Garden State Patriot

When this…

Led to this…

It’s amazing what can happen when you have a President who actually promotes the cause of liberty, isn’t it?

45 years ago today, Ronald Reagan delivered perhaps his most famous speech on behalf of the Barry Goldwater campaign. Now known as his ‘A Time For Choosing’ speech, it could not be any more relevant then as it is now. In the speech Reagan draws clear and distinct difference between conservatives and liberals – warning us in no uncertain terms of the dangers of socialism. While I’ve posted this before, it never gets old. Here is the speech in its entirety.

On ‘Hannity’ last night, Sean compared the meek response of Obama vis-a-vis Iran to Reagan’s strong and principled stand against communist oppression in Poland. Check out this telling video here. Now if only Mr. Hannity would take my calls!

By the way, here’s what I wrote back in January regarding the Obama approach to Iran:

Herein lays the problem with Obama’s approach toward Iran. One can not engage in diplomacy – which entails negotiation, finding common ground and compromise – when the ‘partner’ at the table is an opponent of the convictions and values your nation stands for. To do so would be pacifism. And as history has taught us pacifying enemies of freedom only leads to more violence, war and tyranny, not less. One can only hope that history isn’t about to repeat itself.

Proven right? Pretty much, I think. Although the one thing that has become more clear to me now is that Obama has also completely ceded our moral authority as the leading promoter of freedom and democracy in the world. With his constant apologizing for America and willingness to cut deals with dictators he’s boxed himself in. He put himself in a position of not being able to support the Iranian protesters for fear that it would damage future negotiations with the evil mullocracy. In essence, his approach legitimized an evil regime.

Well, we can’t say you weren’t warned.

Obama was out on the stump today beginning to make the case for socialized health care. As is typical for our new president/CEO of GM, his words are meaningless. He claims that a public plan would not mean the end of private insurance. Of course, once a public plan is in place more and more people will be pushed into it as private insurers won’t be able to compete.

Interestingly, the battle over socialized medicine is nothing new. Most of us recall the 1993 battle over HillaryCare. Certainly, that was the biggest battle to date. But the fight dates back to well before this. It’s a fight that Ronald Reagan himself enjoined. He saw how socialized medicine was by its nature an anti-freedom, pro-socialism agenda. He saw that those who wanted socialized medicine would never win the day by passing it in one fell swoop. Rather, they would do so in incremental steps. This is exactly what is going on now. Obama claims a public plan won’t mean the end of private plans, but ultimately that’s what it will in fact result in.

With this huge battle looming, I can think of no better place to look to in order to prepare for this fight than Reagan himself. His message in this video couldn’t be any less relevant now than it was at the time he delivered it. It’s a message we need to heed and utilize in order to stop socialized medicine from becoming a reality in our nation. 

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Yesterday, the newly formed National Council for a New America (NCNA) held its first conference. The meeting consisted of numerous prominent Republicans including Mitt Romney, House Whip Eric Cantor and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Richard Ross reported here on CWA! last week regarding this effort aimed at ‘rebranding’ the party and ‘updating’ its message.

After the meeting, though, Jeb Bush had this to say:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

“You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,” Mr. Bush said.

The former president’s brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama’s message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

“So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause,” Mr. Bush said.

Now, I understand to some extent what Jeb is saying. The party can not rely on nostalgia alone to win elections. This is true. But the problem has not been that the party has done this. The problem is we are no longer the party of Reagan. We haven’t been the party of Reagan, arguably, since Bill Clinton used the government shutdown to kill very bit of momentum built up by the 1994 victories.

And the drift away from Reaganism started before 1994 with Jeb’s dad. The minute Bush #41 took over he left Reaganism behind by supporting tax increases and employing a softer tone - think “thousand points of light” and a “kindler, gentler America.”

The 1994 elections certainly signaled a step back towards Reaganism. For about 4 years we saw the kind of vision Reagan had for America being implemented by Republicans in Congress led by Newt Gingrich and the ‘Contract with America.’. Tax cuts, balanced budgets and returning power back to the states were several of the hallmarks of this movement.

When George W. Bush came onto the scene and announced his candidacy for the Presidency, you may remember many in the media saying that he was more conservative than his father. In retrospect, “W” was only slightly to the right of his father. As they say, the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree. In fact, “W’s” use of the term “compassionate conservatism” drew the ire of conservatives even back in during the 2000 campaign. 

George W. Bush, of course, ultimately did not govern completely like Reagan. “W” was indeed a proponent of a strong, tough foreign policy in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but his domestic agenda was hardly Reagan-esque save tax cuts. “W” sanctioned excess spending and inexplicably signed into law the prescription drug benefit entitlement. He also promoted and signed into law No Child Left Behind which only increased intervention of the federal government in the area of education, rather than devolving that power to the states. On illegal immigration, “W” also was right there with the pro-amnesty crowd until conservatives put a stop to it (amnesty did occur under Reagan but he would later say that it was a mistake).

So, to some extent I do agree with Jeb. The party does need to update its message. But it should do so by taking the principles of Reaganism and applying them in a personal and relevant way to the problems the nation faces today.

The approach, though, that needs to be tossed in the trash and be forgotten is the “Bush” approach for it is the one that has crippled the Republican Party.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Former Vice Presidential candidate, and Buffalo Bills football star, Jack Kemp passed away yesterday of cancer. Kemp, of course, was one of the party’s leading voices and proponents of supply-side economics. Kemp played an instrumental role in ushering through Reagan economic policies which led to an unprecedented and long-lasting boom for America. Later, Kemp served as HUD Secretary under Bush #41 and was chosen as Bob Dole’s running mate in 1996.

Here is some video from back in 2006 of Jack Kemp discussing economics. May he rest in peace.

Jack Kemp

A few days after the inauguration, our intelligence agents obtained firm and incontrovertible evidence that the government of Nicaragua was transferring hundreds of tons of Soviet arms from Cuba to rebel groups in El Salvador. Although El Salvador was the immediate target, the evidence showed that the Soviets and Fidel Castro were targeting all of Central America for Communist takeover. El Salvador and Nicaragua were only a down payment. Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica were next, and then would come Mexico.

The plans had been in the archives of Communism for a long time. I had been told Lenin once said, “First, we will take Eastern Europe, then we will organize the hordes of Asia…then we will move on to Latin America; once we have Latin America, we won’t have to take the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, because it will fall into our outstretched hands like overripe fruit.” –Ronald Reagan, An American Life

Following up on my post from last evening, I thought it was important to remind people just who Daniel Ortega is. Daniel Ortega is nothing less than a Marxist who brutalized his own people. If Daniel Ortega had his way, he would have created a second Communist satellite in the Americas; subjecting the Nicaraguan people to the same kind of tyrannical, oppressive regime as Castro’s Cuba.

As leader of the Sandanista rebels, he worked in concert with and drew support from the Soviets and Castro as they looked to spread Communism throughout Latin America and ultimately to America itself.

In An American Life, Reagan describes the barbarism of the Ortega-led Sandanistas.

…the brutal pro-Marxist rebels…were slaughtering innocent peasants, burning and pillaging their crops, destroying electrical power lines, and blowing up dams in their campaign to wrest control of the country… Unable to win the hearts of the people, they were depriving them of food, water, electricity, and the ability to earn a living and feed themselves.

Thankfully, Ronald Reagan understood the Communist threat in Latin America and stopped Ortega by funding the Contra freedom fighters (overcoming opposition from Congressional Democrats, as well as an unsupportive and gullible press at the time, I might add). But make no mistake; this is a man who has no moral standing whatsoever to critize our country in an way, shape or form. And for Obama to sit there and not defend America against the likes of Ortega is beyond deplorable.

President Obama, history does matter…even if it happened when you were in your crib.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

It’s hard to believe but Ronald Reagan would have been 98 years of age today. As someone who came of age during the 1980’s, my fondness for him as a man, and appreciation for the leadership he brought to our nation only grows with the passage of time. Lord knows we could use his wisdom today during these trying times.

As we celebrate Reagan’s life on this day, let us never forget what he did for our country. Despite efforts by liberals to this day to rewrite history and disparage Reagan’s accomplishments, these facts are incontrovertible. Ronald Reagan:

1. Won the Cold War
2. Ushered in an unprecedented era of American prosperity
3. Uplifted the nation’s morale and restored the people’s pride in America; morale and pride which had been severely shaken post-Watergate, post-Vietnam and after the malaise of the Carter years

Of course, the other quality Reagan possessed that endeared him to so many and also made him one of our greatest Presidents was his unique wit. So, in remembering Reagan today I wanted to leave you with some classic Reagan humor. Enjoy – and God bless the Gipper! We miss you, Dutch!

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

What we need to address the nation’s problems can be found right here in this speech. Compare it to Obama’s this Tuesday, which will be impeccably delivered and sound good on its face, but will have an underlying theme that we as individuals can not make it without government.

The conservative movement has suffered setbacks before, including after the ‘74 elections. But it always comes back and will again. Reagan set the stage for that comeback, culminating in his 1980 victory, with his speech to CPAC in March of 1975.

Let Them Go Their Way

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

Conservative Political Action Conference

Washington, DC

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today

than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Think any of this would apply now?