Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

    February 2011
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan   Mar »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for February 4th, 2011

Palin Is Reagan’s Heir & Gains Covering Of His Mantle Of Greatness With Soaring Speech At Reagan 100 Event

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on February 4, 2011

Today marked an historic moment in the political/cultural/moral history of America.

Today Sarah Palin, in an eagerly awaited speech at the “Reagan100” celebratory dinner put on by the Young America’s Foundation at the Reagan Ranch made the speech of a lifetime which equalled, if not surpassed her Vice President acceptance speech at the 2008 convention.

The 2008 speech introduced the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin to America and nothing has been the same since. Her speech tonight is an introduction to America of the thinking and vision of Palin in the Reagan tradition.

It comes at a time when, like as Reagan had to address in the Carter years, America, under Obama, is suffering the same symptoms of malaise. High unemployment, incipient inflation, Israel in a parlous situation, Iran an even bigger danger because of their unstopped nuclear program, the Middle east in turmoil after a liberal president “reached out” to an unwelcoming Muslim world with the end result apparent American weakness and Islamic volatility.

It is becoming very clear that the next election will be fought on more than the traditional party differences. What is at stake going forward is the very core of what America is or could be. American exceptionalism, America as a storehouse of moral imperatives, America as an economic powerhouse with low taxation, small government, low debt, high growth, a strong dollar a strong armed forces as a deterrent to aggression and a foreign policy which supports friends and makes foes fear.

None of the above issues bring to mind the Obama administration as the best equipped to ensure they all come to maximum fruition. All these issues were attended to with success by the Reagan administration.

What Palin has done tonight with her inspirational speech, and what the resulting political apotheosis has shown is that she is the best choice for the Republican nomination (as polls have confirmed) and that she is the clear political heir of Ronald Reagan. It has also made clear that her entire career path, and life choices, have equipped her for this great task.
Her call to renewal “A time For Choosing Again” included:
Stop spending and cut government down to size
Let the free market provide job growth
Cut entitlement programs
Freezing government spending at the current levels means freezing them at high levels
Planning by government caused problems-in the hands of an intellectual elite
American exceptionalism is not exceptional big government.
And impressively;Government picking winners and losers means we get stuck with the losers and we, the taxpayers pay the cost.

Palin looked and more importantly sounded presidential and this grand event marked a turning point not only in her upward trajectory but America’s. She was not hesitant in ascribing the greatest need was God’s guidance.
Link to original posting is at:
http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/02/palin-is-reagans-heir-gains-covering-of.html

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Live: Gov. Palin’s Reflection on Reagan’s Time of Choosing

Posted by Ron Devito on February 4, 2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Video Link: Gov. Palin’s Reflection on Reagan’s Time of Choosing

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

N.Y. Times Adds Three More To GOP Candidates List-Now 22!

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on February 4, 2011

The leftist FiveThirtyEight.com polling analysis columnist at The New York Times has added to the media/blogosphere’s endless, ludicrous speculation as to the GOP 2012 candidate field by adding another three (Gary Johnson ??/Ron Paul/John Bolton) to my previous, and growing daily, list of 19. The list was updated from 17 recently and there is no end in sight.

Not only has the columnist gone through column inches of speculation he has also added a very colorful “balloon” imagery analysis of where each candidate he lists is placed philosophically-i.e. how conservative they are.

This is getting all too silly and the best remedy, as I advised previously, is for everyone to declare they are a candidate before the media works its way through the entire Republican Party-or the telephone book.

Why shouldn’t you have your 15 minutes of ridiculous speculation?

Here is the new list of 22 who have been anointed in the media at one time or another with Mr.Karger
hitting the bottom of the barrel obscurity wise .
**********************************************************************

PREVIOUS/PREVIOUS POST

Eventually this post will get so long I will need extra pages. Now The Washington Post has found a new candidate Fred Karger-a “Gay Republican” who is so obscure even his campaign posters state “Fred Who”. As I keep suggesting they will resort to the telephone book in due course

****************************************************************************************
Previous Update

As I suggested the eventual step for the media will be to simply list the telephone directory-today Politico (which is turning into a junk blog for Jon Stewart viewers age/lib types) trotted out an article suggesting George Pataki from New York is “mulling a run”. The media still has a huge list of Republican office holders to work their way through but you have a chance to get your 15 minutes still.

****************************************************************************************
Original Posting

Just these last two weeks the media has run articles on Daniels/Pence/Barbour/Bachman as 2012 likely Republican candidates for the presidential nomination with all ensuing breathless analysis. Then this week they had a field day with the news that Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman may be making his moves and produced screeds of analysis on how that may hurt Romney’s chances.

During this period the running attacks on Palin’s possible candidacy, Huckabee’s sojourns to Israel and Alaska, Romney finally lifting his profile, Pence out of the running carried on relentlessly.

But why should these 22 have all the fun-since the media seem determined that anyone is a possible candidate, given some of these putative “candidates’ are pretty far-fetched? Why shouldn’t the man/woman in the street get their 15 minutes of media speculation? Go on,send an email to your local newspaper announcing you too are a candidate.

That would be taking things just as seriously as they are now.

Here’s the latest list of the 22 people the media have designated as running

Fred Karger

Gary Johnson

John Bolton

Ron Paul

George Pataki

Donald Trump

Herman Cain

Mike Huckabee

Sarah Palin

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

Chris Christie

Rick Perry

Mitch Daniels

Tim Pawlenty

Mike Pence

Haley Barbour

Jim DeMint

Jon Huntsman

Rick Santorum

John Thune

Michele Bachman

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

C-span To Cover Sarah Palin’s Address At The Reagan Ranch 100th Birthday Celebration Live Tonight

Posted by Gary P Jackson on February 4, 2011

By Gary P Jackson

Just a short note to let everyone know that C-span will carry Sarah’s Palin’s address from the Reagan Ranch live tonight at 11pm Eastern time. [8pm on the West Coast]

Above is a photo of one of the posters that will be everywhere at the ranch.

Sarah was chosen to speak because she most represents the values and ideals of our finest President, Ronald Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

PALIN FLASHBACK: Sarah Palin’s Reagan Qualities

Posted by Sarah Palin Web Brigade on February 4, 2011

 Excellent article by Steve Flesher at the American Thinker in which he describes the similarities in Sarah Palin’s and Ronald Reagan’s backgrounds, principles, and roads to success:

December 03, 2009

Sarah Palin’s Reagan Qualities

By Steve Flesher

Sarah Palin has taken the country by storm, electrifying the grassroots conservative movement in a way no Republican presidential or vice-presidential candidate has been able to in a very long time.  held hostage by Islamic militants for 444 days, unemployment was through the roof, and national inflation rested in the double-digits.

The last person responsible for uniting grassroots conservatives to such an energizing degree was the great conservative himself, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan was the grassroots rebel to the mainstream media in a weary America — entrenched in weak national defense and poor economic leadership, which barely withstood four years of Jimmy Carter. Come the end of 1979, fifty-two Americans had been

As in the Carter era, Americans of every stripe are beginning to feel that weariness again. This is clear from a tremendous growth in unemployment, which correlates with president Obama’s diminished approval ratings in his first year — described by Gallup as “the largest [drop] … ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953.”
 
In addition to the immense-yet-strangely-encouraging disapproval of Sarah Palin among the media, Hollywood celebrities, and every liberal, Palin also finds herself at the editorial mercy of “conservative pundits” like Kathleen Parker — or David Brooks of the New York Times, who proclaimed to George Stephanopoulos on the November 15th episode of “This Week” that Sarah Palin is “a joke.”
 
Brooks, who used to be , was also responsible for parodying conservative pundit William Buckley, Jr. Naturally, one wonders how much attention Brooks actually paid to the 1980 presidential campaign.  writing articles titled “Sarah Palin is NOT the new Reagan,” the life stories of Reagan and Palin contradict their theories by revealing stark similarities between these two fascinating Americans.
 
As is the case with first-generation immigrants like Arianna Huffington and George Soros, who come to America with an immediate desire to reform it, many conservatives are suspicious of liberal-to-conservative “converts” who enter their side of the aisle with a drive to dictate how to change it.
 
Moreover, while some progressive types scramble to suddenly defend Reagan conservatism by Reagan and Palin were raised with similar values, attended similar schools, had similar competitive interests, and embarked on authentic, gradual segues into public service, with an undeniable connection to conservative Americans. 
 
Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin was born in a small town. Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, while Palin debuted in Sandpoint, Idaho — both in February. As a youngster, Reagan had a job as a lifeguard and developed an enriched passion for competitive sports — particularly football — in high school. Sarah worked with her family, getting up with her father on many early mornings to hunt for the family’s meat supply. In high school, she became known as “Barracuda” on the basketball court, and she eventually led her team to the state championship. 
 
Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin never attended an Ivy League college. Reagan chose Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois, while Sarah Palin attended local and state-level universities. Both obtained bachelor’s degrees and sought work as sportscasters — for the University of Iowa, Palinfor local Anchorage news station.
 
Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin got involved in politics by taking small steps. Reagan began writing speeches (which often espoused political messages supporting pro-business conservatism) while working for General Electric. Sarah Palin got involved with her local PTA and ran for city council of her small town because she was concerned about how her tax dollars were being spent. 
 
Just as Ronald Reagan did, Palin contains an instantly recognizable honesty factor among the grassroots. Through honesty, both politicians’ careers in public service continued to escalate in small but definitive steps. 
 
Though he was honest and had good intentions, Ronald Reagan was dropped from General Electric as his speeches continued to grow more effective and persuasive. Identically, Sarah Palin made a large handful of political enemies in both parties in Alaska when, with the people’s best interest at heart, she took on the same type of establishment politicians and opinions which continue to criticize her to this day.
 
Two years after his dismissal from General Electric, and in the same year Sarah Palin was born, Ronald Reagan kicked off the start of his enormous grassroots influence on a national level by giving his famed “Barry Goldwater” speech in 1964. Similarly, Sarah Palin remained impressively modest while giving one of the most powerful and effective speeches of all time during the 2008 Republican National Convention. 
 
Just like Reagan, Sarah Palin was able to demonstrate how one lives and learns through personal moments of grievance and despair. Last year, the mainstream media went wild over Sarah Palin upon learning about her daughter’s pregnancy during the same time she was being vetted by the McCain campaign. With Ronald Reagan, liberals in the media took aim at the fact that he was “the only divorcedpresident.” 
 
Just like Reagan, Sarah Palin had been out of the country only a limited amount of times before running for national office. Even during Reagan’s service to his country, his nearsightedness kept him from serving overseas
 
Liberals and Republicans alike declared Ronald Reagan unqualified to be president, especially after Gerald Ford beat him for the Republican nomination in 1976. Even after four years of Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford himself remarked as late as March 1979 that Reagan was “unelectable.”
 
Gerald Ford is not the only member of a previously-failed presidential campaign to make such a proclamation. Just last month, Steve Schmidt, who headed the losing McCain ticket, claimed that Palin would not be “a winning candidate” for president.
 
With the release of Palin’s Going Rogue this month, Nielsen reports Palin selling an astonishing 469,000 copies in the book’s first week of release. This trounces Obama’s The Audacity of Hope, which sold 67,000 in the same period. On her nationwide book tour, Palin is reaching out to the masses and once again drawing record crowds — and her grassroots fame gave Oprah her highest ratings in two years.
 
Just like Reagan, Palin continues to plow through her opposition, remaining successful by holding onto the nationwide support she had from last year while growing an entire base of new admirers from the bottom up. With the left and the elite Republicans scrambling for their best anti-Palin rhetoric while she innocuously sells her book, one wonders what they will come up with if she ever does run for president.
 
Most importantly, given classic Reagan history, and while some in the media ponder whether Sarah Palin will ever get support from Washington’s beltway, all grassroots conservatives seem to be energized by the obvious: She never needed it.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Egypt Crisis Flopping About; Let The 2012 Election Be A Question Of Leadership-Obama’s Carter Style or Palin’s Reaganism

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on February 4, 2011

By the standards it set for itself-unemployment not rising above 8% the Obama administration is a proven failure. On dividing the country on the Obamacare health bill it has been soundly rejected in the 2010 House elections where it suffered a massive defeat.

On foreign policy it has failed to stop Iran from proceeding with its nuclear program and North Korea remains belligerent. It will leave the Iraqi and Afghani people at the mercy of a vengeful radical Islamic movement when it pulls the last troops-the remaining barrier to the suppression of women and a breeding ground for radicalism.

And now the seeds that sowed in President Obama’s Cairo speech where he reached out to Islamic regimes,where a policy of neglect and wishy washy sanctions has let Iran proceed unhindered in its nuclear ambitions,where Israel is being surrounded by its enemies and where the adminstration was caught totally flat footed by the revolutions underway-especially in Egypt.

It is in Egypt that the very worst of this adminsitration is being shown. After being totally caught off guard it is changing its postions “every 12 hours” without a clear firm leadership role and is losing any friends it had on both sides of the conflict.This is pure Jimmy Carter style “leadership” and bodes ill. It is impossible to imagine a President Palin acting with such unresolve.

All these issues are vital to be aired at the 2012 presidential election but there are two which need to assume equal importance. One is a renewal of the moral fabric of America and the other is leadership.

Leadership of the type that Ronald Reagan epitomized. Where America was proud of its exceptionalism where America was loved by its friends and feared by its enemies. Reagan did not get everything right all the time but he walked constantly in the direction of the right with American values of truth, honor, democracy and always looking to God’s guidance to keep on the correct path.

This sort of leadership is rare but it is absolutely clear that the exact values that describe Reagan describe, in every detail Sarah Palin. What the 2012 election will show is a repeat of the historical situation where a weak president-Carter-embroiled in a disastrous Eastern policy-was replaced by a leader of firm strong values. It is strongly to be wished that by 2012 the situation is not irredeemable but even if it is only a strong leader like Palin can draw a line in the sand and stop the rot.


Link at: http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-crisis-flopping-about-let-2012.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

REAGAN FLASHBACK: A Time for Choosing

Posted by Sarah Palin Web Brigade on February 4, 2011

Governor Palin will deliver the keynote address tonight in Santa Barbara at the Reagan 100 Opening Banquet, sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation.  Her speech will focus on President Ronald Reagan’s famous “A Time for Choosing” speech that was given in 1964 as he campaigned for Barry Goldwater.  More information about tonight’s event can be found here and here.  Live coverage of Governor Palin’s speech, which begins at 8 PM PST, will be available on USTREAM and on C-SPAN.  The event itself begins at 6 PM PST.  Below are a video and transcript of President Reagan’s speech.

Transcript from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

A Time for Choosing

by Ronald Reagan 

October 27, 1964

 

 To a significant degree, Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency stems from this speech, given on national television on behalf of, and sponsored by, Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. The speech remains amazingly fresh as a statement of modern American conservative philosophy four decades after it was delivered.

 


 

Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have 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 in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury–we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so 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.” In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. 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 capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap 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 have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves–and all of the things that 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 acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says that 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 said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in 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.” Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me–the free man and woman of this country–as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”–this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than the government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

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 that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for 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.” The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

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 to the $45 million we are 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 that there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always “against” things, never “for” anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we are 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 who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that 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 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 are 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 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 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 that they can get them when they are due…that the cupboard isn’t bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents’ worth?

I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are 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 the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we are 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 Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.

I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government 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 number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force is employed by the 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 in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. 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 part 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 to 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 or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? 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, inalienable 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 are to choose just between two personalities.

Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will 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 upon 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 now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are 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.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in 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 and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand–the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. 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. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits–not animals.” And he said, “There is 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 will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

 


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Republicans Poll Confirms Recent Trends;Palin 1st Place &15% Ahead Of Romney With Combined Palin/Huck Support

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on February 4, 2011

Politicon Polling polled 573 likely Republican voters as to their preferences for Republican candidate for president 2012.

Palin and Romney were in joint first place at 18% each but the significant factor-as it has been in each of recent polls is that the combined Palin/Huckabee at 35% vote is 15% ahead of Romney. Clearly if Huckabee does not run it must be assumed that the majority of his support would go to Palin should she run.This would give her an overwhelming victory.

The facts of the matter are that the Palin/Huckabee support is almost equal to the total support of all 9 other candidates bar Romney combined !

Recent polls of GOP suppporters showed a preference in the 36%-40% for the combined Palin/Huckabee vote so this latest is another which again,confirms the trend. The 13% lead the President Obama has over Palin in this poll amongst all voters is meaningless as all that matters initially is winning the GOP nomination. At one point Ronald reagan was 25% behind President Carter so the Obama/Palin matchup should be disregarded.

Here is the poll result

Of the following Republican
Presidential Candidates, who are
you going to vote for in the
Republican Presidential Primaries,
if they run?

Sarah Palin ! ! ! 18%
Mitt Romney !!! 18%
Chris Christie ! ! ! 16%
Mike Huckabee ! ! ! 15%
Newt Gingrich ! ! ! 10%
Unsure ! ! ! ! 9%
Michele Bachmann ! ! 3%
Someone New ! ! 2%
Donald Trump ! ! ! 2%
Tim Pawlenty ! ! ! 2%
Jim DeMint ! ! ! 2%
Mitch Daniels ! ! ! 2%
Herman Cain ! ! ! 1%
Cross posted from; http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/02/republicans-poll-confirms-recent.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »