What happened was Ronald Wilson Blithering Reagan. Obviously Reagan did not suddenly descend out of the clouds in 1980. He had been the cherished candidate of the conservative movement, its chosen route to power, ever since Goldwater’s defeat. Goldwater was too blunt and candid, too much an unhandleable Real Person. What was needed was a lovable, manipulable icon. Moreover, Goldwater’s principles were too hard-edged: he was way too much a domestic libertarian, and he was too much an eager warmonger. Both his libertarianism and his passion for nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union scared the bejesus out of the American masses, as well as the more astute leadership of the conservative movement.
A reconstituted conservative movement would have to drop any libertarian ideology or concrete policies, except to provide a woolly and comfortable mood for suitably gaseous anti-government rhetoric and an improved foreign policy that would make sure that many more billions would go into the military-industrial complex, to step up global pressure against Communism, but avoiding an actual nuclear war. This last point was important: As much as they enjoy the role of the bully, neither the Establishment nor the American people want to risk nuclear war, which might, after all, blow them up as well. Once again, Ronnie Reagan looked like the Answer.
Two important new ingredients entered into, and helped reshape, the conservative movement during the mid 1970’s. One was the emergence of a small but vocal and politically powerful group of neo-conservatives (neocons), who were able, in a remarkably short time, to seize control of the think tanks, the opinion-molding institutions, and finally the politics, of the conservative movement. As ex-liberals, the neocons were greeted as important new converts from the enemy. More importantly, as ex-Trotskyites, the neocons were veteran politicos and organizers, schooled in Marxian cadre organizing and in manipulating the levers of power. They were shrewdly eager to place their own people in crucial opinion molding and money-raising positions, and in ousting those not willing to submit to the neocon program. Understanding the importance of financial support, the neocons knew how to sucker Old Right businessmen into giving them the monetary levers at their numerous foundations and think tanks. In contrast to free-market economists, for example, the neocons were eager to manipulate patriotic symbols and ethical doctrines, doing the microequivalent of Reagan and Bush’s wrapping themselves in the American Flag. Wrapping themselves, also, in such patriotic symbols as The Framers and the Constitution, as well as Family Values, the neocons were easily able to outflank free-market types and keep them narrowly confined to technical economic issues. In short the neocons were easily able to seize the moral and patriotic “high ground.”
The only group willing and able to challenge the neocons on their own moralizing on philosophic turf was, of course, the tiny handful of libertarians; and outright moral libertarianism, with its opposition to statism, theocracy, and foreign war, could never hope to get to first base with conservative businessmen, who, even at the best of times during the Old Right era, had never been happy about individual personal liberty, (e.g. allowing prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, or drugs) or with the libertarians’ individualism and conspicuous lack of piety toward the Pentagon, or toward the precious symbol of the Nation-State, the US flag.
The neocons were (and remain today) New Dealers, as they frankly describe themselves, remarkably without raising any conservative eyebrows. They are what used to be called, in more precise ideological days, “extreme right-wing Social Democrats.” In other words, they are still Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Humphrey Democrats. Their objective, as they moved (partially) into the Republican Party and the conservative movement, was to reshape it to become, with minor changes, a Roosevelt-Truman-etc. movement; that is, a liberal movement shorn of the dread “L” word and of post-McGovern liberalism. To verify this point all we have to do is note how many times Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, et al., properly reviled by conservatives while they were alive, are now lauded, even canonized, by the current neocon-run movement, from Ronnie Reagan on down. And no one calls them on this Orwellian revision of conservative movement history.
As statists-to-the-core the neocons had no problem taking the lead in crusades to restrict individual liberties, whether it be in the name of rooting out “subversives,” or of inculcating broadly religious (“Judeo-Christian”) or moral values. They were happy to form a cozy alliance with the Moral Majority, the mass of fundamentalists who entered the arena of conservative politics in the mid-1970s. The fundamentalists were goaded out of their quietist millenarian dreams (e.g., the imminent approach of Armageddon) and into conservative political action by the accumulation of moral permissivism in American life. The legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade was undoubtedly the trigger, but this decision came on top of a cumulative effect of the sexual revolution, the militant homosexual movement “out of the closet” and into the streets, the spread of pornography, and the visible decay of the public school system. The entry of the Moral Majority transformed American politics, not the least by furnishing the elite cadre of neocons with a mass base to guide and manipulate.
In economic matter, the neocons showed no more love of liberty, though this is obscured by the fact that the neocons wish to trim the welfare state of its post-Sixties excrescences, particularly since these were largely designed to aid black people. What the neocons want is a smaller, more “efficient” welfare state, within which bounds they would graciously allow the market to operate. The market is acceptable as a narrow instrumental device; their view of private property and the free market is essentially identical to Gorbachev’s in the Soviet Union.
Why did the Right permit itself to be bamboozled by the neocons? Largely because the conservatives had been inexorably drifting Stateward in the same manner. In response to the crushing defeat of Goldwater, the Right had become ever less libertarian and less principled, and ever more attuned to the “responsibilities” and moderations of Power. It is a far cry from three decades ago when Bill Buckley used to say that he too is an “anarchist” but that we have to put off all thoughts of liberty until the “international Communist conspiracy” is crushed. Those old Chodorovian libertarian days are long gone, and so is National Review as any haven for libertarian ideas. War mongering, militarism, theocracy, and limited “free” markets – this is really what Buckleyism amounted to by the late 1970s.
The burgeoning neocons were able to confuse and addle the Democratic Party by breaking with the Carter Administration, at the same time militantly and successfully pressuring it from within. The neocons formed two noisy front groups, the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger. By means of these two interlocking groups and their unusual access to influential media, the neocons were able to pressure the Carter Administration into breaking the détente with Russia over the Afghanistan imbroglio and influencing Carter to get rid of the dove Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State and to put foreign policy power into the hands of the Polish émigré hawk and Rockefeller Trilateralist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the meantime, the neocons pushed the hysterically hawkish CIA “B” Team report, wailing about alleged Soviet nuclear superiority, which in turn paved the way for the vast gift of spending handed to the military-industrial complex by the incoming Regan Administration. The Afghanistan and “B” Team hysterias, added to the humiliation by the Ayatollah, managed not only to kill off the bedeviled Carter Administration, but also to put the boots to non-intervention and to prepare the nation for a scrapping of the “post-Vietnam syndrome” and a return to the warmongering of the pre-Vietnam Era.
The Reagan candidacy of 1980 was brilliantly designed to weld a coalition providing the public’s instinctive anti-government mood with sweeping, but wholly nonspecific, libertarian rhetoric, as a convenient cover for the diametrically opposite policies designed to satisfy the savvy and politically effective members of that coalition: the neocons, the Buckleyite cons, the Moral Majority, the Rockefellers, the military-industrial complex, and the various Establishment special interests always clustering at the political trough.
[….]
Has the Reagan Administration done nothing good in its eight ghastly years on earth, you might ask? Yes, it has done one good thing; it has repealed the despotic 55-mile-per-hour highway speed limit. And that is it.
As the Gipper, at bloody long last, goes riding off into the sunset, he leaves us with a hideous legacy. He has succeeded in destroying the libertarian public mood of the late 1970’s, and replaced it with fatuous and menacing patriotic symbols of the Nation-State, especially The Flag, which he first whooped up in his vacuous reelection campaign in 1984, aided by the unfortunate coincidence of the Olympics being held at Los Angeles. (Who will soon forget the raucous baying of the chauvinist mobs: “USA! USA!” every time some American came in third in some petty event?) He has succeeded in corrupting libertarian and free-market intellectuals and institutions, although in Ronnie’s defense it must be noted that the fault lies with the corrupted and not with the corrupter.
It is generally agreed by political analysts that the ideological mood of the public, after eight years of Reaganism, is in support of economic liberalism (that is, an expanded welfare state), and social conservatism (that is, the suppression of civil liberties and the theocratic outlawing of immoral behavior). And, on foreign policy, of course, they stand for militaristic chauvinism. After eight years of Ronnie, the mood of the American masses is to expand the goodies of the welfare-warfare state (though not to increase taxes to pay for these goodies), to swagger abroad and be very tough with nations that can’t fight back, and to crack down on the liberties of groups they don’t like or whose values or culture they disagree with.
It is a decidedly unlovely and unlibertarian wasteland, this picture of America 1989, and who do we have to thank for it? Several groups: the neocons who organized it; the vested interests and the Power Elite who run it; the libertarians and free marketeers who sold out for it; and above all, the universally beloved Ronald Wilson Reagan, Who Made It Possible.
As he rides off into retirement, glowing with the love of the American public, leaving his odious legacy behind, one wonders what this hallowed dimwit might possibly do in retirement that could be at all worthy of the rest of his political career. What very last triumph are we supposed to “win for the Gipper”?
He has tipped his hand: I have just read that as soon as he retires, the Gipper will go on a banquet tour on behalf of the repeal of the 22nd (“Anti-Third Term”) Amendment – the one decent thing the Republicans have accomplished. In the last four decades. The 22nd Amendment was a well-deserved retrospective slap at FDR. It is typical of the depths to which the GOP has fallen in the last few years that Republicans have been actually muttering about joining the effort to repeal this amendment. If they are successful, then Ronald Reagan might be elected again, and reelected well into the 21st century.
In our age of High Tech, I’m sure that his mere physical death could easily have been overcome by his handlers and media mavens. Ronald Reagan will be suitably mummified, trotted out in front of a giant American flag, and some puppet master would have gotten him to give his winsome headshake and some ventriloquist would have imitated the golden tones: “We-e-ell…” (Why not? After all, the living reality of the last four years has not been a helluva lot different.)
Perhaps, after all, Ronald Reagan and almost all the rest of us will finally get our fondest wish: the election forever and ever of the mummified con King Ronnie.
Tag: Ronald Reagan
The Truth about President Ronald Reagan
As you know, this is the 100’th birthday of our Nation’s 40’th President.
But I believe it is important to know, what he really did, while he was in office. The Progressive Blog, Think Progress, lists the things that Reagan did while he was in office. These are the ones that I, as a Paleo-Con care about — :
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Now these here, are things that Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter, and were, of course, by the progressives, blamed on Reagan:
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980?s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
Which of course, is a liberal talking point. This was actually caused by the raising of taxes under Carter and because of the slump in the economy, caused by inflation; which again, was caused by Democrat’s spending.
Another talking point:
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
Well, that might have to do with the fact that President Reagan thought Abortion was murder; however, he knew that it was not the role of the Federal Government to stop abortion — but rather the State’s role. This is because he was a Federalist. Not only that — but — do the liberals know the concept of a campaign promise or saying stuff to get elected? Funny, Obama did the very same things, when he was running. But that’s okay — because he is a liberal! 🙄
Also, The American Conservative’s blog @TAC lists some remembrances:
Pat Buchanan – “We Shall Not See His Like Again”
When America began to tear herself apart over morality, race, and Vietnam in the 1960s, the old certitudes he articulated and the old virtues he personified held a magnetic attraction for a people bewildered by what was happening to their country. When he spoke, he took us to a higher ground, above petty and partisan squabbles and divisions, where we could dream and be one people again.
Doug Bandow — “American Realist”
Reagan passionately believed in the importance of ideas and husbanded rather than squandered America’s credibility. When Ronald Reagan left office the U.S. truly did stand tall, a far cry from its status today as an isolated, distrusted giant. President Reagan likely would have been horrified: the U.S. initiating war on a lie and then finding itself caught in an unnecessary guerrilla war that has made the West less secure and America more hated by more people than at any point in its history.
Daniel McCarthy — “Getting Reagan Right”
The Reagan I Knew could just as fairly have been called The Reagan I Didn’t Know, for after a 40-year friendship, Buckley suddenly realized he had misjudged the man. At National Review’s 30th-anniversay gala in 1985, he toasted the then-president as the consummate cold warrior: “What I said in as many words, dressed up for the party, was that Reagan would, if he had to, pull the nuclear trigger,” writes Buckley. “Twenty years after saying that, in the most exalted circumstance, in the presence of the man I was talking about, I changed my mind.”Richard Gamble — “How Right Was Reagan?”
Reagan’s speeches abounded with themes that were anything but conservative. He aligned the Republican crusader more closely with America’s expansive liberal temperament. In particular, his brand of evangelical Christianity, combined with fragments of Puritanism, enlightenment optimism, and romantic liberalism, set Reagan apart in key ways from historic conservatism.
Also, here is Jack Hunter’s video on Reagan:
Jack Hunter, as always — is spot on.
So, with Reagan, it was a mixed bag. As the comments section over at @TAC says:
A great actor in his greatest role. On balance,during his tenure, taxes increased,inflation increased,government employment increased,the debt increased,the power of government increased yet he made you feel good about it. He “talked the talk” but didn’t “walk the walk.” As to the last few years of his 2nd Administration,I think he was in a different world. Yet, all in all,you couldn’t help like the guy and the way he made you feel proud to be an American.
However, for the record; I think it is important to note, what really caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire — It sure was not Ronald Reagan. I mean, the man gave a speech in free Germany and automatically, Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Which, of course, is foolishness. Reagan no more brought down that Soviet Empire, than George W. Bush defeated Al-Qaeda.
While I did admire Ron Reagan for his speaking ability and his ability to lead; as a Paleo-Conservative or as I like call it — a real Conservative — I will say, Reagan was by no means perfect.
—
Post updated to reflect differences between legit complaints with Reagan and liberal talking points.
Update: As Always Ed Morrissey offers a “Rose Colored Glasses” version of the history of Reagan. ....and as usual the commenters over there are stupidly comparing that feckless train wreak of a media whore to President Reagan; which is sick, if you ask me. 🙄
A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
He would have been 99.
What a great President, What a great man… They just do not build ’em like that anymore.
Rest in peace gipper, you earned it.
(H/T to Ace for the Reminder)
Action Alert!: A Baptist Church has a fire, has no insurance
This an action alert for all Christians and Conservatives alike. There is a Baptist Church tonight without a building to call their own. I received this information via e-mail. The pictures are a bit small; but I think everyone should get the message.
It seems that a Baptist Church, that I learned of from Chuck Baldwin‘s website, has suffered a horrible fire.
From the e-mail:
Proverbs 17:17 A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
The evening of June 30, 2009, the Gateway Anabaptist Church building sustained an electrical fire rendering the complete loss of the contents and use of the current building, but no loss of any lives. Praise the Lord! Firefighters were able to contain the flames to the second floor, but water damaged all other contents – including, tracts, Bibles, books, printers, furniture….
The water-logged pews were taken out immediately and “air-dried” to use for services outside under the “tabernacle”. We will meet here until weather forces us to a rented facility.
As God provides the funds, we will be rebuilding on the same property. God has led us into a building program. We have always stated that we could use more room to facilitate our church family and all the church and printing ministries. Our old facility auditorium was a mere 29’ x 30’ but we hope to build a new full two story building 35’ x 50’ on a concrete pour, on the back corner of our property. We estimate it will cost near $125,000 and in four weeks we have raised $10,300 in gifts so far. Once the new building is done we will then level the old building to make more parking. So, we totally trust God, by faith, to give us a miracle. We know the task is immense, but God is bigger than this “bump in the road”. The enemy meant it for evil, …but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Genesis 50:20
Here are the pictures:
Pastor Dan looking at the Damage
Click to make this photo bigger
However, these people refuse to quit. They are faithful to his word and will not allow Satan to destroy, what God has Created:
The Church Pastor, Pastor Dan Hardin Leading Worship
The Congregation of Gateway Anabaptist Church meeting under a tent! They WILL NOT QUIT!
Click those two pictures to make them bigger.
Please note, this Church did not have insurance. Pastor Dan does not believe in registering his Church with the state, because this, he cannot get insurance. So, this Church is depending on God (and possibly his people!) to get them back on tract.
If you would like to help this Church, please send a Check or Money Order to: (Sorry, no PayPal!)
Gateway Anabaptist Church
6146 E Dunbar Rd
Monroe, Michigan 48161
313-703-8536
Pastor Dan Hardin 734-777-6676
Contact Pastor Dan for any information..
Please, DO NOT send any money to me! I have no way of getting it to Pastor Dan! Send anything and everything to Pastor Dan via the Church Address Directly! Thank you!
Update: Here is the Article about the fire in the Monroe News.
The Southern Avenger Says “Obama and Cheney Make Us Less Safe”
In the ongoing debate between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney on torture, former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer points out how both leaders’ refusal to address U.S. interventionism as the primary catalyst for terrorism makes us all “less safe.”
The Southern Avenger says “Just Say No” to Government
When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was attacked by Republican state leaders for not accepting federal stimulus dollars, it was worth pointing out the utter uselessness of GOP politicians who refuse to follow through on their conservative rhetoric.
The Southern Avenger on “Lindsey Graham Republicans”
When Lindsey Graham denounced Ron Paul-style libertarianism and advocated for George W. Bush-style neoconservatism during a speech at the South Carolina Republican Convention, it was worth pointing out that Graham’s suggested GOP path is the road to nowhere.
The Southern Avenger says “Partisans Make Us Less Safe”
How support for both “financial security” and “national security” reveal partisan hypocrisy and make us less safe.
The Southern Avenger on “Ron Paul Republicans”
While the GOP establishment continues to debate how the party lost its way, Republicans should consider the best path out of the wilderness – by following the one man who has always remained loyal to his party’s conservative roots.
The Southern Avenger on “Steadfast Sanford”
When hundreds of protesters showed up at the South Carolina statehouse to protest Gov. Mark Sanford’s refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus, it was worth noting how Sanford doesn’t represent economic disaster – but perhaps the only chance we’ve got.
The Article referenced in this Video is found here
An Interesting Movie
I post this because I believe that it is interesting. Alex Jones has always struck me as a kook. Someone amongst the “Tin Foil Hat” crowd. However, it is something interesting to watch.
Enjoy…
What do you think? Do you think that there is any truth to this?
Technorati Tags: 9/11 ,Afghanistan ,America ,Ann Coulter ,Announcements ,Automotive Bailouts ,Autos ,Bailouts ,Banking Crisis ,Banks ,Barack Obama ,Bias ,Biden ,Bill Clinton ,Blagojevich ,Blagojevich Scandal ,Blogs ,Bob Barr ,Borders ,Bush ,Bush Administration ,Business ,CNN ,Canada ,Capitalism ,Celebrity ,Cheney ,Chris Matthews ,Christ ,Christanity ,Chrysler ,Chuck Baldwin ,Church ,Comedy ,Commodities ,Communist ,Congress ,Conservatism ,Conservative ,Conservatives ,Constitution ,Constitutionalists ,Corruption ,Democrat ,Democrats ,Detroit ,Economy ,Ed Morrissey ,Editorial ,Edwards ,Election ’08 ,Election 2008 ,Family ,Federal Reserve Bank ,First Admendment ,Fitna ,Ford ,Fox News ,Freedom of Speech ,Fun ,Fundraising ,Funny ,G.M. ,Gaza ,Global Warming ,Globalism ,Gold Prices ,Government ,Guantanamo Bay ,Guns ,Hillary ,Hillary Clinton ,History ,Holiday ,Holland ,Housing Crisis ,Huckabee ,Humor ,Identity Politics ,Idiots ,In Memory ,Internet ,Iran ,Iraq ,Islam ,Israel ,Jerusalem ,Jewish ,Jews ,Jobs ,Joe Biden ,Joe Wurzelbacher ,John Edwards ,John Gibson ,John Kerry ,John McCain ,Judaism ,Keith Olbermann ,Kwame Kilpatrick ,Labor ,Laura Ingraham ,Law ,Lebanon ,Lew Rockwell ,Liberal ,Liberals ,Libertarian ,Libertarian Party ,Local ,MSNBC ,Martin Luther King Jr. ,McCain ,Media ,Memorial Day ,Men ,Michael Savage ,Michelle Malkin ,Michigan ,Middle East ,Mike Huckabee ,Military ,Misc ,Mitt Romney ,Money ,MoonBat ,Moonbats ,Muslim ,NAFTA ,NBC ,National Review ,Nationalism ,Neo-Conservatives ,Netroots ,New York ,New York Post ,New York Times ,News ,North Korea ,Nukes ,Obama ,Obama Administration ,Oil Companies ,Oil Prices ,Olympics ,Open Thread ,Open Trackback ,Opinion ,Pakistan ,Paleo-Conservatives ,Palestine ,Platinum Prices ,Police State ,Political Cartoons ,Political Correctness ,Politically Incorrect ,Politics ,Polls ,Presidential Debates ,Privacy ,Progressive Talk Radio ,RIP ,Race Baiting ,Rachel Maddow ,Radio ,Ralph Nader ,Rants ,Religion ,Republican ,Republican Party ,Republicans ,Rest In Peace ,Rick Warren ,Romney ,Ron Paul ,Ronald Reagan ,Rudy Giuliani ,Rush Limbaugh ,Russia ,Russia News ,Sarah Palin ,Schools ,Second Amendment ,Short takes ,Silver Prices ,Site News ,Snow ,Social Security ,Socialism ,Sons ,Space ,Stock Market ,Stocks ,Stupidity ,Sub-Prime Loans ,Support Our Troops ,Sy Hesh ,Syria ,Taliban ,Talk Radio ,Taxes ,Tazers ,Technology ,Terrorism ,Thanksgiving ,Time Magazine ,Todd Harris ,U.A.W. ,Uncategorized ,Unions ,Video ,WMD’s ,WTF? ,Wall Street ,Wall Street Crisis ,War ,War on Terrorism ,Washington DC ,Washington Post ,Washington Times ,Waste ,Wealth ,Weather ,Web 2.0 ,White House ,Whites ,Women ,World News ,World Politics ,Youtube ,assholes ,blacks ,blogging ,chicago ,communism ,constitution party ,cool stuff ,crime ,deportation ,economics ,fascism ,foreign oil ,healthcare ,illegal immigration ,immigration ,justice ,life ,lolcats ,mexico ,nra ,oil ,open borders ,racism ,relationships ,senate ,twitter ,vote ,voting ,writing
An Interesting Video
Okay, I’d like some feedback on this video here. (H/T to this guy)
Not sure what to think…. Opinions Please.
The only part I really disagreed with is, the part about a Republican style of Government. I do not believe that it was referring to the modern day Republican Party, But rather was referring to a Republic style of Government and not the actual party itself. This would be in contrast to British Monarchy or a, dare I say it? A Socialist Democracy. 😀
Again, feedback, Please, comment!
(Via Freedoms Phoenix)
A New Parody “Barry’s Farm”
Here’s the Original Song:
Update: It seems that some Fascist Socialist Liberal twit keeps going around getting my video yanked. No biggie, if they yank it. I will find it elsewhere and put it up. This is America and not fascist Germany and I have the RIGHT to express my opinions about the President and his fascist polices. You liberals don’t like it? TOUGH SHIT! 😡
History about the song and concert
New Lyrics:
Barry’s Farm
(Sung to the tune of Maggie’s Farm by Bob Dylan)
Written by Paleo Pat
I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
Well, I wake up in the morning,
Fold my hands and pray that I might keep my gain.
I got a bill full of Taxes
That are drivin’ me insane.
It’s a shame the way he makes me tip the whore.
Naw, I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
I ain’t gonna work under Barry’s Law’s no more.
I ain’t gonna work under Barry’s Law’s no more.
Well, he hands you a Dollar,
Taxes you a dime,
Looks at you with a grin
While robbin’ you fuckin’ Blind,
Then he taxes you every time you open the door.
I ain’t gonna work under Barry’s Laws no more.
I ain’t gonna be a slave for Barry’s Government no more.
No, I ain’t be a Slave for Barry’s Government no more.
Well, he puts a Tax Bill
in your face just for kicks.
His White House
It is made out of Bricks.
The Secret Service stands around his door.
Ah, I ain’t gonna be a slave for Barry’s Government no more.
I ain’t gonna work for Barry’s Bitch no more.
No, I ain’t gonna work for Barry’s Bitch no more.
Well, she talks to all the people
About Equality and Race and Law.
All the while the workin’ people
Are payin’ for other peoples bad calls
She’s a lying thief, but she says her honesty stands tall.
Naw, I ain’t gonna work for Barry’s Bitch no more.
I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
Well, I try my best
To do the best I can,
But everybody wants you
To pay thier bills for them.
They eat steak while you slave and I just get bored.
I ain’t gonna work on Barry’s farm no more.
Video: America’s War on Common Sense
An excellent video:
(Source: Taki’s Magazine)
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, L.O.M.A., Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
The Automotive Bailouts: The Other Side of the Story
I have been sitting here, trying to keep out of this. But I have sat and looked at the Republican and Neo–Conservative Spin on this Story and I’m sick of it. 😡
So, I am giving you, the other side of the story, from the horses mouth; without commentary from me.
I did not ask that you agree, I simply ask that you listen and hear this man out. Now I am almost sure, that the Blogs, that I have linked to, will remove my trackback, like the Neo-Con Fascists that they are. I mean, it is all about controlling the message with those guys. 🙄
Here we go:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Media Q & A:
Media Q & A Part 2:
Media Q & A Part 3:
There you have it. The other side of the story. You decide.
(Source UAW.ORG)
Alfonzo on The “Declaration of Dependence”
An Excellent Video:
Now, towards of the end of this. He gets off into the weeds about the Unions. I’ll give him a pass on it. Because some of the stuff he says, I kind agree with. But he went overboard with the “They should gotten out from under them years ago…” I disgree with that crap. But the rest of the video is right on point.
Of course, if I was a real butt hole, I could say if it weren’t for the Democrats, his black ass would not have half the freedom that he has now. But to counter that, If it were not for Abe Lincoln, he would be still in chains. So, it evens out. 😀
Still I wish there were more black people, like Zo here who believed this way. But unfortunately most of them got sucked into that stupid socialist identity politics crap. Thanks to tools like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Good show Zo, as always man. 😀
Thank You for your support
The Following was made by me. It is my feelings towards those who opposed and still oppose the help that the Detroit Auto Industry needs. It might cost me readers, but it is how I feel.
I declare this photo PUBLIC DOMAIN. Feel free to copy it and post it to your Blogs.
Thank you for your support
Update: I posted this for one reason and one reason alone, Washington D.C. will hand over 4 BILLION dollars to Wall Street banks and not even flinch, but when Detroit needs help, they are like “You need a plan.” I am not saying that the companies are not at fault. But it just strikes me as pretty damned funny that Wall St. Gets that help and Detroit gets told to go fuck themselves, in essence. So, Yeah, I’m a little pissed off and a bit jaded at this point. Can’t you tell??!
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Pink Flamingo – WordPress, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady’s World, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D’ITALIA, L.O.M.A., Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Let’s say thanks to our troops
You might notice the new thingy on the left there, that says “Let’s say thanks to our troops!” Well, what that is about is this here. Everyday our American Military serves this Country Faithfully. Right now, we have soldiers serving in two wars. Not matter what you feelings about the events leading up to Iraq, or the fact that we’re even there; one thing that cannot be debated, argued or even dismissed, is the fact that our United States Military is the best, the bravest and the strongest. It is also a fact that they are doing the jobs, that the rest of us will not or cannot do…. and for this the fine men and women serving deserve our praise, honor and respect. Not to be ignored, there are also brave men and women fighting a war, against extremists in Afghanistan, in a country that is increasingly hostile to our presence.
Seeing all of this, I believe that some respect is due. So, I ask you, nicely, to click on the widget on the left and send a nice message to our Military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you run a Blog and would like to run this widget, check out the website below:
(Thanks Sister Toldjah)
The Far Right Cries About Retreads.
Man, I do not know just how much stupidity I can handle in one day… I mean really.
The bleary-eyed blond, Carol Platt Liebau over at Townhall.com yowls on her Blog:
This AP piece just points out what should be obvious to everyone by now — that Barack “Change you can believe in” Obama has been filling the top ranks of his administration with Clinton era and/or beltway insiders.
What should, of course, be obvious is that such a move is probably necessary for a relative novice like President-elect Obama. If he chose to surround himself with people who are as lacking in national experience as he is, the results would resemble . . . well, the Carter administration.
Obama is a true ideological believer when it comes to the ends he wants to pursue, but he’s a hard core pragmatist about the means for achieving them. If a certain frisson of excitement is lost among his liberal base when they learn that the West Wing will be filled with a bunch of retreads, no doubt he figures that’s a trade-off everyone will be willing to make, so long as the results are worth it. And make no mistake — he’s committed to making sure the results are worth it, at least for those on the left.
Uhm, Carol ever read any history books? Did not Reagan use Gerald Ford and Nixon Administration retreads in his Administration? Admittedly, he did have a few select Reagan-ites in doing his bidding, but the good majority of them were, in fact, Nixon and Ford Retreads. This was because Reagan did not have much experience and wanted people around him, who knew the beltway and could get things done. Sort of like, well, Obama.
Seriously, do these idiot Neo-Cons ever crack a book, before they spout? 🙄
A speech that every America should listen to…
My friends, I believe that this speech, even though it was originally made in 1964. I believe that it still resonates today. In fact, if you replaced the Soviet Union with Iran, and updated the Money figures to today’s money figures, it would be perfect.
A little background on the speech, Ronald Reagan was, at the time, the Governor of California. He was giving this speech, in support of Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater Sr.
I believe that this speech was, in a manner of speaking, a prophecy of sorts to America. A message to the people. Unfortunately, I believe it feel upon deaf ears and because of that. We have the sort of Government that we have today.
This is, "Rendezvous with Destiny":
Transcript: (Source)
Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We’ve never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury–we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don’t know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves–and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me–the free man and woman of this country–as "the masses." This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"–this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than the government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don’t grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending…one more program to the 30-odd we have–and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs–do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary…his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due…that the cupboard isn’t bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents’ worth?
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that’s exactly what he will do.
As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men…that we are to choose just between two personalities.
Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
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.
Thank you very much.
—
I think Barack Obama should read this. At least once.
Technorati Tags: Conservative ,History ,Opinion ,Politics ,Republican ,Republicans ,Liberals ,Liberal ,Ronald Reagan