You better sign those, they’re the ones paying your salary.

Jimmy Stewart to Raquel Welch

One of the things that has driven foes of Donald Trump, particularly conservative ones, crazy has been his willingness to compare himself to Ronald Reagan.

Despite this anger a comparison between the two is quite apt and the reason is quite simple. Both men have their backgrounds in the service industry.

While some might not understand it the movie industry is in fact a service industry.  A person in the entertainment industry primary function is to be able to please the general public, and while in today’s entertainment industry that is often ignored in Ronald Reagan day both the studios and the actors went to great pains to satisfy their customer base.

It is for this reason that Ronald Reagan was called “The great communicator”.

Donald Trump, while a builder, is also the owner of hotels, clubs and was the star of a TV series.

In all of these situations Mr. Trump understands that his success relies on pleasing the public, the public that stays at his hotels, the public the plays at his golf courses and the viewing audience that watched his show.

This perspective on “keeping the customer satisfied” while celebrated by Simon and Garfunkel has not been celebrated by the major parties, who treat their customer base like suckers, or by the MSM which treats their customers like a bunch of idiots to be tolerated in the best tradition of Basil Fawlty.

Donald Trump is giving the people what they want, or put more simply he is communicating with the voters on the subjects and the concerns that they actually have.

In other words he’s proving himself a “great communicator”

Come to think of it as I recall the MSM spent a lot of time talking about Ronald Reagan as a gaffe machine who would put all of our relationships in danger.

How about that!


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Bicentennial logoBy John Ruberry

Tomorrow, July 4, 2016, will be the 240th anniversary of America’s independence. Which means in ten years the United States will be 250 years old, one-quarter of a millennium.

I’m old enough to remember America’s bicentennial, and while there was some feeling of bicentennial overkill–CBS TV’s daily Bicentennial Minutes aired for over two years–the USA’s 200th birthday was a welcome respite from the bleak 1970s, a decade that was plagued by war, riots, racial conflict, a moribund economy, and a feeling that America’s best days were behind it. Kinda like right now.

Eight years of Ronald Reagan righted the ship.

How is the planning for the American sestercentennial coming along? Well, it’s almost non-existent. I found a Facebook group, a website, and a few articles on the ‘net here and there, but as of now it’s a non-event.

Contrast that situation with 1966, ten years before the USA’s 200th annivesary Congress created the Bicentennial Commission.

Hopefully things will move quicker once Barack Obama is out of office. Obama has never been a flag-waving patriot. He famously explained to a reporter in 2007 that his reason for not wearing a US flag pin on his lapel was because it didn’t represent “true patriotism.” All of the other 2008 presidential candidates wore those pins.

This year Bernie Sanders didn’t.

Bicentennial mural in Tampico, IL, where Reagan was born
Bicentennial mural in Tampico, IL in 2011, where Ronald Reagan was born

Obama’s base of support, and Sanders’ too, is the far-left; many of these leftists believe that America is strong only because it stole the land and its resources. These radicals speak of an AmeriKKKan Empire that is ruining the world and that the United States is a country that needs to be brought down to size. Oh, isn’t America the nation that saved Europe three times in the last century? You remember, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Thank you, Ronald Reagan for that last one.

And America also rescued Asia in World War II.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency this fall–I certainly hope she doesn’t–she likely won’t govern as an anti-American leftist. To some extent the America-hating radicals will be justifiably marginalized.

The sestercentennial is coming. Let freedom ring!

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

Tampico IL Reagan Mural
Reagan mural in Tampico, Illinois

By John Ruberry

Nancy Reagan died this morning at her home in Los Angeles. The former First Lady, who had been ailing in recent years, was 94.

Ronald Reagan in the last year of his presidency said this about his wife:

What do you say about someone who gives your life meaning? What do you say about someone who’s always there with support and understanding, someone who makes sacrifices so that your life will be easier and more successful? Well, what you say is that you love that person and treasure her.

Ronald’s movie career was on its downslide when he met aspiring actress Nancy Davis– who like “Dutch” was a native of northern Illinois–in his role as president of the Screen Actor’s Guild.

What if they had met earlier? “If Nancy Davis had met Ronald Reagan earlier in his movie career, he would have gotten an Oscar — she would have insisted on it,” says Myra Gutin, a First Lady historian.

While First Lady Nancy spearheaded the “Just Say No” campaign against drug abuse, brought much-needed attention to the AIDS epidemic, and brought style and grace back to the White House.

President Reagan, despite his long career and a politician, was an intensely private man. But the Gipper opened up to Nancy.

After his narrow defeat in the 1976 battle for the Republican nomination with President Gerald Ford, Reagan wanted to quit politics. But it was Nancy who spurred him on. And it was Mrs. Reagan who insisted to her beloved “Ronnie” that he fire John Sears, the manager of his 1980 presidential campaign, and White House chief-of-staff Don Regan, both of whom were operating beyond the boundaries of their jobs.

Without a doubt were it not for Nancy there would not have been a President Ronald Reagan.

Rest in peace.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Mika Brzezinski: OK, I got just one thing to say – it’s just my instinct in a couple of meetings with him: I wouldn’t underestimate him. … I wouldn’t underestimate him. I think this guy is really, really smart. I don’t agree with a thing he says.

Donny Deutsch: And you think he has a chance to be a serious contender? That’s a – I’m not saying he’s not smart. He’s a U.S. Senator.

Mika Brzezinski: I wouldn’t underestimate from him having a big impact in this election and not being the 9-9-9. I’m just saying. That’s my instinct. We’ll see.

Morning Joe March 2015

At the start of the Young American for Freedom event Friday night in Nashua NH something took place that reminded me of the days when I was the same age as many the young people in attendance.  It was the screening of this short video on the media & Ronald Reagan.

The film was a stroll down memory lane as I watched again saw a young Joe Biden, a young Chuck Schumer and members of the media, many still alive, attacking Ronald Reagan as a fool , a dunce , an uncaring and unfeeling warmongering ogre who would destroy the country at best and the world at worst and recalled my own history professor at what was then Fitchburg State College saying how much Ronald Reagan scared him..

I laughed inside as those media and political giants insulting Ronald Reagan in the public forums that they had exclusive control of at the time never suspecting they would fail utterly to harm his popularity but decades later they would be using Reaganesque as a positive adjective for people like Barack Obama.

 

What was most interesting about that film was how familiar the words sounded to anyone who has been following the media reaction to Ted Cruz and,  Andrew Kaufman the director of the Reagan Ranch pointed  out the parallels as he introduced the Senator.  While the left’s critique is an excellent parallel between Senator Cruz and President Reagan the real parallel between the pair can be best described in the words used by Abraham Lincoln to describe US Grant:

“I can’t spare this man, he fights!”

Ronald Reagan fearlessly fought for the principles of conservatism he did so without anger, without yielding and with a smile.

That more than anything else is the perfect description of what Ted Cruz means to conservatism.

KODAK Digital Still Camera

Since his first moment in the congress Ted Cruz has fought.

He has fought against the use of “show votes” set up to be able to highlight ones position for contributors and voters while allowing bad legislation to pass, fought for fiscal discipline he fought for the 2nd amendment fought while others were caving over Newtown, Joined Rand Paul to fight to protect Americans in America from being targeted by the government fought the Chuck Hagel nomination, fought to defund Obamacare multiple times even as some in the GOP hit him for it and has stood up for conservative principles in front of Democrat audiences and defended the Tom Cotton letter on MSNBC before the belly of the beast.

He has done all of this despite unrelenting attacks on this character, his competence and his motives.

Yet through it all he has never lost his good humor or optimism and has taken all of these attacks with a smile.

A lot of people have  underestimated Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate and discounted him in the same way that others did Ronald Reagan.

I would not be surprised if it produced the same results.

(FYI let me give a hat tip for my new friend Roxy for the title of this post)

***************************************************************************

Our March Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in March and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

 

All Tip Jar hits in March of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Reagan statue, Dixon, IL
Reagan statue, Dixon, IL

By John Ruberry

Ten years after his passing, the legacy of Ronald Reagan still resonates.

The Gipper has had a phenomenal autumn.

Eight days before Election Day, the 50th anniversary of Reagan’s A Time for Choosing address arrived and it reacquainted Americans with the 40th president’s core values–and for younger voters it exposed the fallacies of liberalism.

“We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one,” Reagan said in his televised speech to support the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. “So they’re 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 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?”

Good points. Under President Obama, there are 14 million more food stamp recipients than there were during the George W. Bush presidency, despite what Democrats are calling an improved economy. Yet there is no call among liberals to lower the food stamp rolls. None of them are calling for the recipients of ObamaPhones to move on and sign up and pay for their own cell phone plans.

Last week was the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. While most of the credit for the collapse belongs to the German people, Reagan of course deserves a spot on the rostrum of victory. Two years prior, Reagan stood in front of the “wall of shame” and demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Reagan believed in confronting the enemies of freedom. Obama, to my knowledge, has never used the word ‘enemy’ to describe hostile nations such as Iran, North Korea, or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Berlin Wall segment, Eureka College
Berlin Wall segment, Eureka College, Illinois

There’s another landmark Reagan speech that deserves another look, his first inaugural address. “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around,” he said.

Two weeks ago on Election Day–a majority of American voters said that’s just the way they want it.

Just last week, ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber chuckled about the “stupidity” of the American voter aiding in the passage of the unpopular bill. Reagan had something to say about such elitists in that same 1981 speech.

“From time to time,” Reagan remarked, “we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”  He continued, “Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

Someone should ask Obama and Gruber that question.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Reagan statue, Dixon, IL
Reagan statue, Dixon, IL

By John Ruberry

“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 capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing, 1964.

While the Republicans lost the 1964 presidential election, resoundingly, sixteen years later Reagan turned the tables on big government Democrats.

Today President Obama is at best blurring the lines between the federal government and the fifty states.  Healthcare is being fundamentally transformed by ObamaCare. The curriculum at public schools–remember, local schools are usually the most local of government bodies–is being altered by Common Core initiatives. Even what students eat at those schools is being dictated by the Obama administration.

Government in the United States is becoming more and more top-down, being run, in Reagan’s words, by a “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol.”

Just like Europe. And oh do the liberals yearn for a government more like a European country.

But increasingly, Europeans are turning away from top-down government. Last week Scottish voters nearly voted for secession from the United Kingdom. Promises of more local control for Scots by London politicians may have swayed the outcome.

This time.USA-UK flags

There are movements all over the European Union that are demanding independence or more local control, including those in the Basque region, Catalonia, Corsica, South Tyrol, Wales, Brittany, and the Faeroe Islands. Belgium could split in two.

Two days ago Anne Appelbaum in the Washington Post took a look at how people across Europe view of their top-down governments.

The ideals of European unity that inspired a previous generation don’t move younger people who have no memory of what came before. At the same time, it is increasingly and notably strange that the wealthiest group of nations on Earth cannot create a policy to cope with the chaos rising on its southern and eastern borders — chaos that is, of course, the source of massive new immigration as well as economic instability. Instead, distant European Union institutions appear to fill their time making petty regulations. No wonder voters want to bring the decision-making “home.”

True, some of these local European movements are hyper-nationalist and yes, even racist. But like Reagan decades ago, Europeans are disdaining the so-called wisdom of those  experts who live far away and claim only they know what’s best for them.

As for Obama, he’s on the wrong side of history.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

************************

Olimometer 2.52

We remain 5 grand away from making our expenses for the year and a sold $1000 away from making them this month.

If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below to meet our annual expenses.

Consider the lineup you get In addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

Beanie : $2.00USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00USD – monthly

By Pat Austin

I’m missing Ronald Reagan today.

It seems inconceivable to me that we have fallen to such low regard in the world, with our weak, inept leaders, that Russia is once again spitting in our face and laughing behind our back.  It could not be more clear that Vladimir Putin thinks that President Obama is a schmuck who is so self-absorbed with his own celebrity and so far diminished as a leader that all pretense of peace and goodwill are now out the window. I dare say that Putin would not have taken the aggressive steps he is now taking if we had a strong, effective leader like Reagan at the helm.

A couple of weeks ago, Peggy Noonan wrote:

The world is watching. Part of the story in Ukraine is that the people are rebelling against their elites, which have cozied up to Russia for their own purposes. We won’t be seeing less of this kind of thing in the future but more. Don’t we want to be understood to be on the right side of that battle?

You can thank the Obama voters for this new aggressive Russia: the kumbaya-singing, hand-wringing, peaceniks who are so determined to make sure America is not seen as an occupier and a bully.  “Why should we care what happens in Russia?”, they think.  They can’t see the connection.  Certainly Obama can’t see any need to intervene; remember Iran in 2009?  Obama would not dare do anything (but blather in televised speeches on his way to a fundraiser) about Russia’s power grab in the Ukraine lest he be perceived as a war-monger.

Noonan, again:

I think our leaders are now so anxious about appearing to support entangling America in another conflict that they’ve become afraid to voice full-throated support for those who fight for principles completely in line with our own—the right of people to choose their own economic and governmental arrangements, and their right to resist any illegitimate limiting of their freedoms.

Certainly between John Kerry and Barack Obama, Putin must be quaking in his “fur-lined boots,” as Charles Krauthammer said this week.  While Obama pretends to be “gravely concerned” over Putin’s aggression, John Kerry is talking with George Stephanopoulos and declaring that “all options are on the table.”  Certainly Putin is not in the least concerned that these two clowns will fight over Crimea.

Obama and Putin have always had … let’s just say an edgy relationship.  Rather like two men playing a game of Rook while smoking cigars and sipping wine.  But Putin has never been deluded by Obama like many American voters have been.  Putin has always seen Obama for the weak, spineless pseudo-leader that he is; Obama has always wanted to be perceived as cerebral and intelligent:  smart power!  But right now, today, Putin is the one who appears stronger.  And Obama voters are getting exactly what they wished for.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”

Ronald Reagan would weep if he could see this.

 

Pat Austin also blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Many years ago wMargaret_Thatcherhen I was a college sophomore at Brigham Young University, I had the privilege to hear Margaret Thatcher speak on campus.  I will never forget that day.  Having heard that BYU would be awarding an honorary degree on Thatcher, I knew that I had to attend. Thatcher was someone whose name I grew up with.  Born in 1976, I am a child of the 80s. I knew well her influence and that she and Ronald Reagan had changed the world.
On the day of the event, I arrived at the auditorium and settled in the best seat I could find.  She came out and waved graciously to all of our applause.  As she waited for her turn to speak, I remember distinctly seeing her sitting on stage, head held high with dignity.  She stood to speak and the crowd was absolutely silent.  She proceeded to give the most powerful and moving speech I had ever heard,  receiving standing ovation after standing ovation.
Reading her words all of these years later, I am again reminded that truths don’t change over time.  Here are some excerpts:
  • “America, my friends, is the only country in the world actually founded on liberty— the only one. People went to America to be free. The Founding Fathers journeyed to this country across the perilous seas not for subsidies—there weren’t any—not to make a fortune even, but to worship God in their own way and by their example to perpetuate freedom and justice more widely.”
  • “I often wonder what would have happened if the Pilgrims with their faith had gone to Latin America in the south and the people from Spain who came for gold and to take the raw materials out of the ground and go back had come to the north. We should not have the great America today. But the point I make is this: Those Pilgrim fathers came with the faith that infused the whole nation. Yours is the only nation founded on liberty. And you’re founded on liberty because of that faith.”
  • “Indeed, to bring down the Iron Curtain without a shot being fired required far more from this country and from Britain than a policy based on expediency or pragmatism. They needed the confidence that comes from the belief that you are in the right.”
  • “President Reagan and I had the same beliefs and determination. We fought the battle of ideas in the Soviet Union and helped to end the terrible tyranny of communism. Liberty—the moral underpinnings. A rule of law—the moral underpinnings.”
  • “But I think those of us who believe as passionately as we do in a free society should put the case of capitalism much more positively than that it merely performs better. Capitalism is economic liberty. It is a vital element in the network of freedom. It is a moral quality, for it reflects man and his right to use his God-given talents. Remember the parable of the talents.”
  • “We now know—although I’ve found some people surprised when I say it—that countries are not rich in proportion to their natural resources. If you took a map of the world, put on it all the natural resources in each country, and thought that would give you a guide to the wealth of each country, you’d get it wrong—because if you look at natural resources, the wealthiest country in the world in terms of natural resources is Russia. It’s got everything. It’s got oil, it’s got gas, it’s got diamonds, it’s got platinum, it’s got gold, it’s got silver, it’s got all of the industrial metals that it can mine, it’s got marvelous timber, it’s got wonderful soil. But it had a government that did not allow the people to produce prosperity but instead planned them into poverty.”
  • “And who has the greatest voluntary effort in the world? Your country. You don’t shrink from looking after your  neighbor as yourself. It’s part of your creed. Your peak year for giving was 1992. I think you’d had twelve very good political years before that, as a matter of fact. During that year, your people gave $124 billion to voluntary causes— and that wasn’t the end of your voluntary work. Those who couldn’t give money gave their services, their effort. And there’s a long role of honor. It is said now that, of those who go to church, some 64 percent do voluntary work—more than three hours a week. You are the greatest voluntary nation in the world—again coming from those strong moral foundations.”
  • “No government at any level, or at any price, can afford, on the crime side, the police necessary to assure our safety unless the overwhelming majority of us are guided by an inner, personal code of morality. And you will not get that inner, personal code of morality unless children are brought up in a family—a family that gives them the affection they seek, that makes them feel they belong, that guides them to the future, and that will build continuity in future generations.”
  • “Now, my friends, we must never be complacent. We must never think that there will be perpetual peace. That is what they thought after World War I. We must be vigilant to see that we are fully and strongly equipped should anyone dare to, or want to, attack us. Dictators are frightened by the strength of others. They are attracted by weakness. Let us be vigilant to ensure that the great heart, as Winston would have put it, has his sword and armor to guard the pilgrims on their way.”

Read the whole speech here.

I will never forget the way I felt that day. She was right in every syllable. Margaret Thatcher knew exactly how special America is, even though many Americans don’t.

Lisa @ AmericaisConservative.org

Happy Saturday!  I along with Rebecca who wrote earlier today am thrilled to be guest-blogging here on a regular basis! In her post, Rebecca described some of the background of our blog and how we met DaTechGuy. We are grateful that he graciously invited us to join his blog, and also enjoyed our time on Da Radio Show today!

For this first post, I hope to share with you my motivation for blogging.  I started blogging almost four years ago, and can attest that it is a lot of hard work.  Blogging is a labor of love.  You work to get your message out there and hope that people will listen.  You anxiously monitor your site’s statistics and hope that at least a few people who are reading are inspired by it.  Bloggers (most of us at least) know that we do not individually have the same impact of larger media outlets, but that doesn’t matter.  The point is that there are thousands of us, pouring our hearts and souls into our writing with a passion that we hope will persuade someone, somewhere to action.

After this last election, the GOP is wandering aimlessly looking for how it can attract more voters.  If you listen to some pundits and current elected officials, you’d think that the GOP is almost dead.  The truth is, if the GOP decides to move away from its core values, it will be dead.

My very first post on AmericaisConservative.org said:  “This blog is dedicated to the fact that I believe, in my heart, that this is a conservative nation. When conservatives express ourselves correctly, when we lay out our beliefs with clarity, when we aren’t stumbling all over ourselves, when we have a clue what we stand for – we are in the majority. But, when we lose this message, we lose support.”

I still believe that today.  We ARE a conservative nation.  Why, you ask?  Because the basic values that have bound us together for 200+ years are just as true and necessary now as they always have been.  And, when we clearly articulate those values, people listen.  Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984.  That seems almost unbelievable today, but it really wasn’t that long ago.  He was passionate, and he stayed true to conservative values. And, people listened.

So, what are those values?  What kind of nation are we?  Let’s talk about some of our most precious core beliefs.

We are a Judeo-Christian nation – From our earliest days, our leaders were not afraid to speak of God and His influence in their lives.  God was a part of the culture of this country.  At no point in time has everyone seen Him in the exact same way, but most at least looked His direction for understanding.  More and more now, our nation believes that all of the answers can be found elsewhere.  Our connection to Deity is growing weaker.

Why is it important for Americans (and all people, for that matter) to believe in a Higher Power?  The Declaration of Independence makes bold statements about the existence of rights that pre-exist any government.  Increasingly, Americans don’t make the connection that we have rights which are “inalienable.” They don’t link together the growing size and scope of government with the resultant reduction in freedoms.  They buy into the idea that the government gives and the government takes away.  Therefore, when the government does give or take away, Americans defend the “right” of the government to do so instead of the right of the individual to deny that power to government.

Most Americans, in their hearts, do believe in Deity.  It is not a huge leap to then understand the concept of God-given rights.

We believe religious freedom strengthens our nation – Go ask anyone on the street what the First Amendment says, and I guarantee you will hear a response that has to do with freedom of speech.  People forget that there is more to it than that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Before anything is mentioned regarding freedom of speech, the First Amendment recognizes the rights of individuals to worship as they wish.  The robustness of our nation was strengthened by our zeal in valuing this right.

We recognize that the central unit of our society is the family – When I was in sixth grade, I took a social studies test and one of the questions was “what is the central unit of society?”  It was multiple choice and the two answers I could not decide between were: the family and the government.  I vacillated between those two choices, eventually choosing the government.  The good news is that I actually got that answer wrong on the test.  The bad news is that fewer and fewer individuals, children and adults alike, would get the answer right today.

The ties that bind a society together have always started with the family.  The Heritage Foundation has produced a lot of great work making this case statistically.  (See FamilyFacts.org)  A few tidbits of data from their site:  Single women are more likely to be living below the poverty level than married couples, more and more couples are cohabitating and not getting married, teens with intact families are less likely to be sexually active, nearly 1 in 2 children lives in a household with just a mother who has never been married.  The family adds stability to a society.  Children have the right to live with and be raised by both mother and father.  Of course there are special circumstances where the ideal is not possible, but that should not be our social norm nor our desired state.  Even in this society of “live and let live,” most Americans know that protecting the family is important.  We have to continue to make this case.  The data is overwhelming in favor of the family.

We value life – There is simply no excuse for the number of babies who never have their first breath because their very mothers who gave them life make the decision to abort.  And, when we have honest conversations with Americans about what we really value, they acknowledge that this practice is wrong and has gone too far.  Many of the people who support the “right” to have an abortion would never have one themselves, but don’t want to forbid others.  This is certainly a more convenient position, but many of these individuals can be persuaded.

We believe that individual freedoms are protected with a smaller central government – At this point, this is a given. If you consider the other values, then this one is obvious.  A strong, religiously diverse society filled with stable, traditional families does not need a large government.  They have little reason to rely on the government other than for national needs like national security.

All of these values in their aggregate support a strong society that values individual freedom and accountability.  These values represent our bedrock principles that must be guarded.  These values do not come from politics or government, but from the people.

That is why I blog, to be another voice promoting these values.  I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce myself to DaTechGuy’s readers and look forward to many entries and robust discussions.  My entries will not always be so serious (for instance, when Suits is back on this summer, expect some posts about the greatness that is Harvey Spector), but mostly what you can expect from me is a happy warrior, attempting to articulate why I am forever grateful to be an American and why this is such a great nation.

Lisa @ Americaisconservative.org

Brady: Does Right have no meaning to you, sir?

Drummond: Realizing that I may prejudice the case of my client, I must tell you that “Right” has no meaning to me whatsoever! But Truth has meaning—as a direction.

Inherit the Wind 1960

I was all set to write another papist piece this morning when I turned on the TV and saw Morning Joe all a twitter (although strangely not tweeting) concerning Ted Cruz.

During the party line vote in Committee that sent the Chuck Hagel nomination to the floor Ted Cruz did the unthinkable. He said aloud something everyone knew was absolutely true for the record:

Chuck Hagel is endorsed by Iran. Here is the clip from Cruz’s speech on the subject.

The reaction to Cruz’s words was incredible. It was called unfair, it was said we shouldn’t judge Hagel by those who endorse him, and Ted Cruz was attacked. His words were said to be inflammatory, uncalled for, extreme, improper and defamatory toward a person as honorable as Chuck Hagel.

Morning Joe particularly tore into Ted Cruz, he was portrayed as beyond the pale, as an extremist. He was mocked and derided and the entire Morning Joe table had a lot of things to say about what Ted Cruz had to say about Chuck Hagel.

In all of the words in all the critiques of Ted Cruz by the left in general and MSNBC & Morning Joe in particular there is one word that I noticed was missing from every statement hitting Senator Cruz for his statements on Senator Hagel:

False.

The fact is Iran (along with North Korea) is the biggest terror threat to the United States and the President’s nominee for Secretary of defense has been endorsed by them. All of the brickbats thrown at Ted Cruz for saying it aloud will not make it any less true.

I was instantly reminded of another republican hated by the Media who once said a known truth aloud and was pilloried for it.

The simple power of being willing to say the truth aloud in the face of MSM critique is exactly the trait that the GOP needs the most. It is the trait that Ronald Reagan had and the MSM hated him for it. That Reganesque trait in Ted Cruz, a rising Hispanic star in the GOP, is why MSNBC in general and Morning Joe in particular are dedicated to destroying him.

Perhaps in 30 or 50 years when Ted Cruz is safely in his grave, the left will find reason to praise him

BTW here are Senator Cruz’s full unedited remarks for those of you who don’t want to rely on the TPM’s edited version:

Update: Just to make it clear it is Iran not North Korea who has endorsed Hagel.

Update 2: Instalanche (thanks Glenn) also changed the “That” to “The” in the paragraph starting with…The fact is Iran as better grammatically, also removed the word “dollars” below as redundant with the $ already present.

*****************************

[thermometer raised=27 target=300 height =200 ]

The good news for me is the amount in this week’s paycheck is infinitely higher than it was yesterday.

The bad news is that’s because it’s gone from $0 to $27.

I’m grateful to the two people who hit DaTipJar yesterday and the Subscriber who kicked in for $2. I would ask those who have not kicked in who consider this coverage valuable to consider moving that Thermometer a bit higher if you can.




and remember my subscription commentary comes out today so if you hit DaTipJar or Subscribe you will get this week’s full commentary called “Heroes”

Today’s subscriber video talks about Israel Gaza and truth with a side order of Ronald Reagan as the intro:

Amazing the power of saying the truth.

The full commentary available only with the password is here, to view it simply hit DaTipJar




and I’ll send you the code as soon as I see the confirmation e-mail. If you don’t want to worry about ever missing a single video choose any subscription level




and I will e-mail you the codes every week as soon as the videos are uploaded and the posts are ready.

It’s one thing to not know ancient history or even history of the centuries ago. But it is another to not remember the history of just a few decades ago:

There is much debate over President Reagan because we all think of him differently. And over time, history sweetens our memories. But no matter what policy disagreements you may have had with him, you have to admire his style of politics. He embodied a spirit of bipartisanship.

He was a conservative Republican, but he understood that in order to get anything done he had to work across the aisle, which he did very effectively.

Ah yes those halcyon days of yesteryear. Before we get all teary eyed over those days of love and peace let me bring you some numbers:

97th congress:                98th Congress               99th Congress               100th Congress

House 244-191 (D)        House 272-163 (D)    House 253-182 (D)        House 258-177 (D)
Senate 53-47    (R)        Senate 55-45     (R)    Senate 53-47     (R)        Senate 55-45 (D)

 

You might recall in the lame duck session with a new majority only pending the administration felt compelled to make a deal they didn’t like.  Ronald Reagan in eight years never controlled the house and for at least 2 years did not have a majority in the senate to back him up.  Reagan compromised with democrats on spending, tax cuts and treaties not because he loved bipartisanship but because he never had the votes to do anything else.

When Dianne Feinstein wishes for the age of bipartisanship, she is actually pining for the days of democratic control and a cowed conservatism.  She counts on American’s ignorance of history to pull the deception off.

 

At the time Ronald Reagan was elected I was a democrat who was a hawk on defense.

My greatest influence was a professor Ed Thomas. He had a great love of history and of original documents. He used to say about Ronald Reagan. “I’m afraid of Ronald Reagan”. He seemed to think that Reagan would turn the cold war into a hot one. I was more worried about his economic policies myself

Hindsight is 2020 and looking back now it seems clear that such a worry was unfounded but at the time a lot of people didn’t know what would come. The best experts thought the Soviets were a lot stronger than they were. Reagan had a better grasp of both the international and the economic situation than others did.

It took me a long time to figure this out. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and early 90’s that I understood just how great Reagan was.

Yesterday on the phones of talk radio , seminar callers armed with Media Matters Talking points were spinning Reagan on both National shows (such as Rush) and on local shows (Howie Carr) with a “why do conservatives love Reagan when he did xyz” trying to paint him as “not conservative”.

Their attempts to co-op the memory of Reagan are understandable, they have been unable to change our memory of the Reagan years and have also not managed to make us forget what they thought of him, to wit:

It should never be forgotten that the Left hated Reagan just as lustily as they hated George W. Bush, and with some of the same venomous affectations, such as the reductio ad Hitlerum. The key difference is that in Reagan’s years there was no Internet with which to magnify these derangements, and the 24-hour cable-news cycle was in its infancy. But the signs were certainly abundant. In 1982, the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London held a vote for the most hated people of all time, with the result being: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula. Democratic congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was trying to replace “the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” A desperate Jimmy Carter charged that Reagan was engaging in “stirrings of hate” in the 1980 campaign. Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (now a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.” In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: “The United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”

And in discussing Reagan’s greatest acknowledged achievement — ending the Cold War — liberals conveniently omit that they opposed him at every turn. Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the “evil empire” speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative? Historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” “What is the world to think,” New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, “when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?”

Or as Jonah Goldberg puts it the only good conservative is a dead one.

While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . ”

Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.

Goldberg is spot on. It is a simple attempt to use Reagan to hit the conservatives of today.

I would suggest skipping the tributes from liberals for they come from the same sentiment as this scene from Braveheart (script via corkey.net):

Robert: Does anyone know his politics?

Craig: No, but his weight with the commoners can unbalance everything. The Balliols will kiss his arse so we must.

The American people honor Reagan’s memory so the left which hates him and always has hated him must too or at least seem to honor him. Ignore them and instead concentrate on one like this from No Sheeples here.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, perhaps the greatest in my lifetime, I wish I appreciated him more when he was in power.

Update: Interesting Palin/Reagan note from Byron York

Lee Edwards, a Reagan biographer and fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was in the audience and took note of the fact that Palin was speaking to a strongly conservative group at the Ranch Center. She likely wouldn’t be invited to speak to a more general audience at the Reagan Library, Edwards said, “because she’s not a member of the establishment, and they’re not comfortable with her.”

“The irony,” Edwards continued, “is that neither was Reagan.”

via Sissy Willis:

There’s a whole army of patriotic Davids out there across this great country ready to stand up and to speak out in defense of liberty, and these Davids aren’t afraid to tell Goliath “don’t tread on me.”

That’s just one line (Sissy has more here) but consider.

That is the second time in under a month in a major presentation that she quoted Glenn Reynolds (the other was the blood libel line from his WSJ piece).

Can we assume that Sarah Palin reads Glenn Reynolds? (Some enterprising radio host should have him on his show.)

Glenn Reynolds draws between 250,000 and 500,000 hits a day and gets 30-60 posts up per day EVERY DAY. If Sarah Palin is quoting him them perhaps a wise reporter would get to know him, or a smart producer would have him on the air.

Then again I don’t expect much from the MSM, supposedly the NYT was there and couldn’t even get her meeting people after the speech right

Prospective candidates, particularly if they are courting supporters, routinely sit through dinners and mingle with guests. But in her case, Ms. Palin entered the room only for her speech and left immediately after.

Actually Palin stayed and took photos with attendees as was announced at the start of the speech. If they can’t get that detail right when they were supposedly there why would I expect them to follow-up on this kind of story.

You know there is a reason why Instapundit took down the “NYT of bloggers” comment from his site. The times should work for the day when they can be called the “instapundit of newspapers”.

Update: Conservatives for Palin notices

Having lived through the 80’s I have a distinctive memory of Ronald Reagan. Although I liked his hard line against communism I wasn’t sure about his domestic issues.

What I did know is what every person in media thought of him. They thought of him as a simpleton, an idiot, a warmonger and an actor playing a role. And that’s just the printable opinions.

When Reagan died nothing shook the media more than the public reaction. The outpouring of affection was staggering and the media adapted their coverage accordingly. From that point they have treated the memory of Reagan with kid gloves but they resented the adulation he was given and the necessity of pretending they shared it. (They resented it even more when no similar reaction was forthcoming for Ted Kennedy. The inverse reaction of the public and the media to these two events illustrates the detachment they media has with the public as a whole.

The media as you might recall worshiped Barack Obama, there has never been a president more popular with them, yet he has suffered a major defeat and was forced to compromise on taxes while he still had a democratic Senate and house to prevent a republican house from getting credit

that just about every person in media is now trying to make an Obama Reagan comparison. Gateway pundit notes the Journolist parallel but the most ridiculous thing is the Time Magazine cover story.

Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. “There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona,” he says. “Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion.”

That statement is so SO false that it boggles the imagination. American Glob notes something:

If TIME Magazine had a shred of integrity or credibility, they might have featured the keynote speaker of Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration on the cover. Can you guess who it is? I assure you it’s not Obama.

Gee I wonder who it is that IS giving that speech

Former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will give the keynote address in February at the Reagan Ranch Center honoring the 100th anniversary of the former president’s birthday.

And what does the Author of that Obama is Reagan piece think of her? Stacy McCain can tells us.

If there is one thing we can say for sure it is not Reagan that Barack Obama reminds people of, but they were close. On the 9th post that this blog ever had I said this:

You sometimes get a rookie pitcher with a winning season but usually not. I’m hoping for Chester Arthur but I’m expecting Jimmy Carter.

That is Barack Obama as for Sarah Palin, well democrats and liberals don’t know ….um they don’t know….ummm l’m not going to touch …. Um is there any way to put this that doesn’t sound like Charlie Sheen?

Update: Kerry Picket provides details on the civility of Liberals toward Reagan during the 80’s

Big Government tell me I’m apparently not the only person who remembers the Republican Establishment’s reaction to Reagan:

You had to live through it to recognize the metamorphosis. During those early days of June 2004, as the nation mourned the passing of Ronald Reagan, you would have never known he had been ridiculed and treated with disdain for most of his political career—not only by Democrats but by establishment Republicans. Frankly, I was stunned by the display of love and gratitude in 2004.

As the Reagan motorcade drove toward the Reagan Library for the final tribute, ordinary citizens along the route were paying their final tributes as well. It was an amazing moment.

But it was not always so.

Yet another testament to the great love the Republicans have for members of their party who are actually capable of winning elections. Somehow he sees the same parallel with Palin that I do.

Imagine that!

…first of all I must link to Roxeanne De Luca’s excellent piece that not only linked to mine, but puts the lie to his anti-intellectual point that the professor tried to make:

While Bielat is the only one of those guys (and gals) who pulled off the double-Ivy education, one can hardly call the small army of JDs, CPAs, MBAs, and professors “anti-intellectual”. One then has to wonder at Bainbridge’s assertions: who, among this growing conservative movement, is really “anti-intellectual”? Are we stupid? uneducated? have the audacity to think that our BC, Georgetown, and Tufts educations are not so dismal as to disqualify us from public debate and office? or just not relentlessly focused on degrees obtained two decades ago? is what is happening in Massachusetts not representative?

As they say, read the whole thing as the young lady with TWO DEGREES of her own defends the tea party she is so much a part of.

Secondly and more importantly as I re-read his piece I noticed something that I hadn’t caught in his 10th point, lets review:

Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan? emphasis mine

Even Ronald Reagan? EVEN RONALD REAGAN?! That sentence, the idea that: Today’s conservatives are so dumb they even make Ronald Reagan look smart, well-read and articulate, brings me back to my college days.

Starting college 8 months into Reagan’s first term I recall the way that liberals treated Reagan with disdain and/or fear. My favorite professor the spectacular Ed Thomas, (the best history teacher I ever had) used to talk about how Reagan “Scared him”. Liberals reacted with glee when he got the nomination. They couldn’t believe he won.

But I also remember how elite conservatives absolutely HATED him. They hated his small town background, they hated that he was a Hollywood actor, they hated his abandonment of realpolitik saying bluntly what the Soviet Union actually was, they hated him because he was so comfortable in his own skin and beliefs they he didn’t feel the need to seek their approval.

Most of all they hated that due to his success and popularity among the idiot people that they had to pay homage to someone so obviously beneath them to get elected or to be supported.

Remind you of anyone today?

We have seen this last point often in the last few years among the leftist media and pols (who can’t believe and won’t forgive Reagan for drawing more sympathy in death than Ted Kennedy) who now avoid criticizing him, acting as if they had been with him all the time.

I had almost totally forgotten the absolutely visceral hatred some Republicans had for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Professor Bainbridge for reminding me of an important lesson from the days of a full hairline.

Update: An Instalanche in my sleep. Very odd to wake up and find my first post of yesterday to be linked by Glenn at the very end of the day. Nice to have you all. You may want to check out the article I put up at Examiner.com on the subject called:
Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party that answers the point concerning Tea Parties.