25 YEARS AGO

Statesman President Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address on January 11, 1989:

REMEMBERING RONALD REAGAN ON HIS BIRTHDAY

February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004:

Sadly, we shall not see his like again.

IS IT TIME TO RETURN TO REAGANONICS?

(Hat tip to Western Hero for the above graphic)
Those on the Left become apoplectic whenever anyone lauds Reaganomics. Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if one doesn't recognize what Reaganomics entailed. The Library of Economics and Liberty also has information, information that is condensed and more reader-friendly.

In any case, consider the Daily Caller video below (with thanks to Mustang for emailing me the link):


A brief comparison of Obamanomics and Reaganomics from the Wall Street Journal, dated August 26, 2011, states in part...

Read the rest at Always On Watch.

25 Years Ago Today

On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch.

President Ronald Reagan's eloquent address to our nation:

OBAMA INVOKES RONALD REAGAN

Desperation just before the State of the Union Address? More revisionist history? Typical Leftist hypocrisy? In the final paragraph, Obama states:

When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.

Is Obama actually promoting American exceptionalism now?

Read the op-ed essay (note byline), and decide for yourself.

Ron Reagan, Jr.

Ron Reagan's recently published book My Father At 100: A Memoir suggests that President Ronald Reagan was afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease while still in office — as early as three years into his first term as President.

What the mainstream media are omitting from their mention of the book is the following, indicating that (1) no conspiracy existed to cover up the President's alleged incapacity to govern and (2) President Reagan likely would have voluntarily left office if he had believed that his thinking processes were compromised by dementia:

"I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else) was aware of his medical condition while he was in office. Had the diagnosis been made in, say 1987, would he have stepped down? I believe he would have...

Read more of the book review in U.S News HERE. In my view, the portion about Ronald Reagan's having brain surgery revealing signs of Alzheimer's in 1989 does not contribute to Ron Reagan's credibility.

Also, please read Michael Reagan's response to his half-brother's book HERE. Not unexpectedly, Michael Reagan, whose book The New Reagan Revolution is due for release on February 6, is speaking out against Ron Reagan and his book.

As far as I can tell right now from the few available excerpts of Ron Reagan's book, the mainstream media are selecting statements out of context from that book so as to denigrate the memory and the accomplishments of President Ronald Reagan. Therefore, I have reserved a library copy of My Father At 100: A Memoir and will read the book for myself. Although I don't like Ron Reagan, Jr., I know of no way to judge what he has written other than to read his book and check his statements against the available facts from other sources. I've also reserved a copy of Michael Reagan's The New Reagan Revolution.

Nightly Newsers Full of Nightly Surprises

I think I might have Swine Flu or something similar. That's why I'm a little behind on posting today. That said, I'll just offer links to posts I've published during the past 24 hours. Here they are:

• Nightly Newsers Full of Nightly Surprises;
  

• Ronald Reagan Statue Dedicated in Statuary Hall;
  

• Uncle Jay Explains the News: June 1, 2009;
  

• Store Owner Fends Off, Feeds Would-Be Robber;
  

• Automobile ‘News’ Gets Personal;
  

• D-Day Memorial Foundation Needs Your Help; and

• LaHood Overhauling Mexican Truck Program.
  

Enjoy!

REAGAN-FOREVER RELEVANT!

"You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

"You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

Hat Tip: Bare Naked Islam

WE VEER LEFT FROM "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM" IF MCCAIN WINS THE NOMINATION...

BECAUSE THEN WE GO FROM A "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" - (WHICH IS MERELY "GERSON-SPEAK" FOR A GOP LIBERAL WHO SUPPORTS SHAMNESTY AND WILDLY INCREASING DOMESTIC SPENDING)...








TO AN OUT-AND-OUT LYING LIBERAL.

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: MCCAIN IS TO THE LEFT OF BUSH.




AND I THINK WE NEED TO GO TO THE RIGHT OF BUSH - NOT TO THE LEFT.



IT'S SIMPLE, REALLY:

I WANT A REAGAN REPUBLICAN.

AND THAT MEANS CONSERVATIVE - PERIOD.

WITHOUT ANY HYPHENS.





I THINK MITT'S THE CLOSEST TO THAT IDEAL.

RONALD REAGAN'S FAREWELL ADDRESS

A friend bought me A Patriot's Handbook awhile back and it is a neat book that compiles patriotic songs, poems, stories and speeches. I checked out the audio version from the library so that my kids and I can listen to it and I'm hoping to have us memorize some of the founding documents.



I was listening to it last night and I heard Reagan's farewell address and I thought it would be neat to post it. The video has the whole address and below are some of my favorite excerpts:

"Well, back in 1980, when I was running for president, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that "the engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come." Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called "radical" was really "right." What they called "dangerous" was just "desperately needed."

And in all of that time 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.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons--and hope for even more progress is bright--but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

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."

MY LINE IN THE SAND

In trying to decide what picture was appropriate for this post the gun toting Ann Coulter sums up my sentiments the best ;-)!! I've been wrestling with my odyssey on who to support for the Republican nomination. I have gotten A LOT of flack from some for my favoring of Rudy.

So last night while preparing for my article to submit to the KC Star I did some research. The following articles sum up my view of of the Republican race in general and my reasons for being close to endorsing Rudy. I think some in the Conservative base have become way too negative and too ideological on single issues. I also am done making apologies for favoring Rudy. You can disagree or disapprove of where I'm coming from but this is where I'm at and where I stand.

As I was reflecting on the dramatic turnaround in Iraq and how Bush is positioned for a rebound I thought about how I had stuck to my guns despite the constant criticism that I was delusional and wrong on Bush and the War. It is pretty awesome to see the turn of events and how it pays to be optimistic and to believe in and stand for what is right despite public sentiment. I will do the same on this issue even if the criticism is from other conservatives.

The Articles:

1) Conservatism's Self-Inflicted Wounds by Greg Alterton
This post describes where I am coming from to a tee!! I could not explain it any better than this. Here are some excerpts:

“When did abortion start dividing people within our own party in this manner that we’re fighting with each other and trying to provoke fights? I see a lot of conservatives fighting with each other, fellow Republicans, with far more vigor than they go after the Democrats. This is outrageous behavior.”

...I commented that American conservatism suffers from the lack of an identifiable consensus leader that can unite us all. Not since Ronald Reagan left office has conservatism produced a leader of national stature that we could all rally behind – and this lack of leadership since Reagan has been one of the great failings of this generation of conservatives. Leaderless, conservatism has deteriorated back to base instincts: eccentricity, paranoia, and nostalgia (to borrow an observation made by authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their generally positive history of contemporary American conservatism, The Right Nation). Under Reagan, conservatism was forward looking, positive, pro-active, visionary, out-reaching, appealing, unifying, and rational. Conservatism since Reagan has become stuck-on-stupid, negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive. We keep looking for the next Reagan because conservatism hasn’t been as appealing or as victorious as it was in the Reagan era. Until we have a leader who can turn conservatism around to make it a positive force in American politics, I’m afraid that “appealing to the base” (meaning, as I’m using the term, appealing to the “base nature” of conservatism today) is a recipe for electoral disaster.

I would add that many conservatives have become overly idealistic, and consequently have become unrealistic about the progress of their issues. Many pro-life voters, as an example, reflect this unrealistic perspective on the politics of abortion. Here’s the reality: It’s been almost 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Over that time we’ve had almost 19 years and counting of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43), 12 years of Republican majorities in the House, and 16 years of Republican majorities in the Senate. And what do we have to show in terms of substantive progress on the abortion issue for all of that political advantage? The only issue that has passed Congress is the partial-birth abortion ban, but even that had to be affirmed by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.

Getting down to what this all means in the campaign for the nomination…Rudy’s pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the courts is about as good as it’s going to get for the pro-life movement. Even Reagan was spotty on his appointments to the Supreme Court, which means that Rudy’s appointments might actually be better for the pro-life issue than Reagan’s were (heresy, I know). And while GW Bush has been strongly pro-life, and the GOP had a majority in the Senate for four years of his Administration, some of Bush’s more solidly conservative judicial nominations never even came to a vote. So, to threaten to sit out the election if “pro-choice” Rudy Giuliani is nominated, or to hold the party, the nation, and every other issue of importance in the election hostage to the single issue of abortion, is unrealistic, naive, and just wrong-headed.

Once again I think of the issue of immigration and how it divided Conservatives. People like Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin were exactly what Alterton describes Conservatives being since Reagan, "...negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive." My fear is these Conservatives seem to be the loudest, I just hope they aren't the majority.

2) Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan by Steven Thomma
Again, Thomma makes some excellent points and expresses some of the frustration I feel. As Mike has said, some initially saw Reagan as the "lesser of 2 evils". Obviously, in hindsight those people now look ridiculous. Here is Thomma's opening paragraph:

They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.

3) What's a "Social Conservative"? by Greg Alterton
An excerpt:

So, why am I, a social conservative, supporting Rudy Giuliani for President? To address it briefly:

* Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race. His record as mayor shows that he governed with conservative principles, and that he is willing and quite able to fight for those principles, successfully so. The fact that he did this in an extremely liberal city such as New York inclines me to believe that he’s up to the task to lead this nation.
* I support Rudy Giuliani because, while many people have fallen asleep on this point, we’re still a nation at war, working here and abroad to assure America’s security against Islamist terrorists. Rudy Giuliani clearly understands this, and is, in my opinion, the only one who can refocus the nation’s resolve on this issue.
* Finally, I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me, the most important “traditional value” in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House. In this, I believe that social conservatism should, ultimately, be pragmatic.

On a personal note: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 35 years. Thirty-five years ago, in college, I came to Christ, expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross, so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena I work in.

4) Why the Right Should Support Giuliani by Deroy Murdock
Here are some excerpts:

The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.

This “Rudyphobia” ignores Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire, socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

Some have mentioned that we shouldn't support Rudy because too many Conservatives have threatened not to vote for him in the general election. I have taken that into account but I don't see why I should shun someone who I think would make the best president just because some are threatening to throw negative temper tantrums if they don't get their way.

THIS DATE IN HISTORY: THE LEFT-WING COLLECTIVISTS WHO BUILT THE BERLIN WALL, CLOSED THE BORDER IN BETWEEN EAST AND WEST BERLIN

AUGUST 13, 1961:

As the Cold War continued, many East Germans began leaving East Germany for the West. East Germany closed the borders between East and West Germany in 1952, but did not seal off West Berlin; because there was freedom of movement between West Berlin and West Germany, Easterners could use the city as a transit point to the West. It was in large part to stop this drain that the East German government built the Berlin Wall, thus physically closing off West Berlin from East Germany, on August 13, 1961.

The Soviet "progressives" didn't stop with walls:

Seventeen years after German reunification, archivists have found the first written proof that East German border guards were ordered to shoot to kill at anyone trying to escape to West Germany, including women and children.

The seven-page order, dated Oct. 1, 1973, was discovered last week in the regional archive office in the eastern German city of Magdeburg. Though it is unsigned, it shows that the Ministry for State Security, known as the Stasi, had told guards that they must “stop or liquidate” anyone trying to cross the border.

“Do not hesitate to use your firearm, not even when the border is breached in the company of women and children, which is a tactic the traitors have often used,” the document said.

The discovery of the written order, which has stunned politicians here across the political spectrum, comes just before the 46th anniversary of the erection of the Berlin Wall, which divided the city and became the symbol of the cold war. It was erected on Aug. 13, 1961, and remained for 28 years until it was toppled on Nov. 9, 1989, paving the way for the reunification of the city and the two Germanies.

ALL ideologies and political movements - whether nativistic or "progressive" - that can only operate from compulsion and coercion under threat of violence and death are all EVIL.

This is another thing the jihadists have in common with the communists.

There's another lesson in the history of this date: We should always remember that what brought the wall down wasn't detente or containment - it wasn't appeasement or accommodation; it was the courageously confrontational anti-totalitarian foreign policy of Reagan. Reagan called the commies what they were - an evil empire, and he sought to undermine them everywhere.

We need MORE of that kind of honesty and courage today.

Walls to keep people locked-in never ever created utopia, not anywhere or anytime.

And appeasement never won a war or liberated a single human soul.

We need to tear down those walls. Just like Reagan said.

We need to confront today's evil empire - the islamo-fascists of al Qaeda and Iran.

There's only one thing the thugs of the Soviet Union and the thugs of al Qaeda and Iran understand. IOW: No more hudnas.

More here.

THE BOTTOM-LINE ON RUDY'S DAUGHTER, OBAMA AND PATTI DAVIS - (REAGAN'S DAUGHTER)

The MSM is trying to do to Rudy what they tried to do to Reagan: turn typically rebellious children into weapons of political sabotage.

By reporting with BLARING HEADLINES that his daughter supports Obama. (More here.) Sheesh.

IT'S UTTER BS.

Patti Davis did not diminish Reagan as a man or as a politician or a statesman.

Neither will Rudy's daughter. Or his Wife. Or his ex-wives.

Nor can their BS about Jeri Thompson diminish Fred. VANITY FAIR is trying to hurt Fred and conservatism, but most people who don't have BDS can see it for what it is.

All it proves is that the Left-wing dominated/pro-Democrat MSM will stoop to anything: leaking national secrets, suppressing improving news from Iraq, hiding non-PC facts, AND SMEARING CANDIDATES WIVES.

They are scum.

TWO OF MY FAVORITE MEN--FRED THOMPSON & PETER ROBINSON

This past week was the 20th anniversary of Reagan's awe-inspiring "Tear Down This Wall" speech. Mike and others posted the video of the speech. I was reminded of the person who wrote that speech, Peter Robinson. Peter Robinson wrote my 2nd favorite book on Reagan after Peggy Noonan's, entitled, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.

So, when I saw this interview of Fred Thompson by Peter Robinson at Patrick's blog I was just ecstatic. What an awesome find! The interview is long but take the time to watch it. I have to admit the more I see of Fred Thompson the more I like him. At first I wasn't sure how much I liked him or how viable he was going to be. Both factors have changed for me. When you see Mary Matalin and Liz Cheney signing on as advisers I think the viability question is going by the wayside.

Also, Christian conservatives like myself are just waiting for him to declare, so they can throw their support behind him. I had a politically-connected friend who said at one time that she thought Fred didn't have a prayer at getting the nomination. I haven't heard her say otherwise but I would bet that she's changed her mind.

A TIME FOR CHOOSING

It is astonishing how these words seem to be even more relevant today, over 40 years after Reagan made this speech for Barry Goldwater. You will have goosebumps as you watch this and read the words to it. Is there any wonder so many of us loved and adored this man?

Here are the words to the part of the speech that is on the video:

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

To read the entire speech go here, to listen go here.