see the Berlin Wall. You don't see the Iron curtain from Stetin to Trieste.” When Reagan came to the White House, the Soviet Union was on the march and the United States and fallen into a policy called “Mutually Assured Destruction”. The acronym for this policy is exactly what Reagan thought of it—MAD. He sought to reduce the threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War and remove this constant threat of doom hanging over our futures. He knew there would be challenges for the United States in the future, but this challenge had to be met effectively or there might not have been a future. Modern critics try to discredit his accomplishments on the world stage; however, the feebleness of their attacks is manifest with all the monuments erected to Reagan in areas once controlled by hostile forces to Democracy and the United States. For example, two satellite nations of the former Soviet Union erected statues of Ronald Reagan one in Warsaw, Poland and another in Budapest, Hungary in 2011. The restored country of Georgia which rose out of the ashes of the Soviet Union erected a statue in honor of Ronald Reagan in their city of Tiblisi in November 2011. Additional statues have been erected in London, England in July 2011 and another one in Washington DC in November 2011 at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. These are just a few of the tributes of respect others had for President Ronald Reagan.

I always appreciated Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” principle in ending the failed policies of dealing with global communism. He explained his foreign policy very concisely and clearly—“Our defense policy is based on a very simple premise: The United States will not start fights. We will not be the first to use aggression. We will not seek to occupy other lands or control other peoples. Our strategy is defensive; our aim is to protect the peace by ensuring that no adversaries ever conclude they could best us in a war of their choosing.” (Ronald Reagan: 100 Years, p. 173). Ronald Reagan supported the Strategic Defense Initiative and the effort to build a protective shield to protect nations from nuclear missiles of rogue nations built on their destruction of others. The trends in countries such as Iran show the foresight and wisdom of this vision.

Ronald Reagan: 100 Years is a beautifully bound book in tribute to the unique man. It covers his life from his beginnings in Tampico, Illinois to his final resting place in Simi Valley, California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. I received this book as a gift and was so impressed with its quality, photographs, writing that I read the entire volume with great satisfaction. I was surprised to read just how busy he was when he left the Presidency. Of course not everything went perfectly during the 1980s; even Ronald Reagan confessed this. There were things he wanted to accomplish that he was unable to do; e.g., balanced budget amendment, line-item veto, term limits for Congress and the removal of term limits for Presidents (excluding himself). Some seem to forget the Executive Branch is but one branch of three in our Federal Government and fail to realize that the Congress is the Legislative Branch. When Reagan came to power, the Congress was more opposed to his views than supportive. He was able to often bring them to his way of thinking and achieve great things with the support of the American people who helped persuade their elective officials of Reagan’s policies. There is a reason that Ronald Reagan has become the “gold standard” for modern Presidents. This volume is a great reminder or educational tool to explain why so many Americans hold Ronald Reagan in great esteem to this very day. If you are looking for a special book for an admirer of Ronald Reagan or an introduction to this great man, then this book is a great place to start. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has produced an exemplary tribute to this great man.

The Secret Memo That Predicted the Soviet Collapse

2011-07-25T13:32:00.000-07:00

The Secret Memo That Predicted the Soviet Collapse

by Paul F. Kengor

It was 20 years ago this summer that the final disintegration of the Soviet Union rapidly unfolded. In June 1991, Boris Yeltsin was freely elected president of the Russian Republic, with Mikhail Gorbachev clinging to power atop the precarious USSR. In August, Communist hardliners attempted a dramatic coup against Gorbachev, prompting a stunning succession of declarations of independence by Soviet republics, with seven of them breaking away in August alone, and four more following through mid-December.

The writing was on the wall—not the Berlin Wall, which had collapsed two years earlier, but the graveyard of history, which would soon register the USSR as deceased. It was December 25, 1991, the day the West celebrates Christmas—a celebration the Communists had tried to ban—that Gorbachev announced his resignation, turning out the lights on an Evil Empire that had produced countless tens of millions of corpses.

Historians debate the credit that goes to various players for that collapse, from Gorbachev to Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel, to name a few. These are the people who get books written about them. But there were many behind-the-scenes players who performed critical roles that have never seen the light of a historian’s word processor. Here I’d like to note one such player: Herb Meyer. Specifically, I’d like to highlight a fascinating memo Meyer wrote eight years before the Soviet collapse.

From 1981 to 1985, Meyer was special assistant to the director of central intelligence, Bill Casey, and vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. In the fall of 1983, he crafted a classified memo titled, “Why Is the World So Dangerous?” Addressed to Casey and the deputy director, John McMahon, it had a larger (though limited) audience within the intelligence community and the Reagan administration, including President Reagan himself. Later, it would earn Meyer the prestigious National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. Even so, the memo has eluded historians, which is a shame. It ought to rank among the most remarkable documents of the Cold War.

Meyer began his eight-page memo of November 30, 1983, by describing a “new stage” that had opened in the struggle between the free world and the Soviet Union. It was a “direction favorable” to the United States. He listed positive changes in America that suddenly had the USSR “downbeat.” Not only was the U.S. economy “recovering,” but Meyer foresaw a “boom” ahead, “with the only argument” having to do with its “breadth and duration.”

Meyer listed seven signs of America’s surge before providing even more symptoms of Soviet decline—a decline that was unrecognized by most pundits and academic Sovietologists. His insights into what he saw as an imminent Soviet collapse were prescient. After 66 years of Communist rule, the USSR had “failed utterly to become a country,” with “not one major nationality group that is content with the present, Russian-controlled arrangement.” It was “hard to imagine how the world’s last empire can survive into the twenty-first century except under highly favorable conditions of economics and demographics—conditions that do not, and will not, exist.”

“The Soviet economy,” Meyer insisted, “is heading toward calamity.”

Meyer nailed not only the Soviet Union’s economy but also its “demographic nightmare.” Here, he was way ahead of the curve, reporting compelling information on Russian birthrates, which were in free-fall. He recorded an astounding figure: Russian women, “according to recent, highly credible research,” “average six abortions.”

As for the Soviet Bloc, Meyer didn’t miss that either. “The East European satellites are becoming more and more difficult to control,” he wrote, emphasizing that it wasn’t merely Poland that was in revolt. “[O]ther satellites may be closer to their own political boiling points than we realize.”

“In sum,” concluded Meyer, “time is not on the Soviet Union’s side.”

He summed up with two predictions, nearly identically worded, as if to let the reader know he knew the magnitude of what he was saying: (1) “if present trends continue, we’re going to win the Cold War;” and (2) “if present trends continue we will win.” He quoted President Reagan’s May 1981 Notre Dame speech, where Reagan proclaimed that history would dismiss Soviet Communism as “some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.” Meyer felt that Reagan was “absolutely correct,” adding that the USSR was “entering its final pages.” His memo projected a window no longer than 20 years.

Herb Meyer was dead on. I know of no other Cold War document as accurate as this one.

I recently talked to Meyer about his memo. He had no idea it had been declassified until someone sent it to him last month. “I was astonished,” Meyer wrote me in an e-mail, “and it’s a weird feeling to read something you’d written decades ago and hadn’t seen since.”

Meyer remembered well certain elements of the memo, particularly the Cold War predictions. He also had not forgotten the memo’s reception. Within the intelligence community, there was a general feeling that Meyer had lost his mind. That was just the start of the backlash.

The memo was leaked to syndicated columnists Evans & Novak, who devoted a column to it. There was subsequent uproar throughout Washington, which made Meyer very nervous. He was summoned to his boss’s office.

“Herb, right now you’ve got the smallest fan club in Washington,” Bill Casey told him grimly. As Meyer turned pale, Casey laughed: “Relax. It’s me and the president.”

Today, Meyer says with a chuckle: “If you’re going to have a small fan club—that’s it.”

CIA director Casey, like President Reagan, was committed to placing a dagger in the chest of Soviet Communism. He was pleased, and he encouraged Meyer.

Meyer recalls: “My orders were, in effect, to keep going.”

Meyer particularly remembers Reagan’s being shaken by the statement about Russian women averaging six abortions. To Meyer’s knowledge, Reagan “never went public with that astounding statistic…. Come to think of it, no one—except some Russians—ever talked about it.”

Of all the items in the memo, that one remains the most far-reaching.

Demographers today foresee Russia plummeting in population from 150 million to possibly 100 million by 2050. Meyer’s memo is a prophetic warning that isn’t finished. For Russians, the internal implosion isn’t over.

When we look back at the Cold War, we remember big names and big statements and documents. There’s nary a college course on the Cold War that excludes George Kennan’s seminal “Long Telegram,” sent from the U.S. embassy in Moscow in February 1946. Kennan’s memo prophetically captured what the free world faced from the USSR at the start of the Cold War, forecasting a long struggle ahead. Herb Meyer’s November 1983 memo likewise prophetically captured what the free world faced from the, but this time nearing the end of the Cold War, uniquely forecasting a long struggle about to close—with victory.

George Kennan’s memo is remembered in our textbooks and our college lectures. Herb Meyer’s memo merits similar treatment.
------------------------

SOURCE: http://www.visionandvalues.org/2011/07/the-secret-memo-that-predicted-the-soviet-collapse/

Secret Service Tape During Reagan Shooting Released

2011-03-12T07:53:00.000-08:00

March 30, 1981...I remember the day. I was in 8th Grade Gym Class at Centralia Junior High School, the hometown of James Brady, Reagan's Press Secretary.

When the Principal announced over the intercom that President Reagan had been shot at, everyone froze in place as what little detail was given. I was very dismayed and anxious to get home to turn into ABC News as Frank Reynolds and the news staff covered the story. I watched for what must have been hours. I remember Frank Reynolds getting angry when some misinformation was released. It gave me an appreciation of how chaotic these events can be. What a terrible day that was.

Ronald Reagan's comments and actions during this period and the weeks following are inspiring to me to this day. I enjoyed President George H. Bush telling of Reagan on his hands and knees cleaning up a spill at the hospital because he was afraid his nurse would get in trouble.

Some report that the public did not know exactly how much danger Reagan was in, but we knew he was in serious danger just based on the lack of information coming out of George Washington University Hospital. Jerry Parr, the Secret Service agent who shoved Reagan into the limousine, most likely saved Ronald Reagan's life by rushing him to GWU Hospital.

The bravery of those men such as Tim McCarthy and others who shielded Reagan is admirable. One of Reagan's speeches reflecting on these events including the servicemen's bravery can be found here. Included is a story that Reagan told of when he was governor of California and assigned Secret Service protection. He was target practicing with a Secret Serviceman, and Reagan pointed out that the agent did not crouch when shooting the target. The response--"We do not crouch." When Reagan followed-up on the response further, the point was sobering--"Governor, if we’re ever shooting at anyone, we’re between him and his target." Those brave ones did not crouch on that fateful day when duty called! I am sure Reagan never forgot it.

The Secret Service tape from that day has just been released to the public. The transcript and audio recording can be accessed here --http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_reagan_shooting_audiotape

Del Quinten Wilber, reporter for Washington Post, is preparing to release his book Rawhide Down: The Near Assassination of Ronald Reagan.

The Truth About Ronald Reagan’s Mind—and Memory

2011-02-02T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Truth About Ronald Reagan’s Mind—and Memory
February 2, 2011
by Paul G. Kengor

Ron Reagan, son of the late president, continues to get attention because of speculation in his new book that his father may have begun experiencing Alzheimer’s Disease during his presidency. Ron cites two examples where his father seemed confused or forgetful, one as early as 1984 and another from 1986.

Ron’s speculation ignited a very strong response from his brother, Mike Reagan, who called Ron an “embarrassment.”

The issue isn’t going away, and is sure to be debated in the next two weeks leading to the centennial of Ronald Reagan’s birth on February 6.

We’ve been down this road before. This is not the first time such speculation was raised, only to be quickly struck down by Reagan’s personal physicians, specialists, and experts on the disease.

As a biographer of Reagan, I’ve dealt with this question many times. It’s a matter best left to the clinicians who closely inspected the president.

For the record, the actual diagnosis of the disease, made public by Reagan’s moving handwritten letter, did not come until November 1994, nearly six years after he left the White House—not to mention two years after a wonderful (and quite lucid) Reagan speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. Reagan was not in the throes of the disease until well after his presidency.

That said, there are perhaps some helpful observations I can add to this subject. I offer them as someone who has interviewed hundreds of people who knew and worked with Reagan and as someone who spent countless hours at the Reagan Library studying the gigantic Presidential Handwriting File, a very illuminating archive of letters, speeches, and other documents featuring Reagan’s actual handwriting. I never encountered any evidence—on paper or from eyewitnesses—suggesting that the president was “losing it.”

But rather than just say this, I’d like to offer a viewable example to readers: a March 1986 exchange between Reagan and Secretary of Education Bill Bennett regarding an education report. This example occurred during one of the exact years cited by Ron Reagan as an episode when his father seemed “bewildered.”

As Bennett knew, Ronald Reagan’s memory was not only good but exceptional. In fact, several of Reagan’s closest advisers, two of whom dated back to the gubernatorial days in Sacramento, have told me that they believe Reagan had a photographic memory. Knowing that Reagan’s 75-year-old brain remained sharp, Bennett confidently put Reagan on the spot in front of a group of educators in the East Room of the White House. Bennett asked the president if he recalled a verse from a certain poem. Here’s a direct transcript from the official Presidential Papers:

Secretary Bennett: Mr. President, I was telling the audience before you came that memorization figures in this book fairly prominently, and I am told that you’re the world champion memorizer. Do you recall something that starts “There are strange things done in the midnight sun … ?”

The President: “… by the men who moil for gold.” [Laughter]

Secretary Bennett: “The Arctic trails have their secret tales …”

The President: “… that would make your blood run cold.” [Laughter]

Secretary Bennett: I give up. I give up. I give up. Do you want to finish, Mr. President?

The President: I don’t know whether in school they still read Robert W. Service but to just conclude that particular stanza, it would then be: “There are strange things—” No, we’ve done that. All right.

Secretary Bennett: “The North Lights have seen …”

The President: “The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see was that night in the marge of Lake Lebarge I cremated Sam McGee.”

This exchange doesn’t strike me as evidence of an addled brain. This clip needs to be watched (click here) to be appreciated. Reagan had no notes, no TelePrompter—and no onset of Alzheimer’s. I’ve seen innumerable examples like this over the years.

Nonetheless, this is an issue not likely to go away.

Reagan himself would have probably simply smiled and shrugged, perhaps with a gentle, “Well, there they go again….”

SOURCE: http://www.visionandvalues.org/2011/02/the-truth-about-ronald-reagans-mind-and-memory/

Changing the Mood: Two Inaugurals—JFK and Reagan by Paul G. Kengor

2011-01-20T13:50:00.000-08:00

Changing the Mood: Two Inaugurals—JFK and Reagan

by Paul G. Kengor

This January 20 marks the anniversary of two unforgettable inaugural addresses from two beloved presidents, Democrat and Republican: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. For Kennedy’s speech, this is the golden anniversary, 50 years; for Reagan, 30 years.

Both speeches were extraordinary. Kennedy’s lasting line was, of course, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Reagan’s most memorable phrase was probably this one: “We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline…. Let us begin an era of national renewal.” Reagan’s line struck the New York Times, which, the next day, thrust the words “era of national renewal” atop page one.

In both inaugurals, there was no mistaking the message, or the mood that followed. Both initiated a profound, palpable, quite immediate change in the nation’s morale and sense of itself. The shift was dramatic. Of course, it wasn’t just the speeches that made the difference, but the men who made them, with the inaugurals their starting points.

As evidence of the specialness of these two men and their presidencies, consider what happened in between. Between Kennedy and Reagan there was an extended bipartisan disaster, with two Democrats as bookends, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter, and two Republicans in between, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Those four presidencies ended in defeat, despair, debilitation, or even ruin. LBJ was destroyed by Vietnam, and decided not to pursue reelection. Nixon resigned in disgrace and suffered a mental breakdown. Ford, not an inspiring figure, never won an election. Carter lost 44 states to Reagan. Harvard’s renowned presidential scholar, the late Richard Neustadt, remarked that watching Jimmy Carter, one wondered if the presidency was “even possible.”

Amid all this was Vietnam, the counter culture, Watergate, malaise, misery index, unemployment, double-digit inflation, 21-percent interest rates, energy crisis, oil shocks, the Soviets in Afghanistan, hostages in Iran, and on and on. It was a prolonged national nightmare.

Really, Kennedy’s message of hope, so forceful on January 20, 1961, dissipated like dust in the wind.

But then came Reagan, precisely 20 years later, January 20, 1981.

The moment Reagan swore the oath, he committed himself to “national renewal.” Unbeknownst to the press, those two words flowed directly from his personal pen. The theme pervaded the ceremony. On the reverse side of the tickets for the inaugural event was this promise: “America—A Great New Beginning, 1981.”

It is not an exaggeration to say the change in mood began that instant, as the hostages were freed in Tehran—prompting The New York Times to double its top-of-the-fold headline: “Reagan Takes Oath as 40th President; Promises an ‘Era of National Renewal;’ Minutes Later, 52 U.S. Hostages in Iran Fly to Freedom After 444-Day Ordeal.”

Those who experienced the moment, including presidential scholars in that era, agreed that Reagan achieved that renewal. As quick as the end of Reagan’s first term, academic historians and political scientists—most of whom were on the political left—hailed Reagan for his “restoration of morale and trust” to the country and presidency. Specifically, a major 1985 survey by National Journal found scholars commending Reagan for “reviving trust and confidence” in an institution “that in the post-Vietnam era had been perceived as being unworkable.” Harvard’s Neustadt spoke for many of the scholars when he said that Reagan gave Americans a sense that “all was well,” a sea-change from the Carter malaise.

Outside the academy, Time’s dean of presidential correspondents, Hugh Sidey, said flatly: “No one can deny that Ronald Reagan restored morale to a country that needed it.” Edmund Morris, Reagan’s official biographer, and generally a cynic, went so far as to claim that Reagan transformed the national mood “overnight.” The change was so rapid, said Morris, “that it can only be ascribed to him.”

Most telling, similar assessments came even from the enemy’s camp. If Ronald Reagan had read Russian, he would have been blown away by an assessment from the erstwhile Evil Empire. There, the publication, Literaturnaya Gazeta, informed Soviet citizens: “The years of [Reagan’s] presidency have seen an unprecedented surge in America’s self-belief, and quite a marked recovery in the economy…. Reagan restored America’s belief that it is capable of achieving a lot.” The communist publication closed glowingly: “Reagan is giving America what it has been yearning for. Optimism. Self-belief. Heroes.”

Of course, Kennedy, too, gave that to America.

Today, it seems inconceivable that a president from either party would be universally seen as a hero, inspiring so much optimism and self-belief. Yet, in the last half-century, it happened twice, 50 years ago this January 20, with JFK’s inauguration, and 30 years ago this January 20, with Reagan’s inauguration. Those were good times, rare times—worth preserving, maybe even recovering.

SOURCE: http://www.visionandvalues.org/2011/01/changing-the-mood-two-inaugurals—jfk-and-reagan/

To view Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address, click here.

Ronnie & Joe by Paul Kengor

2011-01-15T13:37:00.000-08:00

Ronnie and Joe

By Dr. Paul Kengor
January 14, 2011

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at National Review Online on February 6, 2010.

February 6, 2011 marks the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. In a telling development, Republicans around the country have begun holding Reagan Day dinners, as they’ve long traditionally done every February for Abraham Lincoln. This is yet another spontaneous display of affection for Reagan.

Having written so much on the man, I get lots of questions about Reagan this time of year, running the gamut from his domestic achievements to his historic foreign-policy triumph: peacefully ending the Cold War. Sometimes I get asked for unreported anecdotes reflecting on his personality and character. I have a bunch of those, which were eagerly shared with me by people who met Reagan (he talked to anyone) or were dug up from the thousands of letters Reagan wrote to everyday Americans over a long lifetime. (See my NRO article on Reagan and Ruth Smith of Idaho.)

Reagan was just plain likable. Of all the subjects I’ve studied, few were as universally liked. Sure, Reagan, as president, was demonized by the Left, but that’s what the Left does: indecent, ugly rage. Still, even most liberals muster nice words about Reagan personally.

Central to that likability was Reagan’s humility. The word “I” didn’t dominate his conversation, unless he was poking fun at himself. He was no narcissist. Ronald Reagan was not full of pride; he was thoroughly unpossessed of self-love.

And so, with that background, I’d like to take the opportunity presented by Reagan’s time of year—not to mention the month of Presidents’ Day—to share an anecdote that was told to me by Bill Clark, Reagan’s close friend and most significant adviser.

At the time this happened, Clark was serving as Reagan’s national-security adviser. He had previously been deputy secretary of state, and would later be appointed secretary of the interior. His driver all this time was a man named Joe Bullock, a Georgia native who had moved to Washington during the Great Depression. Joe was a victim of the cruel Jim Crow laws that afflicted the South. He went to Washington for a better life.

Joe first found employment as a mule driver. He eventually began chauffeuring various senior people in the federal government, some of whom, including a high-level figure in the Carter administration, didn’t treat him well; in fact, that previous cabinet secretary didn’t speak a word to Joe in three years.

Thus, Joe was taken aback when Bill Clark not only talked to him, asking questions about his life and family, but also asked whether he could sit up front. Clark rode shotgun with Joe, drawing more than a few stares and safety concerns as well, since Clark, given his influence in national security, was a target of America’s enemies.

One morning, Clark’s father visited Washington. He hit it off with Joe. Clark’s father was a rancher, a man of the West. He gave Joe a gift: a Western-style belt, with a kind of “John Wayne belt buckle,” as Clark described it. Joe loved it, proudly displaying it by always leaving his blue suit-jacket unbuttoned.

That belt soon assumed a life of its own. A state visit by England’s Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip was upcoming, and protocol demanded that the White House provide gifts. Clark, Reagan, and a few others brainstormed following a morning briefing. For Philip, Clark suggested a “Western belt.” He had one in mind, made by Si Jenkins, a Santa Barbara friend of both Clark and the president. (Reagan, too, was a California rancher.)

“Well, what does it look like?” asked Reagan. Clark noted he had a model in the car: Joe, who was wearing the belt. “Send him up,” ordered the president. They called for Joe, who entered via the door of Reagan’s secretary.

Joe had worked for the federal government for half a century, but had never been within 50 yards of the Oval Office. He walked in. He saw Clark, Vice President Bush, the senior aides, and the president of the United States. He was in awe, overcome. Suddenly, this tough six-foot-four man began weeping: He had come so far since Jim Crow and the Great Depression. He was choked up.

No one in the room was prepared for that reaction. They were dead silent, uncomfortable, unable to respond—except for Ronald Reagan. The president rose, walked over to the driver, extended his hand, breathed in, and said matter-of-factly, “Mr. Bullock, I understand you have a belt to show me?”

It was an “everyman” touch. And it put old Joe immediately at ease. Business-like, Joe showed the belt, and then he and Reagan began swapping stories, chatting away like old friends.

“The rest of us just faded away,” said Bill Clark, “as the two got along famously.” President and driver, remembering the old days.

Bullock left with a story to tell his fellow drivers, and his grandchildren. He died a few years later.

No, this anecdote is nothing dramatic. It’s not like challenging Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It’s simply another of many small stories I hear constantly about Ronald Reagan. This was a good president and a good man. The White House needs more of them. That’s a thought worth bearing in mind this February.

SOURCE: http://www.visandvals.org/Centennial_Ronnie_and_Joe.php

Ronald Reagan Stamp Commemorating 100th Anniversary of His Birth

2010-12-14T18:28:00.000-08:00

On December 13, 2010, the United States Postal Service unveiled a centennial postage stamp at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA in honor of Ronald Reagan's birthday in Tampico, IL on February 6, 1911. It is the third time President Reagan has been honored with a stamp by the USPS.

The stamp is to be released four days after what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. Reports are that this will be a special stamp with the 44 cent value replaced with the word "Forever" meaning that the stamp will always maintain first class delivery status regardless of future postal rate increases. This would be fitting for Reagan's handwritten letters to citizens which have been profiled in Dear Americans -- Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan was based on over 3,500 handwritten letters from the President to every day Americans. A volume of handwritten correspondence unequaled and all delivered with first class postage!

The stamp was made from a portrait based on a 1985 photograph of Reagan at his "Ranch in the Sky".

To watch the official presentation of the stamp, go to the official YouTube channel of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation here.

Reflection on the "Time for Choosing" Speech (AKA -- "The Speech")

2010-06-26T17:47:00.000-07:00

American Rhetoric lists this speech in it's "Top 100 Speeches". This speech is entitled "A Time for Choosing" (aka "The Speech"). It originally aired October 27, 1964--nearly 46 years ago from Los Angeles, California. It's message is still relevant and the delivery powerful--hence why it is regarded so highly to this day. If you are unfamiliar with Ronald Reagn, acquaint yourself with this speech by watching it at the the Reagan Foundation here. This speech has often been called the one bright spot of Harry Goldwater's campaign--he lost miserably. But this speech launched Reagan to the White House.

Recently, Peter Robinson, Mark Steyn and Rob Long convene on Robinson's program "Uncommon Knowledge" out of Stanford University to discuss the speech in retrospective which Powerlineblog links to here. Powerlineblog writes about "The Speech: "...the speech is [was] extraordinarily hard hitting. Could a conservative politician with presidential aspirations give this speech today? I wonder." To which I reply--"I HOPE SO!"

Immigration: What Would Reagan Do? by Peter Robinson

2010-06-15T06:50:00.000-07:00

An interesting Opinion Column in the Wall Street Journal on What Would Reagan Do About Illegal Immigration by the same speech writer who wrote "Tear Down This Wall!" Be sure to take note that the government was to follow through on certain provisions Reagan authorized but failed to do so.

One should keep in mind Reagan's reply when Gorbachev challenged him that the Berlin Wall was no different than a wall along the U. S. & Mexico border. Reagan replied that the Berlin Wall was erected to keep people in, while the wall in the United States is to keep people out! A huge difference!

GE and Ronald Reagan: The Mutual Gift That Keeps On Giving -- Politics Daily

2010-03-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

GE and Ronald Reagan: The Mutual Gift That Keeps On Giving -- Politics Daily

Gorbachev vs. the Evil Empire

2010-03-10T09:26:00.000-08:00

Gorbachev vs. the Evil Empire

By Dr. Paul Kengor

March 10, 2010

The media jumps at anniversaries of historical figures and events. For those of us who write about history, we, too, seize these opportunities to teach history, especially history Americans should know.

Here’s one such case: Can you believe it has been 25 years since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power? Gorbachev seized the reins of the Soviet state on March 11, 1985. As an illustration of how much the world has changed since—in part because of Gorbachev—I was reminded of this anniversary by a journalist from no less than Pravda; that is, the Slovak version of Pravda.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Pravda was synonymous with the grand un-truth that was Soviet communism. I say “un-truth” because, in fact, Pravda is a Russian word that means Truth. In truth, however, for the first seven decades of its existence, nothing published in Pravda was believable. This official Soviet mouthpiece epitomized what the brilliant Czech, Vaclav Havel, called “the communist culture of the lie.”

It was Havel, recall, who was the face of the Velvet Revolution that oversaw the peaceful end of communism in Czechoslovakia. As the first elected president of Czechoslovakia, Havel also oversaw the nation’s split into two good states: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And now, today, a reporter at the Slovak version of Pravda calls me, a free-market/Reagan conservative, to ask my thoughts on the contributions of Mikhail Gorbachev. How the world has changed.

This brings me to Gorbachev. Liberals in the West woefully exaggerated Gorbachev’s positions and role in ending the Cold War. Their misunderstandings and misrepresentations were based on a fatal combination of wishful thinking, partisan politics, and blind adherence to ideology—an irrepressible desire to credit Gorbachev at the expense of Ronald Reagan.

The reality is that both men—Gorbachev and Reagan—were critical to ending the Cold War, along with Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel, to name a few.

The most important thing that liberals got wrong—even as Gorbachev himself reiterated it a thousand times—was their failure to understand that Gorbachev’s first priority, from the outset, had been to save and sustain the USSR, not to mention the entirety of the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe, to the point where he even initially opposed taking down the Berlin Wall. This fact is undeniable, as Gorbachev emphasized in his best-selling 1987 book Perestroika. To this day, he calls the breakup of the USSR his greatest regret. (See, for instance, “Soviet Union ‘should have been preserved,’” interview with Mikhail Gorbachev, USA Today, April 6, 2006.)

At the same time, however, Gorbachev also sought to create a peaceful USSR. He vigorously opposed totalitarianism. To get there—and here’s where conservatives need adjustments in their understanding—Gorbachev took several monumental steps that, unwittingly, led to the implosion of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc. These ranged from freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion, to the introduction of political pluralism (democracy) by formally ending the Soviet Community Party’s constitutional monopoly on power. These were wonderful feats.

No doubt, much of what Gorbachev did was prodded by other forces, whether internal—the inherent un-workability of communism—to external: the actions of the likes of Reagan, John Paul II, Thatcher, Walesa, and Havel. In fact, all of these figures publicly called for such changes before Gorbachev, and understood far better than Gorbachev what the changes would unleash. As Ronald Reagan put it in a speech in Cambridge, England, “As is always the case, once people who have been deprived of basic freedom taste a little of it, they want all of it. It was as if Gorbachev had uncorked a magic bottle and a genie floated out, never to be put back in again.”

That’s exactly right. Nonetheless, intentionally or not, Gorbachev’s actions enabled millions throughout the USSR and Eastern Europe to remove their chains—and their walls. Those uncorked freedoms today allow a Pravda reporter from the former Czechoslovakia to call me for a frank appraisal on Mikhail Gorbachev—25 years later.

On that, I will finish with this thought: There were two other meaningful anniversaries relating to the Soviet Union in the last week: On March 5, 1953, Stalin died, leaving this world for another he murderously denied. On March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan gave his Evil Empire speech, succinctly describing the pernicious system that annihilated some 20-70 million people beginning in 1917.

Alas, that is what Mikhail Gorbachev ended, and quite deliberately: He stopped Stalinism and closed the Evil Empire. Even as he tried to preserve the USSR, it would be neither Stalinist nor evil. He deserves our gratitude for his role as executioner and pallbearer.

Sure, the Gorbachev story is complicated, a mix of the intended and unintended. Ultimately, however, it has a happy ending. To mark the birth of Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascension to power is to also mark the death of Stalin’s Evil Empire. And that’s a moment worth celebrating.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include "The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand," "God and Ronald Reagan," and "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

Ronald Reagan -- A Great Communicator With Some Help From Friends

2010-02-27T10:31:00.000-08:00

Ronald Reagan was dubbed "The Great Communicator". This was for two main reasons. Some mistakenly believe the preeminently important factors in making a speech are stage and delivery. While these two are important, often these overlook a key component which separates a good delivered speech from a great speech delivered that endures. As my high school Speech teacher emphasized, the more important factor--"Content! Content! Content!"

Ronald Reagan commented during his farewell speech that it was not so much his speech making ability that made him the "Great Communicator", but that he communicated--great ideas. As he modestly stated:

I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Many of Ronald Reagan's speeches were written by himself. For example, one of my favorites of Ronald Reagan's speeches was his First Inaugural Address which he wrote himself. Other great speeches were a team effort of Reagan and a speech writer.

One of the more popular speeches of Reagan's presidency is when he called for the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, to tear down the Berlin Wall at the Brandenberg Gate. The speech writer was Peter Robinson and the story of this particular speech is very interesting.

On February 3, 2010, Grove City College hosted Peter Robinson to discuss his work with President Reagan as a speech writer. Robinson points out that Ronald Reagan not only communicated great ideas, but he was a master of public speaking under any circumstance. He tells how one of his speeches was interrupted by a breeze that blew his notecards all over the floor. He picked up the cards and worked them back in order as he spoke even re-working the speech as he went without missing a beat. Robinson, who witnessed men flop on the delivery of speeches he had written, said Reagan took his written words and made them soar greater than even he himself had envisioned.

Paul Kengor, who has authored at least two books on Ronald Reagan, hosts Peter Robinson for a night to sit and reminisce about his experiences as speech writer with President Ronald Reagan. If you do not understand why Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, then this forum would have been a great opportunity to attend. Fortunately, Grove City College has made the presentation available for viewing at a link entitled:

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall".

Here is a great opportunity to remember the former days and teach children what it means to be a great communicator, never give up, and remain true to solid principles.

Images of Greatness: An Intimate Look at the Presidency of Ronald Reagan by Pete Souza

2010-02-19T09:11:00.000-08:00

Images of Greatness: An Intimate Look at the Presidency of Ronald Reagan

by Pete Souza

I remember when President Reagan was giving his farewells to the staff of the White House. He commented about how he had never been alone while there. He stated,

I keep remembering all those magazine photo essays of past presidents. There's always that one shot of the president standing in the Oval Office, silhouetted against the window. He's always alone, and the picture is always taken from behind. And the caption invariably quotes the president as saying that this is the loneliest job in the world or some such thing. Well, I never felt that way. I enjoyed it. I haven't been lonely one minute.

Indeed, this is one of the sacrifices of public service—the public. It is hard to imagine what life as such a public figure would be. It is tempting for us to say, “Well, it is just me” and fail to realize there were at least 54 million other people who voted for President Reagan in 1988. It is hard to fathom just how invasive the life of the President must be from the press, staff, secret service and the public.

This is a coffee-table style book full of rich photographs by the official White House Photographer, Pete Souza. It contains images that many of us will readily remember from the times when Reagan was President plus some others we may not have seen. Included is forward by Howard Baker who served as Reagan’s chief of staff. It is interesting to note that Baker said he had wanted to be either President (he lost to Reagan in 1980) or the White House Photographer.

Pete Souza was able to capture several key moments during Reagan’s presidency due to his virtually unlimited access. Plus, the book contains his commentary from his perspective of the events relating to the photographs. Souza, who was not exactly a Reagan supporter, provided insight into Reagan’s utmost respect for the Presidency. He recorded:

Most executives, I suspect, shed their suit coat as soon as they get to the office every morning. President Reagan never took his suit coat off in the Oval Office. I asked him about it one, and he said he thought to do so would show disrespect to the office of the presidency. (Page 1)

It is a beautiful book suitable for any admirer of the 40th President of the United States. Ronald Reagan was so thankful for being allowed to serve as our President—a man of humility.

Remembering Roe: A Forgotten Warning from Ronald Reagan

2010-01-21T07:44:00.000-08:00

Remembering Roe: A Forgotten Warning from Ronald Reagan

By Dr. Paul Kengor
January 21, 2010

Given the somber anniversary of Roe v. Wade—source of 40 million abortions since 1973—I thought I’d share an excellent but forgotten speech by President Ronald Reagan. The speechwriter was Peter Robinson, featured guest of our Reagan Lecture this year.

Reagan’s remarks, made in July 1987 to pro-life leaders, are moving to read and watch (or listen to). They are prescient in light of the widening abortion abyss we face under the Obama administration and Pelosi-Reid Congress.

Reagan began with a reminder I often share with my secular-liberal friends. He told the pro-life activists: “[M]any of you, perhaps most, never dreamed of getting involved in politics. What brought you into politics was a matter of conscience, a matter of fundamental conviction.”

That point cannot be underscored enough. Few things rile me more than demands that pro-lifers—especially those motivated by their faith—keep out of politics. Quite the contrary, many did just that, quietly going to church and reading their Bibles, until one day they awoke to learn the Supreme Court had passed Roe v. Wade … and the hellacious assault was on. They entered pro-life activism reluctantly, as a reaction to what was thrust upon their culture and country. The last thing they wanted was to get involved in politics. The Death Culture came to them.

Reagan next added: “Many of you've been attacked for being single-issue activists or single-issue voters. But I ask: What single issue could be of greater significance?”

Agreed. For me, the life issue is my starting point, of far greater value than where a politician stands on social security or the minimum wage. Obviously, other issues matter. The right to life, however, is the first and most fundamental of rights, without which other rights are impossible. And if you, personally, are unsure when life begins, consider Reagan’s recommendation: “If there's even a question about when human life begins, isn't it our duty to err on the side of life?”

Reagan saw the onslaught against America’s unborn as so ferocious that he favored a “human life amendment” to the Constitution. At the time, this seemed extreme, but we’ve learned that unless amendments are attached to bill after bill—the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak Amendment—anonymous powers ensure all sorts of “unintended” consequences, including taxpayer funding of abortion.

Speaking of such funding, Reagan also acknowledged his “Mexico City policy,” which blocked U.S. taxpayer funding of international “family planning” groups. One of the first things President Obama did was rescind that policy—immediately after the March for Life last January.

Another policy Reagan highlighted in his speech was the prohibition of federal funds to finance abortions in the District of Columbia. This, too, was overturned last year, thanks to a Democratic Congress and president that rejected funding for school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, but supported funding for abortions for the mothers of those children.

Yes, I know the contrast is breathtaking, but it’s true.

Reagan talked more about abortion funding, and specifically “the so-called Grove City [College] legislation sponsored by Senator [Ted] Kennedy.” “This bill,” noted Reagan, “would mean that all hospitals and colleges receiving federal funds, even those with religious affiliations, would be open to lawsuits if they failed to provide abortions.” The usually affable Reagan said: “this one really touches my temperature control.”

Needless to say, all of this is extremely relevant right now, thanks to how Americans voted on November 4, 2008.

There was much more Reagan said in this speech, but I’ll close with two poignant thoughts:

“Many who turn to abortion do so in harrowing circumstances,” Reagan emphasized, including women “misled by inaccurate information.” “[W]e must remind those who disagree with us, and sometimes even ourselves, that we do not seek to condemn, we do not seek to sit in judgment…. [I]t is our duty to rise above bitterness and reproach.”

Pro-lifers must heed that call, respecting the human dignity of everyone. All victims require love and charity. On that, Reagan finished with this:

“I'd like to leave with you a quotation that means a great deal to me. These are the words of my friend, the late Terence Cardinal Cooke, of New York. ‘The gift of life, God's special gift, is no less beautiful when it is accompanied by illness or weakness, hunger or poverty, mental or physical handicaps, loneliness or old age. Indeed, at these times, human life gains extra splendor as it requires our special care, concern, and reverence. It is in and through the weakest of human vessels that the Lord continues to reveal the power of His love.’”

Here was a warning against the pallbearers of the progressive death march, from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger—who hoped to expunge the gene pool of “human weeds”—to the euthanasia precipice to which America is being dragged. It starts with the weakest of vessels: the infant in its mother’s womb.

Timeless words of wisdom to bear in mind this week, as America struggles to survive another year of Roe v. Wade.

Ronald Reagan and His Mother's Bible

2010-01-18T11:35:00.000-08:00

When visiting the Ronald Reagan Museum in Simi Valley, California in 2005, I was interested in seeing many items relating to Ronald Reagan’s life. Especially interesting to me was seeing the display of his mother’s Bible. His mother, Nelle Reagan, was a member of the First Christian Church in Dixon, IL which would be in the same vein as the church of which James A. Garfield was a member. Reagan was religiously taught largely by his mother and Ben Cleaver, who was the preacher located in Dixon when Ronald Reagan was eleven years old. Cleaver often read from religious advocates pleading for the restoring of Christian worship from creeds to direct reliance on the Bible generally and New Testament specifically. Restoration advocates such as Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone were prominent in Cleaver’s reading and he shared these concepts with the young Reagan.

Presidents sometimes choose Bibles that are especially important to them; e.g., Barack Obama took the oath of office on the Bible owned by Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly, the first president to take the oath of office on a Bible was George Washington who also added “So help me God” and actually kissed the Bible! The tradition of kissing the Bible stood until Dwight Eisenhower. Nelle Reagan’s Bible had particular interest to Reagan, but it was more than the owner of the Bible that captivated Reagan’s heart. His mother likewise believed that God would raise up and bring down nations based on their allegiance to God.

One of Nelle Reagan’s favorite passages became one of Ronald Reagan’s favorites as well. She remarked that it was an excellent passage for healing of a nation. Ronald Reagan believed the principle would hold true for the United States as well. Reagan’s commitment to the Bible’s teaching on this, which was instilled in him because of his mother, was so firm that he had the passage from his mother’s Bible opened to the very passage she had made this personal note in. He reportedly took the oath of Office with her Bible open to this passage which reads:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14, King James Version)

As with the Israelite nation in the Bible, political and religious restorations often went hand in hand. When one reads the book of Judges, one discovers a pattern in the Nation of Israel—a pattern Joshua had warned them about as he prepared to die (Joshua 24:20). When the nation became stronger they forgot God so He would allow calamity to come upon them. Then they repented and cried out to God for deliverance. God would then send a judge to deliver them from calamity. Once the threat was gone, the Israelites went back to forgetting God again. The cycle repeats often, hence the name of the book of Judges, c f., Judges 2:17.

This principle has been demonstrated to be true so often. Of course, in the Old Testament the nation of Israel’s law included both civil and spiritual provisions. For the United States, we look at the Founding Documents, Founding Fathers and the Bible for similar guidance on how to restore and maintain this Republic. Some wonder whether our nation has repeated this cycle and if God will hear our cry when we have abandoned Him and His teachings? Reagan believed the Bible and the writings of the Founding Fathers were paramount in making and keeping America great and under God’s providential care.

--------------------------
SOURCE:

Paul Kengor, God and Ronald Reagan, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2004.

Dear Americans: Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan by Ralph E. Weber & Ralph A. Weber, Editors

2009-12-03T08:31:00.000-08:00

Dear Americans: Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan
by Ralph E. Weber & Ralph A. Weber, Editors

The newly elected 40th President of the United States made his Inaugural Address in January 20, 1981. It was a low point in America’s position in the world. The Soviet Union was on the march for world domination with its brand of communism. We were regularly humiliated by Iranian thugs who held U. S. citizens hostage before the world to demonstrate our weakness. The morale of our country was very low, to the point that the prior outgoing president had stated a malaise had spread across the land and we basically had to accept it. Well, Americans refused to accept it and turned to a brighter future. President Reagan, in his address, stated many fundamental truths about our country that had seemed to have faded behind the issues that had plagued her for the past few years.

Among one of these moving statements was a tribute to the citizens of the United States:

We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, each our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.

Reagan placed his confidence in two strongholds—God and Americans. He realized that Americans committed to God were a force to be reckoned with far more than a secular government that relied on its delusion of omnipotence. He viewed U. S. citizens as “fellow Americans” meaning he did not view himself superior to any other American.

Dear Americans: Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan illustrates Reagan’s profound respect for Americans. The book is a collection of handwritten letters he wrote as President to various people across the nation regardless of their status or profession. He freely discussed matters relating to politics and religion. The editors discovered more than 3,500 letters Reagan had written during his eight years as President. That is an average greater than one letter a day to a citizen on a variety of issues! The editors provide some insight as to Reagan’s staff who managed this correspondence. The process they followed is inspiring since all this was done so that as many Americans could hear from their president as possible—Reagan’s personal commitment. One of my favorite letters is to a seventh grader seeking disaster relief funds since his mother had declared his room “a disaster area”. Reagan wrote the youngster “Your application for disaster relief has been duly noted but I must point out one technical problem: the authority declaring the disaster is supposed to make the request. In this case, your mother.” (Page 164) There is more to this delightful letter but I will save that for the reader’s enjoyment!

The letters are organized chronologically with annotations by the editors along the way to assist readers with the contexts. Ralph E. Weber has had the opportunity to conduct intensive research in the personal correspondence of five other presidents. He notes that none of the other five presidents had such a comparable body of letters. Another significant observation Weber noted about these files in comparison to other Presidents—none were as lively or optimistic. These letters will be a great source of reflection and reminder for those who lived during the 1980s and an illustration to those who seek to gather understanding about this truly unique American who served as the 40th President of our United States!

Thanksgiving Day Proclmation from November 12, 1981

2009-11-26T07:40:00.000-08:00

Interesting note--The National Turkey Federation has been supplying the White House turkeys since 1947. Although the first sparing of the turkey was done by Abraham Lincoln for the Christmas, John F. Kennedy is credited with sparing the first Thanksgiving Day turkey. Kennedy did not "pardon" the bird, the credit for the use of the term "padon" in reference to a turkey was by Ronald Reagan in 1987. George H. W. Bush was the first to issue an official presidential pardon in 1989.

Barack H. Obama has pardoned "Courage" and the bird (along with an alternate) will fly first class to Disneyland. (No YouTube video was found of "Courage" stating it wanted "to go Disneyland" could be found.) Reagan was a bit more practical. In 1981, on receiving a Tom Turkey from the National Turkey Federation, President Reagan was asked what he's going to do with Tom. "Eat him," said Mr. Reagan straightforwardly. Pass the stuffing...Happy Thanksgiving!

Proclamation 4883. November 12, 1981

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A PROCLAMATION

America has much for which to be thankful. The unequaled freedom enjoyed by our citizens has provided a harvest of plenty to this nation throughout its history. In keeping with America’s heritage, one day each year is set aside for giving thanks to god for all of His blessings.

On this day of thanksgiving, it is appropriate that we recall the first thanksgiving, celebrated in the autumn of 1621. After surviving a bitter winter, the Pilgrims planted and harvested a bountiful crop. After the harvest they gathered their families together and joined in celebration and prayer with the native Americans who had taught them so much. Clearly our forefathers were thankful not only for the material well-being of their harvest but for this abundance of goodwill as well.

In this spirit, Thanksgiving has become a day when Americans extend a helping hand to the less fortunate. Long before there was a government welfare program, this spirit of voluntary giving was ingrained in the American character. Americans have always understand that, truly, one must give in order to receive.

This should be a day of giving as well as a day of thanks. As we celebrate Thanksgiving in 1981, we should reflect on the full meaning of this day as we enjoy the fellowship that is so much a part of the holiday festivities. Searching our hearts, we should ask what we can do as individuals to demonstrate our gratitude to God for all He has done. Such reflection can only add to the significance of this precious day of remembrance.

Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family that has played such an important role in making this a great Nation, and which will be needed as a source of strength if we are to remain a great people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 26, 1981, as Thanksgiving Day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and sixth.

“That Wall” by Paul Kengor on National Review Online

2009-11-09T04:42:00.000-08:00

“That Wall” by Paul Kengor on National Review Online

Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Wall: Reflections from Yesterday, Lessons for Today WATCH LIVE FOR FREE

2009-11-06T08:05:00.000-08:00

RONALD REAGAN AND THE FALL OF THE WALL:
REFLECTIONS FROM YESTERDAY, LESSONS FOR TODAY

NOVEMBER 6, 2009
8:30 A.M. – 5:30 P.M.

Go to www.reaganfoundation.org to watch Live Video Streaming of the event from 8:00am to 5:30pm PST on November 6, 2009.

This November marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the advent of freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe as we know it today. To celebrate this anniversary and to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan, whose role in this historic event was truly heroic, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and The Heritage Foundation are joining together to host a one-day conference on Friday, November 6, 2009 at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

PROGRAM:

9:30 A.M. “INSIDER PERSPECTIVES ON RONALD REAGAN AND THE FALL OF THE WALL”
When President Ronald Reagan called on General Secretary Gorbachev in 1987 to “tear down this wall,” his words were part of his decades-long battle to challenge Communism on every front. In this panel, some of President Reagan’s closest advisers will describe how President Reagan waged that battle, how he helped to bring down the Wall, and bring the Cold War to an end without firing a shot.

Panelists: Ed Meese (United States Attorney General, 1985-1988), Richard Allen (National Security Advisor, 1981-1982), John Lehman (Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987), Martin Anderson (Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, 1981-1982) and Peter Robinson (White House Speechwriter)

Moderator: John McCaslin, co-host of the nationally syndicated talk-radio program “America’s Morning News”, produced by Talk Radio Network (TRN) and The Washington Times.

12:00 P.M. Remarks by George Shultz “TEAR DOWN THIS WALL”
As Secretary of State for almost eight years of the Reagan Presidency, George Shultz was an essential player in the effort to end the Cold War. In his keynote address at lunch, he will offer his personal reflections on behind-the-scenes negotiations and the instrumental role that Ronald Reagan – as a man and the world’s most powerful leader – played in the fall of the Berlin Wall. Secretary Shultz is uniquely qualified to provide us with insight on what our world would be like today if not for President Ronald Reagan’s determination to advance the cause of global freedom.

2:00 P.M. “THE UNFINISHED LEGACY OF THE FALL OF THE WALL”
The fall of the Berlin Wall brought liberty to Eastern Europe, but the struggle toward democracy and free enterprise did not end there. In this panel, leaders of the fight against Communism join with leaders from nations still working to establish democratic self-government to reflect on what the fall of the Wall achieved, and what remains undone.

Panelists: Vaclav Klaus (President, Czech Republic), Steve Forbes (Former chairman of the bi-partisan Board for International Broadcasting), Leszek Balcerowicz (Former First Deputy Prime Minister, Poland), Mart Laar (Prime Minister, Estonia, 1999-2002), Lord Charles Powell (Foreign Advisor to Margaret Thatcher, 1983-1990). Other panelists to be named shortly.

Moderator: Edward Lucas, The Economist

4:00 P.M. “WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVES ON THE FALL OF THE WALL”
The Berlin Wall divided East and West. When it fell, nations throughout the formerly divided world shared in the triumph. In this panel, distinguished scholars of and participants in the triumph from East and West will offer their perspectives on why the Wall fell, and what its end meant for nations on both sides of the old divide.

Panelists: Dr. Robin Harris (Heritage Foundation), John O’Sullivan (Radio Free Europe), Peter Brookes (Heritage Foundation) and Lee Edwards (Heritage Foundation)

Moderator: Matthew Kaminski, The Wall Street Journal

For more information, please call 805-522-2977. To learn more about the fall of the Wall and other events at the Library surrounding the 20th anniversary, please click here.

Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader by Dinesh D'Souza

2009-10-03T15:21:00.000-07:00

Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader
by Dinesh D’Souza

This is a great book on emphasizing lessons that those in leadership positions would do well to read. When I first saw this book, I flinched at the “ordinary man” as I do at the phrase “common sense”. Just as “sense” appears to be all uncommon, it seems that Reagan was a rare gem who can never be replaced. Reagan was extraordinary both as a leader and a man. Sadly, our nation is plagued by politicians, financial managers, CEOs, and a host of other areas that are plagued with corruption. One of the fallacies popular today is the private sector is corrupt but the government is beyond becoming corrupt. Our leaders have no business pointing out to us how we should manage our money. When one considers the magnitude of the Federal Debt, I say “Physician (or Politician), heal thyself!”

Too many think the government needs to step in to eliminate corruption or foul play in the private sector without recognizing that many in the government are plagued with the same disease. Neither every politician nor all in the private sector have been corrupted. The few have made the reactions of others much more unbearable on the rest of us rather than punishing evil doers. Ronald Reagan came from a time when a man’s word was binding. Time gave way to where we would say that a man’s handshake is as good as a contract. Today, it seems that even a contract is barely worth the paper it is printed on. What has happened to our country? We have forsaken the values that transformed us from ordinary to extraordinary. We need to call for a national restoration on the values based on the Bible. It is not enough to say we need to base our values on the doctrines of the Founding Fathers. Relying on the teachings of the Founding Fathers is a good start, but ignoring the source for their wisdom falls short.

This book reveals that Ronald Reagan had a set of principles that guided him throughout his life. Many of these were formulated by his mother as he grew up in Illinois. Anyone who studies his youth realizes the kind of man Ronald Reagan would become. I remember Nancy Reagan commenting on what some considered a mysterious nature of Ronald Reagan as “What you see is what you get.” It is no more complex than that! People would scratch their heads as to say “It cannot be that simple.” but it was. Here was a man who loved his country, decency, patriotism, sentimentalism, humor, stories, principles, truth, justice, fairness, equity, and other principles that many today mock as trite. Some seek to dismiss this book as missing the glaring mistakes that Reagan made. To my knowledge, no one ever said Reagan was perfect and made no mistakes. Ronald Reagan certainly never said that. Now, he made far fewer mistakes than his predecessor (and his successors).

Ronald Reagan once said when asked how he thought his legacy would be, "I'm confident that history will judge us fairly." I am glad that he put his faith in history to render the verdict since he is no longer here to speak for himself. He has left us a legacy that; although his absence at events such as Presidential Inaugurations is not commented on by the press, those who knew him remember. It is up to us to remember the principles that he demonstrated to us and to teach them to our children. Indeed, he was an ordinary man who stood by guiding principles to become extraordinary. He told us that we are capable of doing the same. As he said, “It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”
One of the principles that Ronald Reagan had complete confidence in was that Americans are in a better position to govern themselves rather than the government. Too many today expect the government to do something for every crisis rather than recognizing that many difficulties are solved by ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things each and every day.

Voters Turn Negative On All Political Labels Except Reagan

2009-09-11T22:20:00.001-07:00

Voters Turn Negative On All Political Labels Except Reagan

Posted using ShareThis

Ted Kennedy's Effort to Side with USSR Against Ronald Reagan

2009-08-28T07:04:00.000-07:00

This letter which documents Senator Edward Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up a position of strength in order to bring the Soviets back to the bargaining table for nuclear arms reduction. The letter remained out of the public eye until it was discovered by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s after the KGB files were opened.

This letter was brought to my attention with the publication of Paul Kengor’s book The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

_______________________________________
Special Importance

Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV

Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party

Comrade Y.V. Andropov Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.
President of the committee V. Chebrikov

_______________________________________

Thankfully, the esteemed Senator Kennedy failed and Ronald Reagan succeeded in throwing the Soviet Union on the ash heap of history! Reagan would go onto to win one of the greatest landslide victories in modern U. S. history. A true mandate!

SOURCES:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr

Paul Kengor, The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Harper Perennial, 2007.

What I Saw at the Rotunda by Dr. Paul Kengor

2009-06-05T12:57:00.000-07:00

June 05, 2009

Dr. Paul Kengor

Carrying the Torch for America, the Beautiful.

I was at the Rotunda at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, June 3, for the dedication of the statue to President Ronald Reagan. I was there because Bill Clark was there. Judge Clark, as readers of my material know, was Reagan’s closest and most important adviser.

Clark is 77 years old. His wife, Joan, died a few weeks ago. He was invited to the ceremony by the good folks at the Reagan Presidential Foundation. He made a rare trip to Washington, flying from San Francisco late the previous night, in a wheelchair.

Clark sat in the front row, where he was a magnet for current political luminaries and old Reaganites. They all came over to shake his hand: Peggy Noonan, Bob Michel, Denny Hastert, Michael Steele, John McCain, Chas Fagan—the sculptor of the statue. McCain made a beeline for Clark, with cameras clicking upon the two.

The ceremony began with a wonderful invocation by Rev. Barry Black, Senate chaplain, who hit the prayerful themes Reagan himself fondly invoked when waxing eloquent about America—about that Shining City on a Hill. Among those providing remarks, Congressman John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell—the Republican leaders in Congress—were excellent. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, aside from a foolish statement on “stem cell research,” was gracious in her “respect, esteem, and admiration” of President Reagan.

It was a moving event, especially with Nancy Reagan’s presence. Frail, small in size but large in stature, she was no longer the walking dartboard that “journalists” once joyously harpooned. They now treated her like an elder stateswoman, a kind of political royalty—America’s preeminent former first lady. The loudest applause was directed at Nancy.

For me, however, the crowning touch came before Nancy spoke, and before the statue unveiling. It was the sole musical selection for the program: the U.S. Army Chorus singing, a cappella, “America, the Beautiful.”

This love-song for the nation captivated the room. It was beautiful. I caught a camerawoman struggling to hold up her long-lens as she wiped tears flowing down her face.

But what struck me was the perfect choice of that patriotic hymn, unwittingly tying together not only the thoughts of Rev. Black and others, but the origins, ends, and legacy that was Ronald Reagan’s career. Indeed, lost to the innumerable books, articles, documentaries and recollections of Reagan is the significance of this particular anthem.

Specifically, it was way back in the summer of 1952 that Ronald Reagan, an actor transitioning from Democrat to Republican, effectively launched his crusade with a commencement speech at a tiny women’s college in the Midwest. The place was William Woods College, in Fulton, Missouri—the same town where Winston Churchill had warned that a Soviet “iron curtain” was closing across Europe.

It was June 2, 1952. Reagan eagerly arrived with a vibrant, pregnant Nancy. The ceremony opened with a rendition of “America, the Beautiful.”

At 10:00 AM, the movie star addressed the 100 soon-to-be graduates. He told them that America is “less of a place than an idea.” It is an idea, he said, that resided deep in the souls of men. Reagan cast this idea against the darkness of the atheistic, murderous communist menace that resided in Moscow, which, sadly, was really nothing new. Said Reagan:

[The idea of America] is nothing but the inherent love of freedom in each one of us, and the great ideological struggle that we find ourselves engaged in today is not a new struggle. It’s the same old battle. We met it under the name of Hitlerism; we met it under the name of Kaiserism; and we have met it back through the ages in the name of every conqueror that has ever set upon a course of establishing his rule over mankind. It is simply the idea, the basis of this country and of our religion, the idea of the dignity of man, the idea that deep within the heart of each one of us is something so God-like and precious that no individual or group has a right to impose his or its will upon the people.

Then came what I believe was Reagan’s first public foray in openly speaking of America as a divinely chosen nation:

I, in my own mind, have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land…. I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land.

This Reagan thought became a theme—and a call—for five decades. He closed by issuing a challenge to the young women—to join him in the epic “battle” against “totalitarian darkness” that confronted their nation. He asked that each of them “contribute a little light,” that each “strike a match,” to “help push back the darkness” facing humanity.

“[W]ith your help,” the future president urged, “I am sure we can come much closer to realizing that this land of ours is the last best hope of man on earth. God bless you.”

Thirty years later, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ignited the match that would burn down the Iron Curtain.

The title of Reagan’s talk in Fulton, Missouri that day in June 1952?

“America, the Beautiful.”

That was how Ronald Reagan saw America, its place in the world and in history. Its rendezvous with destiny now rests with those in that Rotunda and all across the fruited plain. It is their challenge today to pick up the torch, strike a match, and ensure America shines amid the darkness of humanity, that it remains a Shining City on a Hill.

SOURCE: http://www.visandvals.org/What_I_Saw_at_the_Rotunda.php?&printable=true

Ronald Reagan Statue in Rotunda

2009-06-05T03:10:00.000-07:00

Today marks the fifth year since the death of Ronald W. Reagan. I recall how much I missed him a few months back in January 2009 as former presidents arrived to pay respect to the incoming president at his inauguration. Presidents on both sides of Reagan's terms were there which made Reagan's absence more emotional for myself.

Back in 1988, I served as an Intern working for The Architect of the Capitol in Washington D. C. I had dreamed of visiting the nation's capital to view the great buildings, landmarks and memorials. Not only would I have the opportunity to work on top of the roof of the U. S. Capitol flying flags for major political figures, schools and private citizens, but I also had the opportunity to go into areas of the building not commonly accessible to the public. Not that these places were matters of national security, but it was fascinating to see the structure of the complex.

One of my favorite places to visit in the Capitol was the Rotunda where several statues of Statuary Hall are placed. On days when the weather was either too hot or rainy to be on the roof we would work inside cleaning. One day we were dusting many statues of key figures in the Capitol building. I particularly enjoyed dusting the statues in the Rotunda so I could see the art on display. Some might think it had to be rather boring to be dusting, but I was thrilled to be there and see statues of great leaders of the past adorn this hall such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Dwight D. Eisenhower and James A. Garfield.

As a young boy, I admired Ronald Reagan since his remarks (at the insistence of Gerald Ford) after losing the nomination to Ford. As I worked in Statuary Hall, I wondered how long it would take for a statue of the President Reagan (who was near the end his final term) to be placed there. I remember telling coworkers that Reagan's statue would be added to this hall some day. Some nodded in acknowledgment and some in agreement that it should happen. (And this is prior to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and end of Soviet Communism.) Americans were proud of President Reagan and that pride has endured.

On June 3, 2009, just five years after his passing the seven-foot tall bronze statue with one of his trademark smiles was unveiled in the Rotunda at the U. S. Capitol. If one was to pick one figure to go to another planet to represent the United States of America--its traditions, heritage, legacy, vision and dreams; then my pick without any hesitation would be Ronald Wilson Reagan. I look forward to going Washington and seeing the statue for myself.

For more details about the statue, the following is taken from the Architect of the Capitol's web site at http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/reagan.cfm

The bronze statue of President Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911–2004) donated by the State of California to the National Statuary Hall Collection was unveiled in the United States Capitol Rotunda on June 3, 2009. The statue of President Reagan replaced a statue of Thomas Starr King, which the State of California had donated in 1931. The California legislature and governor delegated responsibility for the creation of the statue to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, which selected sculptor Chas Fagan and oversaw the design and approval process. This is the second instance of a state’s replacing a previously donated statue since such action was authorized by the Congress in 2000 under Public Law 106-554 (40 U.S.C. 187a).

The former president is depicted as he looked during his term in office, 1981 to 1989. He appears to stand tall but relaxed, a genial and confident smile on his face. He wears his preferred custom-made single-breasted suit and a striped necktie; his right arm is by his side, and his left hand rests atop a square column. The torch that appears in low relief on the column suggests the torch of the Statue of Liberty, to which Reagan often referred in speeches as “the torch of freedom” or “Liberty’s flame.” Eagles decorate the corners of the capital. Reagan’s feet are slightly splayed, and the toe of his right shoe overhangs the self base.

The Tennessee Rose marble pedestal, designed by architect James McCrery, includes a narrow band of concrete pieces from the Berlin Wall, the scene of the 1987 speech in which Reagan demanded of the Soviet Premier, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The front of the pedestal is inscribed with Reagan’s name, his life dates, and the state name California. On the right and left sides are bronze reliefs of the seals of the offices he held, governor of the State of California and president of the United States; inscribed below them are his terms of service. A bronze plaque on the rear of the pedestal bears a quotation from Reagan’s speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention: “America’s best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.”

Ronald Wilson Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, in Tampico, Illinois; was graduated from Eureka College in 1932; and became a radio sports announcer. In 1937 he began a 29-year acting career that included over sixty films and dozens of television programs. From 1940 until 1948 he was married to actress Jane Wyman, with whom he had two children.

In the army during World War II, his nearsightedness kept him from combat duty, so he worked in the training-film unit for three years. After the war he returned to Hollywood, and in 1947–1952 and 1959–1960 he served as president of the Screen Actors Guild. In 1952 he wed actress Nancy Davis; the couple had two children and remained married for the rest of his life.

Running as a Republican, Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966 and re-elected in 1970. In 1980, he was elected president of the United States; he was re-elected in 1984. In 1994, five years after leaving office, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. On June 5, 2004, he passed away at the age of 93. His body lay in repose at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, and then lay in state in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. After a state funeral at Washington National Cathedral on June 11, his body was interred at the Reagan Library.

Chas Fagan is a self-taught artist who grew up in Brussels, Belgium, where he visited museums and sketched the works of great European masters; he later graduated magna cum laude from Yale University with a degree in Russian and East European studies. He has painted portraits of Mrs. Barbara Bush, President Reagan, Speaker of the House Tom Foley, and a complete set of presidents for C-SPAN’s 2001 program American Presidents. He has completed sculptural portraits of President George H. W. Bush; Revolutionary War General Nathanael Greene; and, for the National Cathedral, John Donne, Rosa Parks, and Mother Theresa.

Ronald Reagan Foundation is now on Facebook, Twitter & YouTube

2009-06-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library has just announced its presence on Facebook, YouTube & Twitter.

To access the Facebook page, go to http://apps.facebook.com/reaganfoundation/

To follow the updates on Twitter, follow at http://twitter.com/ronaldreagan40

To subscribe to the channel on YouTube, go to http://www.youtube.com/reaganfoundation

The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism by Paul Kengor

2009-04-30T11:54:00.000-07:00

The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism
by Paul Kengor, PhD

Growing up, I often heard stories from WW2 veterans speaking of how certain facts and details were not known to them about the war and for years after their service. I watch documentaries and wonder how people who lived during those days feel when watching these programs. Well, Dr. Kengor’s work provided me a glimpse into those types of feelings. I remember the day I became aware of Ronald Reagan and politics. It was in 1975 when Reagan was pressured by President Ford to make a few remarks after Ford had barely beaten him for the Republican nomination. A rather odd thing to do—invite someone you defeated to speak after you just beat them. What did Reagan say at the spur of the moment…he dwelt on the horror of being on the brink of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union! I was nine years old and was becoming aware that the Soviet Union was set on a course of world domination. Growing up I heard lessons in school about the “domino theory” which stated that once a country fell to communism surrounding the countries would fall to it like dominoes as well. I remember watching reports about how we were lagging behind in our ability to respond to the aggression of the USSR. I had heard so much doom, gloom and loathing of our country; which contributed to our decline. I recall looking at a book by Hal Lindsey (which I do not recommend and you would probably have trouble finding today since it was false and irrelevant then and now) entitled The 1980s – Countdown to Armageddon which detailed the arms race and its march to the so-called Apocalypse. I knew that if Ronald Reagan became president, he would deal with this situation. I knew that when I was nine years old! It is amazing to me that we still have people who think that Ronald Reagan was just lucky to be at the right place at the right time when communism fell. I can speak from first hand observations--these people were not prophets then and are reporting the facts today! Sure, being at the right place at the right time is important. However, one should think about this expression “Events sometimes shape the man but sometimes the man shapes the events.“ This would be true of Reagan—he was a man who shaped and molded events.

Kengor summed up Reagan strategy when he came to office as “A) America needs to join the arms race against Soviets, B) the Soviets will try to match the arms race, C) ‘hope’ of ‘disarmament’ will follow, and D) “this is what we’re [Reagan administration] doing’ because ‘we want peace.’” (p. 378). Reagan often outlined his strategy with the Soviets a bit more concisely—“Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

When Ronald Reagan was asked about his critics, he humbly and confidently replied, “We are confident that history will judge us fairly.” Paul Kengor has devoted a large portion of his endeavors to research documents that have recently been declassified. Information that I always suspected but did not have access to is largely detailed in this account with over 1,200 footnotes. He utilized a series National Security Decision Directives (NSDD) which were signed by Reagan to provide a woven portrait of the strategy Reagan and his advisors designed and executed to confront the Soviets on every possible front except direct warfare. I came across Kengor’s research along these lines from one of his articles detailing how Ronald Reagan and Saudi Arabia privately colluded together to cripple the Soviet Union. How? Reagan provided military and intelligence to Saudi government in exchange for OPEC’s increased oil production—as much as five fold which drove prices down. Driving my gas guzzling 1974 Plymouth, I can recall vividly when prices went below ninety cents per gallon despite the naysayers that said I would NEVER EVER see gas below a dollar a gallon (funny thing is I kept hearing the same thing about $2 a gallon fairly recently.) What Kengor reminded me of is that everyone was excited that OPEC was doing this but there was no plausible explanation for their actions. If you have a large percentage of market supply, why would you lower your price? Especially if you are an allegedly greedy oil tycoon! But Kengor’s investigation reveals that the explanation was Reagan and the King had a mutual enemy—atheistic communism. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hurt the Soviets, whose large source of revenue was oil exports, what would they do? Increase the oil supply, force prices down, and watch the Soviet revenue dry up and lead to huge deficits. That article prompted me to move The Crusader to the top of my reading list.

This work is more than a re-telling of the ending of the Cold War during the 1980s. It reveals how Ronald Reagan was more than slightly interested in defeating Communism as President. He had a nickname in Soviet circles even before he won election—“the crusader”. Reagan had fought communism for years prior to becoming President and had called for the tearing down of the Berlin Wall multiple times before the 1980s. Kengor details these accounts in a satisfying narrative and adds footnotes to provide sources to back up the narrative. I read and relived the drama of the 1980s as I worked through this book. Thanks to God, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, Lech Valesa and others the Cold War was brought to close with a decisive victory for the United States and democracy. Particularly satisfying were the details in the Soviet press and testimonials from those behind the Iron Curtain and in the former Soviet Union.

Some are closed to facts based on bias or circumstances close to them that prohibit their ability to see matters from a proper perspective. I’ll admit, Ronald Reagan has been my political hero for years so I could be charged with bias as well. But before one dismisses the subject, consider this one fact:

In 1980 there were 56 democracies in the world; by 1990, there were 76. The numbers continued an upward trajectory, hitting 91 in 1991, 99 in 1992, 108 in 1993, 114 in 1994, a doubling since Reagan entered the Oval Office. By 1994, 60 percent of the world’s nations were democracies. By contrast, when Reagan lamented the lack of freedom in the mid-1970s, the number was below 30 percent. (page 307)

Regardless of what critics of Reagan will say, the truth will endure. Indeed, history will judge Reagan fairly. As the shrill of the critics fade, people will remember the swelling crowds of people who poured out in devotion at the funeral for the man who crusaded against communism and preserved our Republic. I know, I was there in Washington DC but was unable to make it into the Rotunda due to the large number of admirers. People drove for hours, stood and walked for blocks, battled heat, cold and rain just to catch a glimpse of the hearse; which carried his casket from the Capitol to the service at the cathedral. I know, I was one of those who walked, waited, stood and saluted on the route next to the World War 2 Memorial.

I recall the farewell words President Reagan uttered which included this “The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.” Anyone who has a globe of the world back from 1980 and compares it to a globe made today knows this to be true!

Paul Kengor’s work is delightful and informative reading. Anyone who seeks to know the facts and wants the documentation to back the facts up will find The Crusader – Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism a treasure to use in teaching younger generations who were not even born when Reagan was President. Young lives that truly may have not been.

Reflections on TEA Party at Solon, OH on April 15, 2009

2009-04-17T17:16:00.000-07:00

Reflections on the National Tea Party Day

On April 15th 2009 at 4:30 PM nearly 135 citizens from Solon, Bedford and surrounding communities met at the Solon Center for the Arts at City Hall to make a statement to the Government about it’s fiscal irresponsibility. To remind the Government, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “We are a people who have a government, not the other way around.” As I stood in the crowd of the Solon Tea Party, I noticed that several police were around, relaxed and at ease. That is exactly how I expected them to be—to serve, to protect and welcome citizens. There were no outbursts or acts of violence, just law-abiding citizens uniting to send a message. Officials from City Hall let us know that in all the years of public demonstrations in Solon, this was four times larger than any in its recorded history. Plus, as we met together, several people in cars honked their horns, smiling, waving or giving a “thumbs up” in support. There were other places that had larger demonstrations, some in the thousands, but we all shared a unity of purpose.

On that Wednesday afternoon, citizens with the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, assembled to write notes of grievances, attach a tea bag, throw them into a chest, and prepare to send the chest to the Governor’s office. The message is clear—we are tired of the government wasting the fruits of our labor and are appalled at their efforts to strap our children and grandchildren with a debt in which they had no say.

After the party, I spoke with others who were not aware of the TEA Party. “Why Tea?” TEA stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” “Taxes are not that bad…in fact, I received a refund this year.” What these fail to realize is that the protest was not so much against current taxes, but a rebuke of wasteful spending over the years by Congress. Plus, the real concern now is the amount of taxes that will have to be raised in the future to pay for the current administration’s fiscal plan to spend us into oblivion. If a political figure wanted to destroy the government one wonders how he would go about it. One way would be to over spend it into oblivion. Well, consider the following chart, which shows President Obama’s fiscal plan which explodes spending in terms so great that only a picture does it justice:

SOURCE: Power Line Daily Digest, April 13, 2009.

April 15, 2009 was a great day. A day where citizens of the United States stood to tell our elected officials that we demand them to be fiscally responsible. The government criticizing banks, insurance companies and automakers for fiscal irresponsibility has got to top the list of the most incredulous statements of this century. Another one--they tell CEOs that they have to limit their salary but hardly bat an eye at raising their own salaries.

I went to the TEA Party so I could explain to my children what it means to be an American. So they know that regardless of what happens in the future, their father tried to do something to help get America back on track. These events remind me of what Reagan said when he left the Oval Office. There were many important points President Reagan made in his final address. The one I was thinking of at the TEA Party was:

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

We all need to be teaching our children, our grandchildren and everyone else we have in our ring of influence the importance of Reagan called “an informed patriotism”.

Economic Stimulus 101: Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

2009-04-09T06:37:00.000-07:00

Economic Stimulus 101: Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

By Dr. Paul Kengor
April 07, 2009

President Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929 but since 1987—also on Ronald Reagan’s watch.

What did Reagan do—or, more importantly, didn’t do—in response to these “crises.” How was Ronald Reagan’s response different from what Barack Obama is doing?

In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Obama’s massive government spending infusions. In fact, it’s worth noting that Bill Clinton—listen up, Democrats—didn’t invoke Obama’s method when he faced recessions at the very start and end of his presidency. (That’s another article for another time.)

As for the Reagan recession, the president waited extremely patiently—to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts—for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn’t spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.

Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25 percent across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent.

By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.

What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing—certainly nothing like a massive government “stimulus.”

“Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.”

Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself.

Okay, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?

That’s the big criticism. It isn’t accurate. It needs to be understood—now more than ever.

First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”)

Compare that to what’s happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and Congressional leadership:

President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We’ve never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks—an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.

So, think about this:

Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending—implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets—the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress, and more. Some reasons were Reagan’s fault; others were Congress’ doing—both share blame in differing degrees.

Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989.

The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending—as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control.

The crucial lesson for today is that the best “stimulus” is one that relies on the tried-and-true American way: letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government collectivists and central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that failed, extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.

For three decades now, the minority of Americans who make up the hard left have been trashing Reaganomics. Well, on November 4, 2008, for the first time in American history, they convinced enough voters to join them in electing the extreme opposite. At long last, they will pay for the economic consequences of their ideology, as will their children and grandchildren.

V & V
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).

Whatever Happened to Free Enterprise? by Ronald Reagan

2009-03-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

Whatever Happened to Free Enterprise?

by Ronald Reagan, Fortieth President of the United States

The following is excerpted from a speech delivered on November 10, 1977, on the Hillsdale College campus as part of the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series. Originally published in Imprimis in January 1978, the speech was reprinted in Educating for Liberty: The Best of Imprimis, 1972-2002 (Hillsdale College Press, 2002).

Government, by going outside its proper province, has caused many, if not most, of the problems that vex us.

How much are we to blame for what has happened? Beginning with the traumatic experience of the Great Depression, we the people have turned more and more to government for answers that government has neither the right nor the capacity to provide. Unfortunately, government as an institution always tends to increase in size and power, and so government attempted to provide the answers.

The result is a fourth branch of government added to the traditional three of executive, legislative and judicial: a vast federal bureaucracy that is now being imitated in too many states and too many cities, a bureaucracy of enormous power which determines policy to a greater extent than any of us realize, very possibly to a greater extent than our own elected representatives. And it can’t be removed from office by our votes.

More than anything else, a new political economic mythology, widely believed by too many people, has increased government’s ability to interfere as it does in the marketplace. Profit is a dirty word, blamed for most of our social ills. In the interest of something called consumerism, free enterprise is becoming far less free. Property rights are being reduced, and even eliminated, in the name of environmental protection. It is time that a voice be raised on behalf of the 73 million independent wage earners in this country, pointing out that profit, property rights, and freedom are inseparable, and you cannot have the third unless you continue to be entitled to the first two.

Even many of us who believe in free enterprise have fallen into the habit of saying when something goes wrong: “There ought to be a law.” Sometimes I think there ought to be a law against saying that there ought to be a law.In spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of Tocqueville, a Frenchman who came here 130 years ago. He was attracted by the miracle that was America. Think of it: Our country was only 70 years old and already we had achieved such a miraculous living standard, such productivity and prosperity, that the rest of the world was amazed. So he came here and he looked at everything he could see in our country, trying to find the secret of our success, and then went back and wrote a book about it. Even then, 130 years ago, he saw signs prompting him to warn us that if we weren’t constantly on the guard, we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. He said if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals with government the shepherd.

It all comes down to this basic premise: If you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and, in fact, all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it is gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight.

We should take inventory and see how many things we can do ourselves that we have come to believe only a government can do.

The most dangerous myth is that business can be made to pay a larger share of taxes, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business could make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Passing along their tax costs is the only way businesses can make a profit and stay in operation.

The federal government has used its taxing power to redistribute earnings to achieve a variety of social reforms. Politicians love those indirect business taxes, because it hides the cost of government. During the New Deal days, an undersecretary of the treasury wrote a book in which he said that taxes can serve a higher purpose than just raising revenue. He said they could be an instrument of social and economic control to redistribute wealth and income and to penalize industries and economic groups. We need to put an end to that kind of thinking.

To win this battle against Big Government, we must communicate with each other. We must support the doctor in his fight against socialized medicine, the oil industry in its fight against crippling controls and repressive taxes, and the farmer, who hurts more than most because of government harassment and rule-changing in the middle of the game. All of these issues concern each one of us, regardless of what our trade or profession may be. Corporate America must begin to realize that it has allies in the independent businessmen and women, the shopkeepers, the craftsmen, the farmers and the professions. All these men and women are organized in a great variety of ways, but right now we only talk in our own organizations about our own problems. What we need is a liaison between these organizations to realize how much strength we as a people still have if we will use that strength.

We have had enough of sideline kibitzers telling us the system they themselves have disrupted with their social tinkering can be improved or saved if we will only have more of that tinkering or even government planning and management. They play fast and loose with a system that for 200 years made us the light of the world and the refuge for people all over the world who yearn to breathe free. It is time we recognized that the system, no matter what our problems are, has never failed us once. Every time we have failed the system, usually by lacking faith in it, usually by saying that we have to change and do something else. A Supreme Court Justice has said the time has come, is indeed long overdue, for the wisdom, ingenuity, and resources of American business to be marshaled against those who would destroy it.

What specifically should be done? The first essential for the businessman is to confront the problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management. It has been said that history is the patter of silken slippers descending the stairs and the thunder of hobnail boots coming up. Back through the years we have seen people fleeing the thunder of those boots to seek refuge in this land. Now too many of them have seen the signs, signs that were ignored in their homeland before the end came, appearing here. They wonder if they will have to flee again. But they know there is no place to run to. Will we, before it is too late, use the vitality and the magic of the marketplace to save this way of life, or will we one day face our children, and our children’s children, when they ask us where we were and what we were doing on the day that freedom was lost?

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by Ronald Reagan

2009-03-10T08:45:00.000-07:00

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
by Ronald Reagan

One of the reasons cited for our involvement in World War 2 was the stopping of Nazi Germany who was committing mass murder of Jews, Poles, Slavs, and others whom the Nazis deemed undesirable. An interesting event occurred as the U. S. Forces discovery of the concentration camps and mass graves was being made. General Eisenhower ordered to have the crimes of the Holocaust documented as proof of the Holocaust because he believed there would be a day when there would be those who would attempt to deny it ever happened. Ironic! Eisenhower also ordered the citizens in towns of Nordhausen and Arnstadt, which had these camps in their vicinity, tour the camps and bury the murdered dead. The Holocaust was truly a horrific chapter in the history of the world, and I am thankful for those who fought to bring it to an end in World War 2. But quantitatively and qualitatively the holocaust we have going on in our nation is far worse. It is estimated that 11 million died in the Holocaust--six million Jews and 5 million others. Of course, the exact number of those murdered by Nazi Germany may never be known, but it is likely far shy of the estimated nearly 50 million babies aborted in the United States since 1973![1] I often wonder what the reaction would be if we were made to tour the trash dumpsters of children that have been discarded? Just the thought of it nauseates me!

All of us should be interested in eliminating the evil of abortion from our land forever. When Ronald Reagan was President he authored a significant book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. At the time of its release, it was championed because it was the first book by a sitting President calling the American people to action in eliminating this holocaust in our country. An interesting statement President Reagan made was:

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote, "...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life...[2]

If you follow stories in the areas of population trends, entitlement spending, and the push for illegal immigration, then it paints a disturbing picture. One of the reasons there are those pushing for illegal immigration is to close the population gap created because of the citizens our nation threw away! There are real concerns about our nation having the population required to sustain itself as some 77 million of the baby boom generation goes onto Social Security. In 2005 the percentage of those 65 years and older was estimated to be 20.5 percent; however, by the 2036 that percentage will grow to 37.2 percent of the population.[3] It is estimated that the amount spent on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will climb from 8.4 percent of GPD in 2005 to 18.1 percent in 2050.[4] Another way to look at this--by 2052 it is estimated that all the tax money collected today would be required just to fund these three entitlements alone![5] Some are tempted to say "raise taxes on the rich" as a solution; however, it is estimated that the top 10 percent of income earners already pay 70 percent of all income taxes today.[6] How much more can the government tax before the producers of our nation stop producing?

Also, people need to be aware of the difference between a federal deficit and the federal debt. The Federal debt is the accumulation of Federal deficits (and surpluses) year by year. It is estimated that the federal debt in 2006 was $8.6 trillion dollars and it is growing at an ever-increasing rate. Celebrating a budget surplus in a given year is fine, but one should not be deceived into thinking our country is no longer a debtor nation! As the government continues on a path of spending itself into oblivion, I often wonder if it has occurred to this generation that the main reason cited for abortion is convenience; i.e., irresponsibility. The Central Illinois Right to Life reports:

1 percent of abortions are due to rape or incest,
1 percent are because of fetal abnormalities,
3 percent are to preserve the life of the mother,
95 percent are done as a means of birth control.[7]

What will happen when it becomes inconvenient for tax payers in the future to pay the heavy burden of taxes to support the soon-to-be-elderly baby boom generation? Some think it would be unthinkable that our nation would support the euthanasia of the elderly (another term for murder) to relieve the strain on the tax payers. Oregon and Washington have all ready authorized voluntary euthanasia for those mentally capable of electing it, but one wonders how long these states will put the decision in the hands of those with “Powers of Attorney”?

Question--if our nation is willing to murder the purest, best, sinless, most natural resource for the sake of convenience (or for scientific research in the name of “Embryonic Stem Cell Research”), then how can one be certain it would not be willing to do so on the other side of the "spectrum of life"? I say these words not to indict the baby boom generation, but to motivate that great generation and all generations to rise up and stop this practice once and for all. Our nation would be better served if it invested its money in the rearing of these unexpected children to be productive citizens than permitting potentially law-breaking illegal immigrants.

As long as we are a nation of We the People, make sure the nation hears from you. Be sure to do all that you can to support candidates who are for "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of the born and unborn, of the young and old. How will we be able to stand before God if we have done any less? Remember, "These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him...Hands that shed innocent blood,.." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The Bible tells us that all life is precious in God's eyes and that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3-5). This is clearly seen in that the Bible does not differentiate in terms when referring to a born or unborn child; c.f., Job 3:16; Luke 1:36, 41. The laws and actions of God on behalf of the children in the womb also make it very clear that it is a work of God that we dare not tamper with; c.f., Exodus 21:22-23; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5. If it is precious enough to God that He would send His Son to die for the whole world (John 3:16), then a nation that is not respecting that same life is at enmity with God. May our nation and our leaders wake up and realize that whether these children have been delivered from the mother's womb or are still being formed by God in the womb we will be held accountable for our actions (Proverbs 14:34). My hope is that the lyrics written by Clarence Woolston will be renewed in our nation for both the born and those yet to be born:

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
They are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.[8]

Notes:

[1] "Roe v. Wade: 35 Years of Death and Destruction," National Right to Life, January 22, 2008, http://www.nrlc.org/.

[2] Ronald W. Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, pp. 17-18.

[3] 2008 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html?CFID=56062111&CFTOKEN=34992030

[4] 2008 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html?CFID=56062111&CFTOKEN=34992030

[5] 2008 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html?CFID=56062111&CFTOKEN=34992030

[6] 2008 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html?CFID=56062111&CFTOKEN=34992030

[7] "Why Abortions Are Performed," http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm.

[8] Clarence H. Woolston, "Jesus Loves the Little Children," Praise for the LORD, Nashville, TN: Praise Press, 1992, No. 809.

Do Conservatives Need to Get Beyond Reagan? by Rush

2009-02-09T12:36:00.000-08:00

Do Conservatives Need to Get Beyond Reagan?

Rush Limbaugh launched his radio broadcast into national syndication on August 1, 1988, with 56 radio stations. Twenty years later it is heard on nearly 600 stations by approximately 20 million people each week and is the highest rated national radio talk show in America. Mr. Limbaugh also hosts "The Rush Limbaugh Morning Update," writes "The Limbaugh Letter," and extends his message to the Internet via RushLimbaugh.com. He received the Marconi Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year, given by the National Association of Broadcasters, in 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005. In 1993, he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame and in 1998, into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 4, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of the ninth annual Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner.

THERE ARE ongoing discussions and debates among conservatives about the kind of president Barack Obama will prove to be, and about how they should react to him. But there is a larger and more important debate going on within conservatism—a debate about what conservatism is. Remarkably, we are hearing from a lot of people who are thought to be conservatives that conservatives need to "get beyond Reagan." After all, these people say, "The Reagan era is over." And the liberal media love to print their articles and broadcast their pronouncements to this effect. My response is, well, yes, the Reagan era is over in the sense that it has been 20 years since Reagan was president. But the funny thing is, I never heard the liberals saying that because the era of FDR was over-it ended in 1945-that they needed to "get beyond FDR." They didn't say that 35 years later when Reagan was first elected, or when he was reelected in 1984. They didn't say that when the liberals lost Congress in the 1994 election. Nor did they say it after the 2000 or 2004 elections. Instead, they kept arguing and fighting for the ideas they believe in. And now Mr. Obama is plausibly promising to revive the era of FDR.

So why are some so-called conservatives today arguing that we need to "get beyond Reagan," by which they mean that we need to abandon the ideas that Reagan stood for? To understand the roots of this argument, I think we only need to look back to the years when Reagan first emerged onto the national scene. There was a lot of resentment at that time among many of the elites in the Republican Party because Reagan hadn't gone to the right schools, he didn't come from the right part of the country, he had been an actor rather than a lawyer, he was a bumbling dunce, he was an extremist who was too far outside the mainstream to win, and so on. People have been making these kinds of arguments for a long time. They were saying that conservatives needed to get beyond Reagan even before the Reagan era began. A few of them are the same people. Many of them are new. But what they have in common is that none of them agree with the principles that Reagan stood for. And I would argue that this means that they are not conservatives.

Today the get-beyond-Reagan arguments are often put in so-called pragmatic terms of needing to create blocs of voters who will support the Republican Party. And in order to accomplish this, all that conservatives have to do, these self-proclaimed smart people say,iis embrace the idea of big government, because that's what the American people want and because only so-called big-government conservatives will be able to create blocs of voters by spending money to do them favors. But in answer to this, one has to ask the question-and I'm being a real pragmatist myself here-what's left for government to spend these days? It's already bailing people out right and left with taxpayer money that the government doesn't have. The spigot has been turned on under President Bush. The Obama administration, we can presume, is going to be even more generous in terms of bailouts. But honestly, when we look at auto executives being grilled on TV by liberal members of Congress about their irresponsibility, can we take it seriously? Has anyone ever been as irresponsible with money—and in their case other people's money—than these very same self-righteous members of Congress?

As history has amply demonstrated, down the line the kind of central planning that Mr. Bush has begun and that Mr. Obama plans to escalate isn't going to work. Although it may succeed in increasing the control of government over people's lives—which is how many liberals these days seem to define prosperity—it will fail miserably in restoring economic health to America. So in fact, during a time of economic trouble like this when liberals are in charge of both elected branches of government, conservatives have a golden opportunity to reintroduce to the American people the free market ideas and policies that have made our country the greatest and most prosperous country in human history.

My first point, then, is that there is no pragmatic reason today for conservatives to abandon the ideas of Reagan. It is worth remembering, after all, that despite the warnings of Republican "pragmatists" in the economically bleak 1970s that Reagan was too far outside the mainstream ever to be successful politically, Reagan won the presidency in two landslides-and that in 1994, his party took over the House of Representatives, for the first time in 40 years, using Reagan-like arguments.

But there is a second and more important point to be made in response to the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan. The main idea that animated Reagan wasn't anti-communism or supply side economics. Reagan's main idea was the main idea of the American founding—the idea of individual liberty—and the policies that he supported, both internationally and domestically, grew from that. America was founded on the idea that our individual freedoms derive from God, not from government, and that government should protect those freedoms and never violate them. Reagan argued, and history has shown, that America does best when it is true to its original idea. It does best when its people are left free to work in their individual self-interest—not meant in the sense of being selfish, but in the sense that they are left free to work to improve their own lives and the lives of their families, and for the good of their communities and of the nation at large. The biggest problem with the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan, then, is that the idea of individual liberty will never go out of style as long as America exists. To argue that the Reagan era is over is to argue that the era of freedom is over. And to argue that conservatives should abandon Reagan's principles is to argue that they should stop being conservatives.

There is no such thing, at least in America, as "big-government conservatism." A government that abides by the Constitution and protects our God-given freedoms is by definition limited. Rather than carving out blocs of voters by surrendering their principles, conservatives need to continue to tell the American people as a whole that the ideas of individual liberty and limited government are right and that the policies that come from those ideas work best to produce prosperity. Conservatives don't need to reinvent themselves. They need the courage to be once again who they were.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Subscription free upon request. To learn more, go to https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/subs_new.asp

Portrait of a Mandate

2009-02-05T13:02:00.000-08:00

"I still won" has been the slogan used by the current President, Barack Obama, in attempt to get Republicans to cease their opposition to his agenda by compromising their conservative principles. Perhaps a refresher course on what constitutes a mandate would help.

EXAMPLE #1 of a Mandate (1980 U. S. Presidental Election Reagan vs. Carter)

EXAMPLE #2 of a Mandate (1984 U. S. Presidential Election Reagan vs. Mondale)

Now after considering those two examples, does this look like a mandate?

Ronald Reagan's Record on Life

2009-01-30T11:39:00.000-08:00

The National Right to Life publishes a fact sheet on Presidential records relating to their actions on the Right to Life at http://www.nrlc.org/PresidentialRecords.htm. The following is taken from their fact sheet on Ronald Reagan. Compare this with the one of Bill Clinton. I do not want to even imagine what this fact sheet will look under the progressive abortionist Barack Obama. How one can take steps (including those who voted for them) to kill the most innocent and natural resource from God Almighty is beyond me.

President Reagan supported legislation to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand.

President Reagan adopted the “Mexico City Policy,” which cut off U.S. foreign aid funds to private organizations that performed and promoted abortion overseas.

The Reagan Administration cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) because that agency violated U.S. law by participating in China’s compulsory abortion program.

The Reagan Administration adopted regulations to prohibit federally funded “family planning” clinics from promoting abortion as a method of birth control.

The Reagan Administration blocked the use of federal funds for research using tissue from aborted babies.

The Reagan Administration helped win enactment of the Danforth Amendment which established that federally funded education institutions are not guilty of “sex discrimination” if they refuse to pay for abortions.

President Reagan introduced the topic of fetal pain into public debate.

The Reagan Administration played a key role in enactment of legislation to protect the right to life of handicapped newborns and signed the legislation into law.

President Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day in recognition of the value of human life at all stages.

President Reagan wrote a book entitled Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, in which he made the case against legal abortion and in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

“My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have meaning.” -President Ronald Reagan

Stop the Freedom of Choice Act Petition

2009-01-26T17:59:00.000-08:00

Dear Friend,

I'm writing to let you know about a terrible piece of legislation called "The Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA).

FOCA would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide.

It will eradicate state and federal abortion laws that the majority of Americans support and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

Please read the expert analysis by Americans United for Life (AUL) and sign the Fight FOCA petition at:http://www.fightfoca.com/

Thank you!

“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.” --Ronald Reagan

Federal Government Is Source of Credit Crunch?

2009-01-08T15:53:00.000-08:00

According to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm, the Federal Government spent $451,154,049,950.63 (That's $451 BILLION!) in 2008 to pay the interest on the Federal Debt. That is to fund a debt of $10,635,772,096,222.74 (That's $10 TRILLION!)

And this is just the INTEREST!!!!!!!!!

Note that on the blog is a calculator which shows "We The People's" debt that the government has created for us. Notice the estimated amount per U. S. citizen.

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."--Ronald Reagan

Governmental Help?

2008-12-17T12:08:00.000-08:00

If the auto industry expects that the Federal Government is going to give them a bailout without expecting full cooperation for their global warming ideology, then they are getting ready for a quick reminder... The Federal Government does not consider this money of "We The People" money but their money.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."--Ronald Reagan

Who Said This A Capitalist or Communist?

2008-12-06T18:09:00.000-08:00

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
--Karl Marx, Communist

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan