“A Time for Choosing” otherwise known as “The Speech” was delivered in a broadcast in support of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential election. The name of the program, “Rendezvous with Destiny” marked the beginning of Reagan as a national political figure. It turned out to be Reagan’s rendezvous with destiny…

Full text of the speech

Excerpts from “A Time for Choosing”
By Ronald Reagan
Broadcast October 27, 1964

…No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world.
…
There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
…
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.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people.But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”
…
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.”
…
Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
…
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?
…
I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
…
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
…
back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.
…
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.
…
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Reagan successfully battled back the forces of socialist progressivism in his time but the virus is a tough one to shake. It has now come back full force and with no Reagan on the horizon to put the genie back in the bottle.

Ward Churchill (remember him?) references the book, Smallpox and the American Indian, during his testimony in his civil suit against the University of Colorado at the City and County Building in Denver, Colorado March 23, 2009. Churchill is suing the University of Colorado for wrongful termination.
AP photo.

Today, I picked up 2 kids I carpool to the gymnastics club from their magnet school, as I do every Monday. Apparently, there was no mention about Columbus Day. Nada. Zippo. Nothing negative or positive. But they did watch a performance by dancers dressed like Mayan/Aztec Indians; and the older one said it was “Latino Heritage month”.

This school was closed for Yom Kippur (where 99% of the kids are black and Hispanic). But they were open today, with no mention of Columbus, but did celebrate “Latino heritage”. Oooookaaay…..

I’m recognizing my country, less and less, as time wears on….

While Federal government offices in Washington, D.C. are closed for Columbus Day, students in Maryland, just a few miles away, have a full school day. What was once a guaranteed day off from work is now a gamble, with many schools and workplaces open on Columbus Day.

Columbus Day is not commemorated universally. Federal and state offices are closed, the United States Postal Service will not deliver mail, and many banks are shuttered.

But public schools in large cities like Los Angeles, Miami and Dallas are open, while in Washington, DC, New York City and Chicago they are closed

It has been a growing trend for more than 20 years.

U.S. Air Force Capt. Tony Truong checks a childs ears at a free medical clinic in Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia, Oct. 9, 2009. Truong is assigned to the 353rd Special Operations Squadron. The clinic was set up after two earthquakes ravaged the region. U.S. and Indonesian military personnel are responding to a request from the Indonesian government for assistance and support for humanitarian efforts.
U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Byron C. Linder

U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Raulito Galgana, with III Marine Expeditionary Force, hands a patient medicine at an evacuation center in the Philippines on Oct. 2, 2009. U.S. service members are providing medical and dental assistance to flood victims in the area. Flooding caused by several typhoons has destroyed homes and has displaced thousands of residents. DoD photo by Lance Cpl. Marie Matarlo, U.S. Marine Corps. (Released)
Photographer’s Name: Lance Cpl. Marie Matarlo

Read some other recent efforts on the part of our imperialist military conducting peacemongering disaster relief missions.

Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands

~~~

Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States–controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture–has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome.

The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.

Indeed, as he made his hajj from Strasbourg to Prague to Ankara to Istanbul to Cairo and finally to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama drew the picture of an America quite exceptional–exceptional in moral culpability and heavy-handedness, exceptional in guilt for its treatment of other nations and peoples. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own country for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness (toward Europe), for maltreatment of natives, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantánamo, for unilateralism, and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

Quite an indictment, the fundamental consequence of which is to effectively undermine any moral claim that America might have to world leadership, as well as the moral confidence that any nation needs to have in order to justify to itself and to others its position of leadership.

~~~

The liberal internationalism of today is different. It is not center-left, but left-liberal. And the new left-liberal internationalism goes far beyond its earlier Clintonian incarnation in its distrust of and distaste for American dominance. For what might be called the New Liberalism, the renunciation of power is rooted not in the fear that we are essentially good but subject to the corruptions of power–the old Clintonian view–but rooted in the conviction that America is so intrinsically flawed, so inherently and congenitally sinful that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit, the possession of overarching world power.

For the New Liberalism, it is not just that power corrupts. It is that America itself is corrupt–in the sense of being deeply flawed, and with the history to prove it. An imperfect union, the theme of Obama’s famous Philadelphia race speech, has been carried to and amplified in his every major foreign-policy address, particularly those delivered on foreign soil. (Not surprisingly, since it earns greater applause over there.)

Short video of the speech while the whole thing can be viewed here.

He is completely on the mark here and it should scare the bejesus out of you.

More here.

Former President George W. Bush looks out over the U.S. Capitol as his helicopter departs Washington, D.C. January 20, 2009, for Andrews Air Force Base following the inauguration ceremonies for President Barack Obama. (ERIC DRAPER/AFP/Getty Images)

President Bush gave an hour-and-a-half speech Wednesday night at the Wilderness Resort and Convention Center in Sevierville (Hat tip: Brutally Honest):

“Every day in the White House was a joyous day for me,” the 43rd president said. “I miss being commander and chief of our military the most. You know you live in an amazing country when we have servicemen that continually volunteer to serve their country in the face of danger. I believe we have an obligation to give our troops all the support they need to accomplish their missions.”

The former president said he still has faith that conflicts in the Middle East can eventually be resolved.

“There are individuals out there that kill to achieve their ideology,” he said. “In the United States, our ideology is our assurance to freedom. That’s what makes us great and unique.”

Bush said Japan was once a sworn enemy of the United States but is now an ally because of its desire to become a free nation.

“Something happened over the past 60 years that transformed our enemy (Japan) to an ally,” he said.

“It was their desire to become free. That same democratic core can happen in the Middle East if we don’t lose sight that people everywhere should have the right to freedom.”

Each president chooses a portrait of their favorite past president to hang in the oval office and for Bush, that was Abraham Lincoln.

“I believe Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president of all time,” Bush said.

“He believed that all men were created equal under God even during times of civil war. He believed in the spirit of freedom. I believe in God Almighty and that everyone desires to be free and want peace.”

A Methodist by faith, Bush said every American has the right to worship God in any way he or she wants.

“The President of the United States should never promote a particular religion,” he said.

“That’s just another thing that makes us such a great nation, being able to worship God as we choose.”

~~~

Bush said he was proud to represent the United States during his eight-year tenure.

“The institution of president is so much more important than the person,” he said. “I tried to bring honor to the office for eight years.”

Phil Waldrep said Bush’s comments were right on target.

“He made everyone feel at ease,” Waldrep said. “I hope everyone walked away from here with a little skip in their step. It was non-political and made me proud to be an American.”

No divisive political rhetoric; no America-bashing. Just an expression of faith, optimism, appreciation of the military, and love of country.

L-R: Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy, President Rev. Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition and Father James Heyd hold a prayer service in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington. Today the high court will hear oral arguments in a case on involving the building of a memorial with a cross by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in a remote area within what is now a federal preserve.
Mark Wilson-Getty Images

Is anyone really damaged by seeing the 10 Commandments displayed on a government building? Are any of you offended when you see a Christmas tree in a public square? When the White House hosts an Easter egg hunt each year, as well as iftar dinner and menorah lighting? Are your feelings hurt because we have national holidays that are Christian?

Why?

Religious expression is part of this nation’s history. The jihadist crusade of the ACLU and militant secular extremists is beyond reason in its successful attacks over the last several decades against public expression of Christian traditions and national heritage that has been a part of this country’s 200-plus year history.

Today, the Supreme Court began deliberations over the Mojave Desert Cross:

At issue was a cross that sits atop Sunrise Rock in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve. Since 1934, the cross has existed, in one form or another, as a war memorial. Different court documents refer to it as 5 to 8 feet tall.

A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby.

A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional and, further, Congress’ move to transfer it to the private VFW did not solve the problem.

The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display of the cross now that it is in private hands.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said that the “sensible action by Congress” to give the VFW control of the cross and the land under it solved the 1st Amendment problem. The cross is no longer on government land and under government control, she said.

“It’s VFW’s choice” how to preserve it and maintain it now, she said.

Not all of the justices sounded convinced. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the Mojave cross was designated as a national memorial and that Congress said it must be preserved as a cross to honor America’s war dead. If not, the land and the cross would revert to government control, they said.

Eliasberg argued that the transfer was an obvious ploy to maintain the cross after it had been declared unconstitutional by a federal court.

He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well.

By the end of the hour, it was not clear what issue the justices would decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land.

Some lawyers thought the justices could focus on whether the original plaintiff, former park service employee Frank Buono, had legal standing to object to the cross. But that issue was hardly mentioned in the court Wednesday.

It will probably be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of Salazar vs. Buono.

More here.

Soldier’s Angels Germany (Hat tip: BlackFive):

Anti-Afghan Forces detonate a rocket on a convoy in Afghanistan with children in the immediate area. The 951st EN Sapper Co, attached to Task Force Spartan, treat Afghan children wounded when they are conducting a routine patrol near Charkh Afghanistan and their convoy is struck by a rocket. Spc Chris Baker of Task Force Spartan, 10th Mountain Division, reports.

This horrific act was captured on video by a camera mounted on a coalition vehicle. Eyewitnesses report the triggerman had full line of sight to the child standing just several feet away from the hidden rocket – but he detonated it anyway. You can see the child stagger out of the dust cloud resulting from the explosion. (Not shown: His injuries were treated by US soldiers on the scene and he was brought to a US medical facility for further treatment.)

Recall, as well, the story of Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer in 2005, a medic who was shot in the chest by a sniper in Iraq. From Curt’s post:

Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a native of Mendon, N.Y., and a medic with E Troop, 101st “Saber” Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, during a routine patrol in west Baghdad.

While Tschiderer was relaying information to the truck commander of his M114 Humvee, an enemy sniper team prepared to engage him from inside of a cushioned silver van being used as a mobile sniper?s nest. This nest was lined with numerous bed mattresses to muffle the sound of a Dragonoff sniper rifle fired through a hole just big enough for the shooter to engage his target of choice.

Tschiderer was knocked to the ground from the sudden impact of the sniper’s bullet. The bullet only seemed to have fazed this Soldier as, adrenaline pumping, he sprang right back up in order to take cover and locate the enemy’s position.

The sniper was unsuccessful in his mission, due to the stopping force of the Tschiderer’s daily wardrobe, his protective body armor, which saved his life.

“I knew I was hit, but was uncertain of the damage or location from the hit,” Tschiderer said. “The only thing that was going through my mind was to take cover and locate the sniper?s position.”

“The shot came from my 12 o’clock position from a silver van parked across an intersection about 75 meters from my location? said Tschiderer.

After Tschiderer alerted his fellow Soldiers of the enemy location, they immediately began to pursue the terrorists.

Due to his heroic actions and quick decisions, Tschiderer located the enemy while he took cover and alerted the rest of his team on patrol. As the Saber team engaged and disabled the sniper’s position, two terrorists fled on foot, leaving a blood trail that came from the wounds of the enemy sniper.

A cordon and search was immediately set up and Tschiderer assisted his team in the search of the two terrorists. The driver of the silver vehicle was detained by a team from B Co. 3-156th Inf. Bn. while Tschiderer and a team from B Company, 4th Battalion, 1st Iraqi Army Brigade, continued to follow the blood trail which led them to the yard where the wounded sniper lay in pain.

As Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs, he gave medical aid to the wounded terrorist, “the same one who” had tried to take his life.

Insurgent video of Tschiderer getting hit:

Yes, this may be part of the narrative and the reality, much to our shame; but so too is this, much to our credit. And the good the majority of our soldiers accomplish every day overwhelmingly outweigh the shameful conduct of the minority.

Simply put, our soldiers are heroes. It’s ok to admit. There is no moral equivalence here; no moral relativity. They are the good guys. Those they fight? Not so much:

Iraq: Al-Qaeda ‘used 24 child suicide bombers in last two years

Iraqi Woman Had 80 Women Raped & Turned Into Suicide Bombers (Video)

Taliban Use Human Shields To Protect Them In Bajaur Agency

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin (Check out her post!)

Not everyone appreciates being offered handouts. It can be quite insulting.

Apparently, all those instances of American soldiers passing out toys and candy and school supplies to Afghan children might be doing some harm in counterinsurgency operations. Instead of goodwill, such handouts may be breeding resentment by shaming and embarrassing Afghan parents who aren’t able to provide such items for their children, themselves.

Thomas Ricks has an interesting post, pointing out a piece by David Wood:

I remembered accompanying a Marine officer through villages in Iraq’s Anbar Province. He’d pull out a handful of candy as kids crowded and jumped. Then he’d ask, “Who’d like a soccer ball?” and he’d summon an aide and hand out a few balls. In the distance, I noticed men who’d just brought their kids to school standing in the shadows, glowering at this scene. Their resentment seemed palpable, that their kids were crowding around an American handing out presents that they couldn’t afford for their own children.

Here in Afghanistan, a different war but the same American impulse of generosity. And to what end? I put this question to an American officer, a man who works closely and professionally with Afghans and whose opinion I respect. “The feedback we get from Afghans,” he said, “is that this kind of give-away makes them feel like dogs.”

Ricks offers a commonsense solution:

Empower local authorities-police, teachers, tribal leaders, and parents by giving them the soccer balls, books, pencils and pens, and letting them distribute them equitably. And by their own lights. It might not make the troops feel as good in the short term, but it sure makes a difference in the long run.

Comedian James Gregory visited the John Boy & Billy Show recently.

Once he got started, he was like a rock rolling downhill, gaining speed and unstoppable.

Mr. Gregory summed up my thoughts and feelings on America, the economy, and the world pretty effectively.

The interview runs 20 minutes and is divided into two parts.

It would be well worth your time to hear what Mr. Gregory has to say.

Second half below the fold.

“It is an idea of the Christian religion, and ever has been of all believers of the immortality of the soul, that the intellectual part of man is capable of progressive improvement forever. Where then is the sense of calling the ‘perfectibility of man’ an original idea or modern discovery….I consider [this idea] as used by modern philosophers [e.g. French Enlightenment thinkers] to be mere words without meaning, that is mere nonsense.” – Letter of John Adams to Benjamin Rush

The last month or so, I’ve been enjoying the Pulitzer Prize-winning book on John Adams by David McCullough. [It was recently turned into a highly acclaimed HBO miniseries starring Paul Giamatti with McCullough serving as consultant.] It’s pretty LARGE in more ways than one. It’s funny how examining ‘roots’ helps us figure out what feathered ‘wings’ we’ve got fluttering around our ears these days. There are several correlations between then and now I would like to point out.

JOHN ADAMS

Adams:  Clear-sighted & Accurate Predictor

One thing that has become clear to me is just how far ahead of the curve Adams was in several important ways. It is almost breathtaking how much Adams saw and predicted things correctly, but the flip side of that is just how unappreciated this was at the time. He foresaw that Washington would be THE leader because of his character, morality and determination, and his unique circumstances, despite his lack of experience as a general. He foresaw that the Navy would be the critical factor in the coming War and beyond. Almost alone, he sensed that help should be gotten from France, Holland, Prussia and Portugal without becoming entangled in their political battles; just about everyone else wanted to back some horse or another. Looking back, he was almost certainly THE key figure in pushing “independency”, in getting financial help from Holland and in providing the theoretical backdrop for the New Constitution. He saw that human nature demanded the bicameral legislature and strong executive with an independent court system and that the unicameral model was fraught with enormous danger. He was right about the good outcome of the first in America and the violent, chaotic outcome of the French Reign of Terror in the second. He predicted what happened before it did because his analysis was dead on. And yet, he was smeared as being a little crazy, much too old, a closet royalist (!) and hopelessly out of touch!

John Adams was almost a sitting duck for criticism in that his ethic precluded his benefiting from what he saw as his duty. Adams was a very unusual diplomat and politician in that he was almost apolitical in certain ways. He consciously battled his own ambition and made love of country and heroic virtue his standard. He lamented the standard view of diplomacy as deception, deep compromise and double-mindedness in favor of polite but spirited preaching of the attractiveness and power of true principles coupled with an ingenious insight into human character and motivations.

Oh, he had his faults. The musical “1776” lampoons his famous lack of sensitivity to others and his own oversensitive nature. His writing was sometimes slap-dash, not organized and not well-expressed. His thoughts seemed to others at times to come out of nowhere in ways that were strange and weird. But lack of perseverance, charity and regard for others were certainly not among his faults. His character and capacity for deep friendship were recognized even by his enemies.

Adams vs. Jefferson: Faithful Realism vs. Ambitious Idealism

This brings us to a second great theme of this book: the love-hate relationship Adams experienced with Thomas Jefferson. They were the two key collaborators on the Declaration of Independence. They had become bosom friends in the many years they spent together in Europe, to the point where even Abigail Adams helped Jefferson with his daughter and corresponded with him on a regular basis in an impressively deep way.

They grew apart in the first years of the new Republic. Jefferson, surreptitiously, became the main moving force of the Anti-Federalist Party. He stopped writing to and visiting the Adams family. Adams, meanwhile, deplored political parties and angered people of both parties. Though he often spoke ill of the character of Hamilton from his own Federalist Party, he rarely spoke publicly about Jefferson. He made several overtures of regard toward Jefferson and, at the beginning of Adams’ Presidency, for a fleeting moment, it seemed they were going to work together, but Jefferson drew back again.

Privately, Adams worried about the character flaws he saw in his old friend. The one amazing thing McCullough hits on is that Adams was more correct about his appraisal of Jefferson’s character and motivations than Jefferson was about himself! Adams saw that despite Jefferson’s brilliance in linguistic expression and his sharpness of insight in things impersonal and mechanical, he was, unbeknownst to himself perhaps, truly driven by ambition and a theoretical idealism which did not fit reality. He trusted in his own persona and tended to think anything was justifiable because he was right about his pro-French stance. He even wrote, after most were horrified by the Reign of Terror in France, that all the violence was entirely justified! ‘Let only an Adam and Eve be left in every country if that is the way it has to be.’ Such an ‘ends justifies the means’ attitude seems to betray a disquieting self-centered radicalism that anticipates the Marxism of our day.

Jefferson eventually came to admit implicitly much that Adams had seen long before. He was ashamed of some of the political underhandedness to which he had resorted. He was so scarred by his experience as President that he deliberately did not mention it on his gravestone. His secret rationalism and lack of personal faith warmed in later years, I believe. Though he had criticized declarations of days of prayer, intercession or thanksgiving being declared by Washington and Adams, he ended up doing such things himself when he became President.

In fact, the two great Founders would become intimate friends again by the time they both died on the same day, amazingly the Fourth of July 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of their Great Collaboration. Adams said, “Oh, yes, it is the glorious fourth of July. God bless it. God bless you all…Thomas Jefferson lives.” And Jefferson said, a few hours before, “I resign my spirit to God, my daughter and my country.” Despite his complicated personality, Jefferson seemed to die with a laudable faith and a renewed regard for the insight of Adams.

[By the way, I am not condemning Jefferson. I admire and honor him. The Revolution would not have happened without him and his work on the Declaration. He was absolutely right in a great deal of his thoughts and was brilliant in expressing them. We wouldn’t have key elements of our common political faith without his further emphases on the Bill of Rights, for instance. Everyone, including Washington and Adams, had notable faults, too. However, there can be little doubt that Adams’ laser-like insight was right again about Jefferson in that he wasn’t very consistent about practicing what he preached and this affected his politics.]

Contrast in Leadership Styles

The big lesson here is about leadership attitude. Washington and Adams modeled a serviceable humility as opposed to ideology and ambition. We can’t presume to decide what the mission is; we have to find out what the Lord’s mission is for us on the basis of submission to human nature and nature’s God. The law has to be greater than the man. John Adams understood that; Jefferson didn’t, though he sometimes professed it. That’s why Adams accurately predicted the outcome of both the French and the American Revolutions and Jefferson was dead wrong. Like his friend Washington, Adams routinely appealed to Providence and grace in regard to the nation’s destiny and purpose. Jefferson earlier tended to worship his reason as a god; Adams worshipped God for good reason.

(By the way, the one big rap on Adams’ Presidency was the Alien & Sedition Acts. McCullough concedes it was public relations fiasco, but points out that the context was imminent war. EVERYONE thought war with France was GOING to happen, and the XYZ Affair indicated the espionage threat, so some radical measures had to be taken.

OBAMA

Obama et al: Ambitious Idealists

Now what about Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al? Can there be any doubt that theirs is well-concealed but rabid ambition matched with blind far-left idealism that is also driving them, that they are the antithesis of what was good about Adams? Because their orientation is not a humble faith attitude and realism, their ability to see what’s really going on and to predict what will happen is seriously crippled. Their expectation of ‘perfectibility’ or constant progress is nonsense.

It seems very clear to me that Obama, like Jefferson, has enormous faith in his own reason, charm and personal appeal. Meanwhile, the founding principles are sloughed aside. We are NOT a Christian or religious nation, he says, we are secular in origin (although Turkey is a Muslim nation!). He can sometimes talk a good game about democracy and the founding principles on the surface, but many of his other words and all of his actions betray the Marxist marination he undoubtedly has experienced in his life. So, he waits for long agonizing days as the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran suffer, then he jumps on the perfectly legal deposing of a Marxist dictator in Honduras.  Like Jefferson, his vision is skewed by his secular faith.

The new Triumvirate seems to want to overpower, circumvent and frustrate the checks and balances the Federalist Founders Madison, Adams et al so wisely put into the Constitution. As Obama let slip early on, he sees the Constitution as a barrier to his purposes. He is setting up “Czars” beyond the reach of appeal, responsibility or reason at a record-setting clip while he relies heavily on the Presidential pen-wielding he criticized so much in his predecessor.  They mouth the catch-words of “bipartisanship” or “no politics as usual” while brutally overpowering any remonstration or even thought; we can’t even read the bills. It is a violent legislative Reign of Terror rationalized because the ends will justify the means.

How are Those Promises and Predictions Going?

Obama said he would be able to ‘talk’ with North Korea and the Iranian despots. Things are not going quite as he said they would, are they? He stood at the Caterpillar plant and said they’d be hiring very soon. They’re firing. He made many promises about levels of taxation. Any and all of those promises have now quite obviously and laughably gone up in smoke. He promised to close Guantanamo and then accepted the status quo. He heartily criticized Bush’s Iraq Policy and then did the same. He rejected Presidential directives as imperial and now is doing more of them than ever…and on and on and on.

Jefferson was totally blindsided by the violence in France but still predicted they would defeat England and spread ‘democracy’ throughout Europe within a very short time. Adams predicted the violence and said a dictator would surely follow. Jefferson was totally shocked by the rise of Napoleon; Adams said ‘I told you so’. Who does Obama resemble more?

CONCLUSION

We can only hope that these people, like Jefferson, will come to their senses before they, too, meet their Maker; let them change like Jefferson before all the likely economic chaos and loss of freedom they might cause!

Obama fails to see as John Adams did that “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. An American President should take Washington or Adams as models. It wasn’t all about them, their genius or their persona; it was about humble but strong service. Adams would feel shame that the founding vision is being so abused. If Adams’ words and example cannot melt Obama’s pride, it’s a damned shame.

How does a son say goodbye to his father? While this is a profoundly painful question to ponder, in this instance, the answer is really very simple – by honoring my father’s request to be buried and celebrated as a great Marine.

To Ed’s millions of fans around the world, he was an entertainment icon who’s brilliant and colorful career spanned some 70 years and included work as a bingo caller in a traveling carnival – yes, that’s right, Ed spoke Carnie.  Ed also worked in radio, theater, movies, and of course television.  Ed was the quintessential pitchman – selling everything from the famous Morris Metric Slicer to Budweiser Beer and even some of Mr. Carson’s jokes that didn’t always work as planned.  In Ed’s words: “jokesters joke, actors act, entertainers entertain”.  Ed was a consummate entertainer.

However, those who knew Ed best knew that while he loved being an entertainer, he truly loved being a Marine.

Ed’s Marine Corps career began during World War II and lasted 23 years.  At the end of it all, Ed was promoted to Colonel – he considered this to be one of the greatest accomplishments of his life; amazing when you consider the body of his work.

Over the years, Ed told me that he wanted to be remembered as: “a good entertainer, but a great Marine!” Considering Ed was an entertainment giant, this speaks volumes in regards to his love of the Marine Corps, with its inherent brotherhood and Corps values of respect, honor, and integrity – the defining elements of Ed’s character.

A few of the notable highlights of Ed’s service in and life-long involvement with the United States Marine Corps include:

• Eating powder eggs during Officers Candidates School – even though they were billeted on a farm with hundreds of chickens – some things in the Corps never change!
• Being commissioned as a 2nd Lt.
• Being made a flight instructor while still in flight school.
• Earning his Naval Aviator wings on 4/4/44.
• Flying the hottest fighter in WWII – the F4U-Corsair.
• Being placed in hack for conducting “training missions” over his girlfriend’s house.
• Becoming a test pilot.
• Being placed in hack for conducting “training missions” over his girlfriend’s house again.
• Teaching carrier landings.
• And yes, being placed in hack for flying “training missions” over his girlfriend’s house AGAIN.
• Telling NBC he’d love to sign a big contract to be their next star– but he had just received orders to report to Korea.
• Meeting Marilyn Monroe prior to deploying to Korea and having her impishly tell him: “Ed, I’m not wearing anything underneath”.
• Flying 85 combat missions in Korea as an artillery spotter – Ed earned six Air Medals for his tenacity and proficiency at closing with and destroying the enemy.
• Cornering the market on food and alcohol by becoming his squadron’s Officer-in-Charge of the Mess Tent and Officer’s Club.
• The 3-day long party in Tent 7 with 55 gallon drums of “truce juice” when the armistice was signed.
• Participation in creating the Toys for Tots program.
• Being promoted to Colonel.
• Promoting his son to the rank of Corporal.
• Passing a flight physical at age 70 and flying the Harrier Jump Jet.
• Working with The Flying Leatherneck Historical Foundation to cement the legacy and traditions of Marine Corps Aviation.
• And being Major General Lenhert’s Guest of Honor at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Ball in 2005 – Sir, he had tremendous respect for you and was humbled to be your guest of honor.

Colonel Edward Leo McMahon – Dad – on behalf of a grateful nation, fiercely loyal United States Marine Corps, assembled friends, loving family, and me – a devoted son – it is the highest honor of my life, to fulfill your request to be buried as a Marine.  I wish you Godspeed, as you pull chalks and embark on one last mission in your Corsair – destined for the final rally point– Valhalla – warrior heaven.  I salute you!

The pressure to conform to the growing demand to volunteer your self, in body and bankbook, can be daunting. When confronted with a group of peers, all telling you how much you are needed, it can be difficult to resist. When your child’s teacher tells you how important it is that you volunteer for the school bake sale, how can you say no? When your Mayor asks you to volunteer your time for the citywide cleanup, how can you refuse? And when the girl scout who lives next door asks you to buy cookies, or the soccer player who lives down the street asks you to buy raffle tickets, how can you not open your wallet and hand them the money?

Simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

First of all, it’s not so much “community service” that I have a problem with. Serving your community has plenty of merit, and everyone should do it, provided of course that you are willing, and just as important, able. The problem arises when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause that you don’t want to support. And more problems arise when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause when you can’t afford it.

None of that matters to the people who are asking for you services, though. It doesn’t matter to them that your boss has cut back on your overtime and money is scarce, and it doesn’t matter to them that you took a second job to cover the bills, making your time even more scarce. What matters to them is their cause. You see, to the people who are promoting them, causes are just like children. Everyone thinks theirs is the most important, and anyone who thinks differently be damned. It doesn’t matter how much time or money you’ve given to any cause, even theirs, in the past, if you don’t see how important their baby is today, you’re dirt. Even if you can’t afford it, they expect your support, and they expect it now.

The important part of this is that giving your time and money to a cause when you can’t afford either hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts you, it hurts your family, and ultimately it even hurts the cause. If you give money that you can’t afford to support your local food bank, it impairs your ability to put food on your own table, and that of your family. If you sacrifice time you can’t spare, whether it’s time you could be working to pay your bills, or time you should have spent playing baseball with your son, to participate in the latest jail and bail fundraiser, you risk putting a strain on your budget, or on your family. Both situations threaten your future security, your attitude, and your willingness and ability to participate in community service in the future.

It is quite common these days to pressure our children to “give back” to their communities, provide volunteer service, and even sign pledges to provide even more service in the future. From their classrooms to their football practices to their leadership conferences, they are bombarded at every turn with the message that it is the responsibility of every able bodied youth to serve their communities. They are told that service will make them better people, and that their duty is to their fellow man. More disturbing, it has become a trend lately to begin making this expectation of service into a requirement.

President Obama’s official transitional website stated that “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Congress followed suit with HR 1388 that authorized a committee to study “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented…” When the language was stripped out of the final version of that bill, it was resurrected again as the still living HR 1444. It seems that our federal government is determined to make “volunteers” out of all our children.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that the 13th amendment of the Constitution clearly prohibits “indentured servitude,” is that if you take our youth, in the prime of their life, and put them on a mandated course of community service, you rob the community of it’s greatest potential producers, both physical and mental.

Can you imagine how different the world would be right now if a young college student named Bill Gates had been cutting weeds in the Boston National Historic Park instead of exploring the operations of computers and developing a BASIC interpreter for MITS? Gates built a fortune after that initial foray, which he later used to enable him to funnel billions of dollars into charitable organizations. He has now retired from the corporate world and donates all of his time to community service. Would the world be a better place if he had been doing community service while he was in college instead? Would have 100 hours of service to his fellow man when he was 20 been a good trade for the tens of billions of dollars that he has been able to raise for charity in his post corporate life?

If two college students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, had been serving dinners at the Palo Alto Opportunity Center instead of spending their evenings writing the code that would later power Google.com…, they would have never had a billion dollars to fund the charitable wing of their company, Google.org…, which works to fight global poverty, among other causes. Would the world have been better served by them providing community service while they were in school rather than later when they were successful entrepreneurs and wanted to make a difference in the world?

In reality, Americans are the most generous charitable givers in the world. In 2006, Americans donated a record $295 billion to charitable organizations, the vast majority of which came from individuals. That is in addition to the 61 million Americans who donated time and labor to charitable organizations during that same year.

By allowing and encouraging our budding youth to provide for themselves and their families first, and by empowering them to become responsible and productive members of society, we also put a down payment on their future ability to give back to society when they are more able, ready and willing to do so. Someone who is forced to “donate” their time or money to causes they may not support will likely become bitter and much less likely to support any cause in the future. Additionally, a person who gives willingly, and to causes or charities they believe in, will always give more. If our government moves forward with their plan to require mandatory service from every American, and dictates to what causes that service is given, they will likely guarantee that will be the only community service that person ever provides again.

The underlying motive here is that these people don’t want you to volunteer your time and your money, because that means you are in control. They want to decide how your time and money is used to benefit society as they see fit. They want to decide which charities are worthy of your time and they want to decide which charities are worthy of your money. They don’t care if you miss a day of work, or if you have a hard time paying your bills, and they don’t care that your kids could be spending their afternoons developing cold fusion in the basement lab instead of planting grass on a reclaimed garbage dump, because in the end all they want is control.

How do we fight back? How do we make sure that our time and money is dedicated to causes and charities that we believe in? How do we make sure that our families, and ourselves, don’t go without to provide for charities that we might not believe in? And how do we make sure that our children are given the opportunity to become successful in their own right before they are expected to “give back” to their “fellow man?”

The answer is still simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

During her visit she visited different historical and not so historical sites and met the residents of Auburn: (h/t to Conservative 4 Palin)

Bistro One got a very last-minute reservation request Thursday. But this was one they wanted to make room for.

Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin participated in a breakfast event Friday morning at the Auburn restaurant. The event, which was attended by area supporters, kicked off a day of activities for the Republican governor at various local businesses, parks and organizations.

Her tour of the area precedes today’s first-ever Founders Day, which celebrates local history. During the Auburn festival, Palin will take part in a parade, speak at the city hall and attend a fundraiser luncheon at the Seward House.

~~~

One of about 40 in attendance at the breakfast was state Assemblyman Gary Finch. Finch said Palin gave a nonpolitical talk, and she expressed gratitude to the local community for inviting her.

Finch said that Palin, who brought her husband, Todd, daughter, Willow, her sister and nephew along, made sure to speak individually with each person at the event.

“She certainly conveyed to everyone that she is very glad to be here,” said Finch, who will also participate in Saturday’s festivities.

“She was very real, very genuine,” Finch said.

She also visited the Harriet Tubman Home:

At 10:15 a.m., a black SUV took her to the Tubman House for an unannounced tour away from the media pool. Palin’s family was shown through Tubman’s Home for the Aged, and site manager Paul Carter pointed out a print of a guardian angel leading a child. Carter said it reminded him that Tubman was “the guardian angel of us all.”

“That’s beautiful,” Palin said. “That says it all.”

In the Tubman visitor center, after hearing about Tubman’s resilience as she fought slavery, Palin called over her nephew Karcher, who is autistic, and said, “This is something for you, anytime you go through something tough. Keep going.”

And the Women’s Rights National Historic Park and the National Women’s Hall of Fame:

Shortly before noon, Palin’s party was led to the National Women’s Hall of Fame by Executive Director Christine Moulton. Moulton pointed out a number of inductees (including Ruth Colvin, founder of Literacy Volunteers in Syracuse) who had made great contributions to society after raising a family.

“That’s very hopeful for a lot of young moms today, who have to put things on hold,” said Palin, whose 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, is raising a child.

At the Hall of Fame, Palin — wearing a Blue Star Mom pin and bracelet for her son Track serving in Iraq, and showing red toenails in open shoes — posed for pictures.

Moulton gave Palin flowers. Nozzolio gave Palin a DVD of Ken Burns’ series on Anthony and Stanton (”Not for Ourselves Alone”). Palin congratulated Seneca Falls Mayor Smith for being “a good mommy mayor” and “setting an example for young women who want to affect positive change.”

At one point, Palin said she shared with Susan B. Anthony a desire for the protection of women. “For me, that includes our youngest sisters, girls in the womb,” she said.

And one reaction from a resident needs to be repeated:

Adams and his daughter, Erin, got up at 5:30 a.m. to be in Auburn this morning. By 9 a.m., they were seated in folding chairs and talking with other Palin fans. John Adams likes Palin’s politics.

“She makes me think of Ronald Reagan,” John Adams said.

“For the first time since Reagan, I’ve found a candidate that … sounds like Reagan and that has some Reaganesque qualities,” said Adams, 56. “She’s not the speaker Reagan was, but she believes the same things Reagan believed and talk that way, and that inspires me.”

Later she led a parade through Auburn where 20,000 people showed up to cheer her on and gave a speech which definitely contained some red meat. As she reached the podium you can hear people yell “run Sarah run.” The video’s of the speech is below but a few spots of interest, at about the 2:20 mark in part 1:

We never need to fear that though we’re not a perfect nation, that we must apologize for being proud of ourselves.

Later in part 1 she honors a few Auburn son’s who gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq asking them to join her in “promising the gold star moms that our soldiers deaths are not in vain and we will continue to fight for our security, our democracy, our freedom.”

And she takes on those who criticized her for not taking the strings attached stimulus money from the federal government (part 4 below):

I recently turned down, or vetoed, stimulus dollars that were tied to implementing…some mandates from the federal government trying to take away more control of our local governments, and our families, and our businesses. In this case, implementing universal energy building codes that some claimed after I vetoed the money “oh, she’s just trying to make a political statement.” And, no, I’m actually trying to use some common sense here, and some may be uncomfortable with that, but it is the right thing to do.

You know the response I got when I vetoed these dollars? “Girl, are you crazy, the federal government is handing out free money and if you don’t take it another state’s going to spend it.” Oh this borrowed, debt ridden, government growing money – it is not free money, and taking it takes away anything that is free.

So many in Congress warned the states about the ramifications of accepting the money, and most legislators went around governors who didn’t want to take all the money, and they resolved via resolutions to take the money anyway. But opportunity for development and local control, that is what’s taken away when all of these dollars are accepted without questioning them, because, believe it or not, there are fat strings attached to this borrowed money. See that attitude of free money is wrong.

Finally I have just conceded, I’ve said ok, I just won’t claim that there are strings attached. I won’t use that term anymore. Because the more we dig into these mandates, these connections that the money would have that we would spend coming from the federal government, including the string attached to these dizzying federal debts that we are handing to our kids and to their kids to pay off for us – I can’t say strings attached anymore, now I say they are ropes…They are debt building, binding, controlling ropes and it is bigger government that ultimately will take away our opportunities and our freedoms.

And now precedent says government will bail you out, depending on the decisions that you’ve made if you’re not prudent with your business dollars. Government will buy you out. Anyone need a car? And this is a problem because we cannot afford this government largess and control and unrestrained spending. I don’t think that’s what Seward had in mind. And I do not believe it’s the will of the people.

Lastly she also speaks about the part Alaska plays in our national defense (part 5 below). Watch them all, great speech and a great lady.