Ronald Reagan on July 4th

Recent events have made me miss President Ronald Reagan more than ever. So I extend my wishes for a Happy July 4th by quoting a speech that Reagan penned in his own hand (with thanks to Newsmax.com.) . Note in particular the legend of the angelic Founder:

What July Fourth Means to Me, by Ronald Reagan (1981)

For one who was born and grew up in the small towns of the Midwest, there is a special kind of nostalgia about the Fourth of July.

I remember it as a day almost as long-anticipated as Christmas. This was helped along by the appearance in store windows of all kinds of fireworks and colorful posters advertising them with vivid pictures.

No later than the third of July – sometimes earlier – Dad would bring home what he felt he could afford to see go up in smoke and flame. We'd count and recount the number of firecrackers, display pieces and other things and go to bed determined to be up with the sun so as to offer the first, thunderous notice of the Fourth of July.

I'm afraid we didn't give too much thought to the meaning of the day. And, yes, there were tragic accidents to mar it, resulting from careless handling of the fireworks. I'm sure we're better off today with fireworks largely handled by professionals. Yet there was a thrill never to be forgotten in seeing a tin can blown 30 feet in the air by a giant "cracker" – giant meaning it was about 4 inches long. But enough of nostalgia.

Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth.
There is a legend about the day of our nation's birth in the little hall in Philadelphia, a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words "treason, the gallows, the headsman's axe," and the issue remained in doubt.

The legend says that at that point a man rose and spoke. He is described as not a young man, but one who had to summon all his energy for an impassioned plea. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment and finally, his voice falling, he said, "They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever."

He fell back exhausted. The 56 delegates, swept up by his eloquence, rushed forward and signed that document destined to be as immortal as a work of man can be. When they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he was not to be found, nor could any be found who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, that is the legend. But we do know for certain that 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor.

What manner of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, and nine were farmers. They were soft-spoken men of means and education; they were not an unwashed rabble. They had achieved security but valued freedom more. Their stories have not been told nearly enough.

John Hart was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. For more than a year he lived in the forest and in caves before he returned to find his wife dead, his children vanished, his property destroyed. He died of exhaustion and a broken heart.

Carter Braxton of Virginia lost all his ships, sold his home to pay his debts, and died in rags. And so it was with Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Rutledge, Morris, Livingston and Middleton. Nelson personally urged Washington to fire on his home and destroy it when it became the headquarters for General Cornwallis. Nelson died bankrupt.

But they sired a nation that grew from sea to shining sea. Five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep, 3 million square miles of forest, field, mountain and desert, 227 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines of all the world. In recent years, however, I've come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.

It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.

Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.

We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.

Happy Fourth of July. Ronald Reagan President of the United States

How blessed we are as a country, despite everything. Happy Independence Day.

Scott McClellan: The David Stockman of the Bush White House?

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary from 2003 through 2006, is splashing around in the media waves these days, holding out his new book for the sharks who think they smell blood spilling from the Bush White House. Undoubtedly McClellan is counting on sales of his turncoat "confession" to bring in enough cash to make up for his years on a government salary.

McClellan, who just turned forty, reminds me of another youngster who served in the White House and thought himself wiser than his elder President and decided to tell the world about it: David Stockman, President Reagan's first budget director. Beginning with the now-infamous Atlantic Monthly article, "The Education of David Stockman", the liberal media touted the thirty-something Stockman as the ultimate Reagan White House insider who supposedly came clean on everything that was wrong with Reagan's economic policies.

But we all know how the Stockman v. Reagan match-up ended. Reagan is now viewed as one of the nation's greatest presidents and the architect of one of the longest eras of economic expansion in the country's history and Stockman, well . . . After suffering in obscurity for many years (a risk when one gains fame early, then burns bridges to friends who helped get you there), Stockman made the news again last year when he was indicted in a $1.6 billion fraud case involving his company. The now sixty-something Stockman was accused by the U.S. Attorney of having "resorted to lies, tricks, and fraud."

This is not to say Scott McClellan will meet a like fate, or will be accused of similar activities as David Stockman, but the Stockman saga suggests skepticism should be in order for a tell-all memoir from a sanctimonious former White House whippersnapper. It may not be the end of the story for the subject being discussed or the young writer.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Navy Scores For The Gipper

Ronald Reagan would have been proud of the U.S. Navy yesterday. According to Reuters, "[t]he Pentagon said . . . it had 'a high degree of confidence' that a Navy missile hit the toxic fuel tank of a disabled U.S. spy satellite, which posed a potential threat if it struck land on reentry."

What a relief that the Navy hit its target apparently on the first try and during an only ten-second window available to do it:

An SM-3 missile fired from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie in the Pacific Ocean northwest of Hawaii hit the errant satellite on Wednesday at 10:26 p.m. EST (0326 GMT Thursday), 153 nautical miles (283 km) above the Earth.
. . . .
The missile hit the 5,000-pound (2,270 kg), bus-sized satellite as it traveled through space at more than 17,000 miles per hour (27,400 kph), the Pentagon said.

That "Star Wars" research continues to pay dividends for the United States. Just ask the Chinese, who botched their own shoot-down of a satellite last year -- and whose complaints about American anti-missile defense accuracy are telling:

A Chinese state newspaper on Thursday -- Wednesday in the United States -- accused Washington of hypocrisy for criticizing other countries' space ambitions while rejecting a treaty proposed by China and Russia to ban weapons in space and firing a missile at the spy satellite.

China said it was monitoring Washington's destruction of the satellite.

"The Chinese side is continuing to closely follow the U.S. action which may influence the security of outer space and may harm other countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a regular news conference.

Well done, Midshipmen!

Update: A newly posted report at Space.com provides further insight as to the strategic implications of the Navy's success:

The U.S. Navy's successful missile hit and apparent destruction of a defunct spy satellite represents a major step forward in the space arms race in the eyes of some analysts. Others are not so sure.
One expert said last night's hit was not an example of a real missile-defense system, targeting an unusually low satellite that was essentially a sitting duck with a missile that is not the nation's top-of-the line for such tasks.
Some say tensions with Russia and China will increase following the U.S. anti-satellite demonstration, as both nations had stated their opposition to the attempt. Others argue the United States took necessary measures to ensure geopolitical stability and extend its military dominance.
"This is obviously being hailed as a victory both politically, because the [U.S.] administration can claim there was no loss of life, and technically because it worked," said Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information director. "It helped the [U.S.] Navy demonstrate the capabilities of its missile defense system."

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Ronald Reagan and Sam Walton Are Laughing In Heaven

Tonight's Democratic presidential debate must have caused the Gipper and Mr. Sam to chuckle.

Barack Obama snarled that Hillary Clinton had served as a "corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart," reports the Associated Press. So Hillary fired back that Barack had represented "a Chicago slumlord."

Later in the debate, according to AP,

[a]s Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.

"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.

"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama said.

There you go again, Hillary and Barack. You are making the Republican candidates look better and better.

The Memo That Won the Cold War

The Cold War ended so quickly that we didn't have much chance to savor the moment. The Washington Times has an excerpt of the State Department memorandum from the Reagan administration that laid out the strategy for ending the former Soviet Union and the Cold War.

Coincidentally, that controversial memo, known as NSDD-75, was written 25 years ago this week, primarily by Bill Clark and Richard Pipes.

Reagan's genius with respect to the Soviets was his rejection of detente and the policy of "containment" that Soviet Studies expert George Kennan had made the cornerstone of U.S.-Soviet relations since 1946. Containment, at its core, assumed that America could not win the Cold War, and should be grateful for anything short of nuclear annihilation.

Reagan was not content to "peacefully coexist" with the Soviets; he insisted that we could apply external pressure to change the very nature of the U.S.S.R..

His ability -- and courage -- to challenge the fundamental premises of American policy is what made Reagan one of our greatest presidents. It is also the characteristic that caused his rivals and enemies to dismiss him as a dim-witted actor.

The most critical portion of the Reagan NSC memo was also the most controversial. Indeed, the State Department wanted to drop it from the memo altogether:

the opening to NSDD-75 established two core "U.S. tasks:" First, "To contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism ... . This will remain the primary focus of U.S. policy toward the U.S.S.R." And, second, "To promote, within the narrow limits available to us, the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system in which the power of the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced."

Fortunately, Reagan agreed with the National Security Council and the language remained. But it did not remain secret:

The directive resonated through the Soviet media. A piece by Grigori Dadyants in Sotsialisticheskaya Industriya stated, "Directive 75 speaks of changing the Soviet Union's domestic policy. In other words, the powers that be in Washington are threatening the course of world history, neither more nor less." Mr. Dadyants confidently assured his comrades that the grandiose "ideas of Reagan and Pipes" were "staggeringly naive."

Reagan was called "grandiose" and "staggeringly naive" by the Soviet press, but the New York Times and other U.S. intelligentsia said even worse. The New York Times, for example, called Reagan a "simpleton," and regularly complained about his refusal to agree to a nuclear freeze.

We know how this story ended, of course. Reagan did not just "threaten" to change the course of history; he changed it. And in the process Americans became safer and Russians became more free.

This is more than a history lesson, however. It's a reminder of what we need in a president, particularly when there are those who threaten America's very existence. Their tactics and philosophy differ, but the Islamofascists want us dead every bit as much as did the Politburo.

We need a president bold enough to revisit, challenge and if necessary reject the assumptions that have guided U.S. policy, just as Reagan jettisoned detente and containment. And we need a president who will not be dissuaded by the "conventional wisdom" at the New York Times. We need a president who is honest enough to acknowledge that we have enemies, and who will position America for a checkmate, even when the intelligentsia says, "we can't win; accept a draw."