Uncle Sam: Hands off the Internet!

December 29, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to get its grasping hands around the throat of the Internet, the international town hall where Americans have been free to express their opinions without Big Brother’s permission or interference.

That makes the FCC unhappy. It seems that this taxpayer-supported, intrusive federal agency simply can’t bring itself to allow anything having to do with Americans communicating with each other in public without their lordly oversight or permission.

The Internet — despite Al Gore’s absurd claim the he used his political powers to invent it — is largely free of U.S. or foreign government regulation or interference. In its present form, free from any government’s rules or regulations, it’s the finest example of what freedom of speech is all about, on a worldwide scale.

That seems to irk the compulsive regulators at the FCC, hence their determination to drag the Internet into their regulatory lair.

According to Rasmussen Reports, American voters believe free-market competition will protect Internet users more than any government regulations. Moreover, they rightly fear government regulation will be used to push what is certain to be a leftist political agenda.

A national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen revealed that only a scant 21 percent of likely U.S. voters want the FCC to regulate the Internet as it already does radio and television. Fifty-four percent are opposed to such regulation, while only 25 percent are not sure. That’s a pretty healthy percentage that thinks the government should keep its sticky hands off the World Wide Web — a percentage that the FCC will ignore at its own risk.

The compulsive regulators at the agency need to keep in mind that within a few days the U.S. House of Representatives will be under the control of Republicans, and that the House controls the nation’s purse strings.

It would be very unwise for the FCC regulators to fail to recognize that at the moment Congress reconvenes in early January their financial future will be in the hands of a party largely composed of glorious skinflints, most of whom view any government regulatory power as inherently dangerous and in need of the most careful oversight.

And that’s what they are going to get.

Much of that oversight will focus on the fact that the FCC decision, based on a party-line vote, decided to impose what they termed “net neutrality” regulations on the World Wide Web. This despite the fact that by a whopping 52 percent to 27 percent margin, Americans are convinced that more free-market competition is far better than having more regulations that allegedly protect users of the Internet.

As shown by Rasmussen, Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, yet a plurality of the Democrats among them — some 46% percent — think that more regulation is better.

As a veteran radio broadcaster, I relish the freedom to express my opinions without some would-be, present-day version of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels looking over my shoulder and telling me what I can say and what I can’t say. That’s not what America is all about.

Americans need to keep in mind the fact that government regulators use the time-honored tactic of tightening their grip on the citizenry one small step at a time. It appears that in the case of the FCC’s power grab, they would like Americans to believe that they are only seeking to protect us from some unnamed abuse of the freedom of speech and not in imposing government censorship on the Internet.

They should recognize that we are not that stupid, something the new GOP-controlled House hopefully will teach them starting next month.

Happy New Year!

The Real Outrages

December 22, 2010

A newly formed organization of black clergy has lashed out at supporters of the so-called 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, providing a graphic illustration of liberal America’s favorite target — the mixing of church and state.

According to The Conference of National Black Churches, (said to represent nine of the largest historically black denominations with 30 million people and more than 50,000 churches in America and worldwide), the tax cuts are to be extended without any evidence that they helped the economy.

In a letter the pastors wrote, “Based on our prophetic responsibility to speak to those in power on behalf of the poor, underserved, and vulnerable, we find it utterly shameful that those who insisted that the deficit be reduced, now celebrate billions of dollars being added to the deficit as tax cuts for the wealthy. Sadly, the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are being proposed without any serious evidence that they created jobs when they were in effect over the past several years.”

That’s their opinion, which many economists dispute, and they are entitled to express it as individual Americans even when most studies show they are mistaken in the belief that the tax cuts failed to boost the economy as both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts proved decisively.

That, however, is not what’s at stake here. The real issues with which the black clergymen need to be concerned are well out of the political realm. They are instead centered on the serious problems that exist within the black community and cry out for church-based solutions.

Concentrating on an issue of little, if any, concern of the average black churchgoer, these pastors ignore some very unpleasant realities of life within their own black community. The pastors should direct their moral outrage at such facts as:

• Some 1,500 unborn black babies in the U.S. are being slaughtered in abortions every day;

• that black children in Kenya are getting a better education than those in the U.S.;

• that some 40 million children in the U.S. — count ‘em, 40 million — go to bed every night without a father in their homes;

• that countless numbers of babies in their communities are being born out of wedlock;

• that if the so-called “rich” are forced to pay even more in taxes to help the poor than they now shell out, who would not excuse them if they conclude that by so doing they have already fulfilled their moral responsibilities to help the poor and the sick?

These clergymen need to be reminded of Christ’s admonition to the religious figures of His day when he called the hypercritical among them a “brood of vipers” for failing to do God’s work and instead being immersed in secular life and pursuits.

I’m not suggesting that clack clergy should avoid commenting on political issues when those issues clearly involve matters dealing with faith and morals. Abortion is not merely a political issue that divides Americans — it is a deeply moral issue concerned with a human being’s divinely ordained right to life. It is an issue of supreme importance. It takes precedence over all other issues. A black pastor who fails to defend the right to life from the very beginning is a pastor who fails to live up to his responsibility to obey the laws of God and the laws of nature.

Nor am I suggesting that black pastors — nor the pastors of any Christian sect, for that matter — should be barred from commenting on issues that happen to involve both faith and politics. In that context, the matter of the renewal of the Bush tax cuts clearly lacks a moral basis. It’s 100 percent a political matter and of concern merely to Marxists — the most secular of all believers — and not to men of the cloth.

It was, after all, a politician, Vice President Biden, who raised the tax cut issue to the moral plane when he called giving tax cuts to the alleged wealthy “morally troubling.”

Kitchen is not a Dirty Word

December 16, 2010

We are rapidly becoming a nation whose distaff leadership is allowing radical feminists to redefine the role of motherhood.

Our moms are being all but ostracized by a raging cadre of radical feminists should they dare to consider cooking for their families to be a major part of their traditional role as wives and mothers.

In modern America, the feminists would take Mom out of the kitchen and put her in the drive-thru lane at the local fast-food chain (ironically, that’s verboten also). They have eulogized the nation’s First Lady for assuming the role of a food czar who instructs us on what chow is good for us and our children, who should cook it, and what foods should be kept off the national menu.

Mothers are looked at with withering stares should they teach their daughters how to cook, and fathers get the same treatment if they concern themselves with their daughters’ future role as wives and mothers.

If mothers would once again start teaching their daughters the time-honored role of family chef, and fathers would make sure that their wives are honored and cherished for making the kitchen one of their principal domains, we’d be a lot better off.

Instead we have a First Lady who sees her role as First Mother not only to instruct us on what we victuals we should eat, but warns us that the menu at the local fast food emporium is the diet from Hell.

She goes so far as to dig up patches of the White House lawn, formerly the site of the so-called Easter egg hunts, and plant the seeds of what she tells us are the staples of a healthy diet — a diet regimen in the White House kitchens one doubts includes whatever puny edibles grown on the lawn of the Executive mansion.

If she and her fellow radical feminists would devote more time to praising and defending the produce farmers and retailers bring us, and less time playing the role as diet dictators, meals would be family celebrations instead of burdensome chores for the moms who cook them.

Moreover, giving Mom a day off from cooking dinner by a making a family trip to the nearest hamburger joint would be seen as a gift to her rather than one of the mortal sins in an imaginary list of dietary commandments.

Their menu may be fattening, and viewed as one of the Lord’s practical jokes on his children by making such fare lip-smacking good, but enjoying it is not a flagrant violation of the dietary Ten Commandments. Slathered with mustard and ketchup it’s just plain tasty — fattening but tasty.

A happy home is one in which moms teach their daughters how to cook tasty meals for their future families and dads teach their sons that one of their roles in family life is drying the dishes and otherwise doing chores around the house to lighten Mom’s burdens.

Finally, women should understand and act on the time-honored truth that the fastest route to a man’s heart is through his stomach, and not always through the drive-in window at the nearest fast-food restaurant. That’s one way we can begin to put the family — and America — back together.

Bon Appetit!

Stop, Don’t START!

December 8, 2010

In 1976, I stood beside my father in Kansas City after he lost the Republican presidential nomination to Gerald Ford. I asked him why he wanted to be president of the United States.

His answer was a preview of the policies he would pursue when he finally won the presidency, recalling that for far too long he had watched American presidents inevitably cave in to the Soviets in every agreement reached with them. He said that he wanted to be the first president to say “NYET!” to their demands, loudly and clearly.

He got his chance in 1986 in Iceland, when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said he would only sign on to the original START agreement if my father would give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or, as the left-wing media called it, “Star Wars.” My father’s answer was brief and to the point. He said “NYET!” and the rest is history.

I believe I was only person that knew what my father would say to Gorbachev, and I’ve never forgotten it.

At the time, the State Department and most of my father’s inner circle wanted him to go ahead and give in to Gorbachev and sign the agreement despite his misgivings, just as you hear from the striped-pants guys in Foggy Bottom today. If my father had listened to the namby-pamby wing at State back in 1986, the chances are the Cold War would still be on and the Berlin Wall would still be standing.

A year ago, on November 11, 2009, I was a guest of the Polish president as his proud nation celebrated 20 years of freedom, thanks largely to my father, Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

His chief of staff, one of the members of the Polish government later killed in a horrific plane crash, asked me why President Obama took away their missile defense. Later, I would be asked the same question by the Czech Ambassador to Poland.

Their only hope of continuing to be free and safe is the United States of America, but it appears that Barack Obama is once again throwing our friends under the bus simply to make nice with Russia and Putin by pushing a new START treaty.

My father stuck to his guns, often against the vigorous opposition from some members of his staff and the striped-pants crowd over at the Department of State.

He once famously said his rule in dealing with the Soviets was always to “trust but verify,” and he stuck to that policy, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But we then had the kind of real leadership sadly lacking today, and I don’t trust Obama or Putin or Medvedev.

You might also remember that State was against the speech my father gave at the Berlin Wall calling on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” It had the Soviets quivering, and the people of East Germany hopeful that their long ordeal under the Soviets might soon be over.

The United States doesn’t need a new START.

Call It Treason

November 30, 2010

If we had a president in the White House who understood that we are at war with a crazed faction of Islam, and was willing to act on that belief, there would be no question about how we should deal with people who give aid and comfort to the enemy — they’d be tried for treason and when found guilty stood up before a firing squad.

Julian Assange and his fellow conspirator Pvt. Bradley Manning allegedly betrayed the United States, gave aid and comfort to the terrorists who seek to destroy the United States, and if found guilty they deserve nothing less than death sentences for their unspeakable crimes.

Their pitifully lame excuse that they were merely trying to provide information to the American people that was being improperly withheld from them by the government is on a par with Benedict Arnold’s claim that he was merely trying to inform the British on information the American people believed they deserved to have.

On the contrary, the public does not have the right to know everything — some information needs to be kept secret if the public’s safety is to be assured. Consumers do not need to know the gory details of how sausage is made, nor do the people need to be made aware of all of the details of what is being done to protect them.

Nobody ever demanded that those scientists engaged in building the atomic bomb that ended the war with Japan should do their work openly and share their secrets with the public, and nobody has the right to decide which secrets the public has a need to know.

The release of these so-called WikiLeaks documents has put the American people at risk, as Secretary of State Clinton has said, and the two culprits deserve to be made to pay the price for their treasonous actions.

Pvt. Bradley Manning, the soldier who is alleged to have illegally obtained the documents, is already behind bars where, if justice is to be served, he will remain for the rest of his life.

Assange’s punishment is yet to be determined, but it should be equally as harsh, if indeed he escapes the hangman’s noose, although he should not.

According to news reports, the Feds are attempting to learn whether Assange violated any criminal laws, most notably those covered under the Espionage Act.

Both the Justice (DOJ) and Defense Departments say they are conducting “an active ongoing criminal investigation” of the entire matter, but there is no question of the serious nature of the crimes committed by Assange and Manning — by their despicable actions they have plunged a dagger into the hearts of the American people.

Moreover, the FBI is currently looking into the activities of all those who had come into possession of the subject documents, especially those who provided secret information to Assange’s WikiLeaks organization. If they are found to be culpable they should be harshly punished.

There are problems involved in prosecuting the two men. Legal experts warn that prosecuting those charged with illegally leaking classified documents is difficult for a number of reasons, not the least being persuading foreign governments to hand Assange — who lives abroad — over to U.S. prosecutors.

It should be kept in mind that Assange and Manning are not the only entities who have put the American people at risk. Those in the media who couldn’t wait to publish the information given them by the pair are equally guilty of endangering the American people.

Indeed, it has been reported that DOJ is warning that media organizations could well be subject to prosecution, although that is said not to be in the cards because Justice fears possible violations of the First Amendment, and is fully aware that it has never prosecuted such a matter.

According to Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the national security division, “Whenever you’re talking about a media organization, the department is going to look very closely to ensure that any prosecution doesn’t undermine the valid First Amendment functioning of the press.”

Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, noted that Assange is the DOJ’s target. “I’m confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him,” Smith told reporters.

They need to go further than that.

They need to be figuring out how to hang him.

Hands Off

November 23, 2010

Four years ago I had hip replacement surgery — which involves having an implant containing metal — and that means that every time I fly, which is often, a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) employee passes a wand over my body to be sure I’m not concealing some explosive device on my person. I’m used to it and I don’t complain. It’s the price we pay for airline safety.

I happened to fly on the day the new, more invasive procedures took effect. As I went through the new pre-boarding process, the TSA inspector congratulated me for not “going commando,” as he put his hand into the waistband of my underwear. That’s about as intimate an action as anyone can commit without getting a violent reaction from me, but I managed to restrain myself.

As bad and embarrassing as this experience was for me, I wondered what government would even consider ordering a male or female employee to put his or her hands inside the pants of an airline passenger before they board a plane.

Wow, I thought. The ghost of 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta is probably laughing out loud over what he accomplished when he and his fellow murderers drove airliners into the World Trade Center towers. They not only killed 3,000 innocent people but by their cowardly actions also provided a foreshadowing of the federal government curtailing our liberties once again. He must be happy over the results of his act of murderous terrorism as he bakes in the fires of Hell. After all, he invented today’s TSA.

The sad truth is that he appears to have won — we are still not safe from the crazies, and it is the crazies who are at war with us.

In 1981 when my father, President Reagan, was shot I remember asking the Secret Service agent in charge of my protection detail that with all their training and all their agents that surrounded my father how could it have been that would-be assassin John Hinckley was able to get off as many shots as he did and almost kill my father in the process.

His answer was simply that there simply is no training that can protect you from all the crazies who are willing to die in attempts to kill their targets, and they are our dedicated foes. Abraham Lincoln knew this when he said that anyone who was willing to die in an attempt to kill a president could succeed, as John Wilkes Booth proved in that hideous night at Ford’s Theater.

Political correctness killed 13 innocent people at Ft. Hood when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied; it is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers.

I profile strangers I encounter unconsciously and so do you, and it is well past time that President Obama and his TSA do it as well, and it’s just too darned bad if anyone is offended.

Mr. President, Israel’s El Al Airlines inspectors routinely profile passengers and keep their hands to themselves, and they haven’t allowed a single terrorist to board their planes. You should follow suit and tell your TSA people to keep their fumbling hands to themselves.

Off to a Good Start

November 17, 2010

If Sen. Mitch McConnell’s pledge to get behind the movement to ban the cynical practice of earmark spending is any indication that Republicans heard the message voters sent them in the recent Congressional elections, the GOP is off to a good start.

It’s about time. Over the years members of Congress have acquired a lot of bad habits and the use of so-called earmarks — the Senate tacking on spending measures to bills that have already passed the House — are among the worst.

McConnell’s choosing to target that practice suggests that congressional Republicans may have received the voters’ message that they will no longer tolerate the kind of shoddy methods members of Congress sometimes use to feather their own legislative nests.

It’s the old idea of one hand washing the other. In the case of ear marks, both hands are dirty.

While the financial impact of using earmarks is comparatively small, the effect of members of Congress using them has proven to be out of proportion to the amount of government spending involved.

If a member of Congress wants his colleagues’ backing for his own pet projects he can swap his vote for whatever measures they favor and then tack them on to bills they pass. That’s earmarking.

Get rid of the practice of earmarking and it will then be a case of legislation standing on its own without the bribes involved in ear marking — saying to your colleagues, “You vote for my bill and I’ll support yours no matter how bad it might be.”

House Republicans have already promised to stop putting earmarks on bills they pass and send on to the Senate, and Sen. McConnell’s pledge to follow suit suggests that earmarks hopefully may be a thing of the past.

Moreover, House Speaker-to-be John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said the GOP majority will stick to McConnell’s pledge in the next Congress due to take power in January.

Democrats, however, have not followed McConnell’s lead. They have defended earmarks, which they view as a key method of slipping federal funding to their states to pay for their pet projects.

Observers point to the Transportation bill now pending before Congress as one example of the effect on legislation of ending earmarks. Democrats fear that ending the earmarking process could kill many of their own local pet projects by starving them of federal funds — one method they use to funnel taxpayers’ money to their states.

In July, the House passed a Transportation bill with a whopping $70 billion price tag. It was loaded down with no less than 560 earmarks, many of which funded local transportation or infrastructure projects. The Senate has not followed suit, and indications are that action on the measure may be stalled.

In taking his stand on earmarks, Sen. McConnell defended his past support of earmarking, telling colleagues, “Make no mistake, I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them.”

He then added, “But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.”

Sen. McConnell’s conversion to anti-earmark champion could spell an end to the practice.

Good for you, Mitch. Hang in there.

Saving the Golden State

November 10, 2010

The late psychic Edgar Cayce was famed for predicting that in the not-too-distant future the entire state of California would collapse into the Pacific Ocean and disappear beneath the sea.

That may be a questionable forecast, but the collapse of the Golden State into a sea of debt is already upon us, and if we don’t act now to begin to reclaim California it will soon be too late to save it from disappearing under a mountain of IOUs that cannot be repaid.

We had a chance to begin saving the state when level-headed Meg Whitman ran for governor and Carly Fiorina ran for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat, but the effort failed — not because of a lack of money to fund their campaigns but for a lack of the kind of political savvy needed to win elections.

As the elder son of the late California Gov. Ronald Reagan, I watched and worked for his campaigns for California governor and then president of the United States and I learned at his knee the art of the kind of political action that wins elections.

My Dad dedicated himself to governing wisely and well, because he loved California and wanted it to stand as a beacon light for good government.

Now I believe it’s my turn and my obligation to the Reagan heritage to pitch in and fight to lead Californians in a campaign to reclaim the state my Dad loved and served so well for eight years as governor.

I am impelled to act by the tragic circumstances that have led thousands of employers and job creating entrepreneurs to flee to other states such as Texas which have been happy to throw out the welcome mat to Californians who bring new industry and jobs and investment capital with them.

According to the Los Angeles Times, during the last fiscal year 135,173 more people moved out of California than moved in from other states. It’s no longer a case of “Go West, young man;” now the advice is to move is eastward where fiscal sanity prevails.

Why have so many fled this glorious, sun-blessed state? Well, for one thing it’s the tragic fact that unemployment stands at an horrific 12 percent, more than two percent higher than the national average.

The state is broke. There are no jobs here — they’ve gone to Texas or China. We can’t pay for unemployment insurance or pay our bills. We have allowed the labor-union thugocracy to bankrupt our state. And the situation will get worse now that the majority of voters have handed the state’s future over to Governor-elect Jerry Brown, and allowed Barbara Boxer — who never saw a spending bill she didn’t like — to return to her job as a senator.

I don’t blame my fellow Californians for this sorry situation, I blame the leadership of the Republican party, which is badly in need of new blood — of dedicated party members who are willing to roll up their sleeves and go out and find grass-roots candidates and back them to the hilt.

We can win elections when we turn from building from the top down and start building from the bottom up. That’s the way successful parties go about the business of winning elections.

It’s important to observe the stunning success of the GOP in other states. Their success was entirely due to their grass-roots efforts that attracted such newly activated groups as the tea parties, the AFP and other such neighborhood-level political activists.

It’s time to get to work rebuilding the party of fiscal sanity and restraint. We must reclaim California and do it now. If we fail, California will become the Greece of the new world.

Repeal It Now!

November 2, 2010

Our country was founded on a revolutionary concept — a new kind of government both empowered and controlled by its citizens.

This idea, the very foundation of our great experiment in democracy, was betrayed with enactment of the new healthcare act. Every poll showed that a majority of Americans rejected this legislation and yet Congress ran right over the majority will of the American people and enacted it into law.

This act must be repealed for this reason alone but there are many more good reasons.

Our objections were legitimate — not simply an expression of a political ideology. We were told that costs would be controlled, but all the evidence shows that private insurance costs and taxes are going up. We were told that our own insurance coverage would remain intact, but it has become clear that will also prove false. We were told that seniors would not be hurt, but hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare will make doctors wary of taking the elderly on as patients. Our country can ill afford the costs and assaults on healthcare that this act will bring about.

The mid-term elections are now over and the face of Congress has changed. We will face the prospect of gridlock but, we, the people, have the power to break the impasse. The clearest demonstration of our determination and will to restore the proper voice of the American people is outright repeal of the healthcare act.

We are already hearing from Washington that this will be “difficult.” We will hear in coming days and weeks that the White House will make it impossible. I reject these pronouncements and I am also not willing to wait on the judicial branch to rule that this law is patently unconstitutional. It is important that the people of the United States make the point that we have the final word on public policy and the actions of the legislative branch of our government.

For all these reasons I am leading a citizen campaign to overturn this destructive and unwanted law. It is called “RepealHealthcareAct.org” and we plan to raise at least five million petitions and do so much more that Congress will have no option except outright repeal. Many have said it is time to “take our country back” and this is how it begins. This was to be the “signature issue” of Mr. Obama but he failed to get our signature on the bottom line.

A new Congress will take office in January and the voice of the people was heard in the elections. Here is the rest of the story about our representative democracy. We will be telling our elected representatives what we want from them in unmistakable terms. We will not be accepting half truths, half efforts or the usual legislative escape hatches that put off to some undefined future date what we are demanding right now.

In enacting this law, politicians and lobbyists believed that they knew better than the American people. They forced upon us what we did not want to accept. It has happened before under the rule of a King George and we rejected his arrogance when we founded a new kind of nation — our United States of America. We became the hope of the world with our grand experiment and now we must renew the promise of the Founding Fathers. To do so we must teach this fundamental lesson of self-determination to our own leaders. Together, we will.

Ronald Reagan was the Tea Party

October 27, 2010

Liberals and their Democratic Party allies are frightened out of their halfwits by the re-emergence of the dreaded tea party, which began in Boston Harbor in December 1773, when colonists dressed as Indians dumped shiploads of tea into the water, helping to set off what eventually became the American Revolution.

There’s nothing new about the liberal alarm over the tea party’s reappearance in American politics. The last time they confronted it was back in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, when my dad Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California and then for the presidency of the United States.

The left, as they always will, attacked him personally instead of dealing with the issues; he beat them each time, hands down.

Ronald Reagan was the personification of American exceptionalism. He understood that the concept of self-rule — a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln put it — was the secret behind this nation’s astonishing progress from a loose confederation of almost-primitive states to becoming the mightiest nation in the world, all in a mere 200 years.

Ronald Reagan believed in the American people. Unlike today’s liberal elite he was convinced they have the wisdom to chart the nation’s future, and he insisted that the government get out of their way and allow them to chart their own futures and the future of the United States.

When people ask me if he would support the tea party movement I tell them he was the tea party of his time. He saw it as being as American as apple pie and he sought to serve it as pie a la mode.

He would have been astonished at the huge popularity of today’s tea parties — of the movement’s sudden emergence and power. But then I doubt that in his worst nightmares he would have ever imagined that a massive power grab from the White House in a mere two years would reach down and attempt to inflict the president’s version of European socialism on every single American.

He took the presidency when it had been dangerously weakened by indecisive foreign and domestic policies and over the next eight years strengthened the nation’s economy and restored our reputation as a nation not to be trifled with.

He would have seen today’s tea party as the proper response to the threat to our individual liberties represented by such legislation as so-called Obamacare, which inserts the federal government between Americans and their medical-care providers.

He would have recognized the administration’s barely disguised attempts to introduce their version of Euro-socialism, and would have rallied the American people to oppose it with traditional American vigor.

And he would have been in the forefront of the tea party movement, urging it on and devoting every last ounce of his energy to its progress in restoring America to its rightful place as the head of the family of free nations.

Michael E. Reagan

> New York Times' Bestselling Author - More...
> Son of President Ronald Reagan - More...
> Political Consultant - More...
> Highly sought after Public Speaker - More...
> Founder of @Reagan.com Email - More...

Category Archives: Articles