Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge



Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

October 14, 2020

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.

Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

The shop owner couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother and former Delaware attorney general.

Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.


A federal subpoena showing the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI

But before turning over the gear, the shop owner says, he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello.

Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday.

Less than eight months after Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then-vice president admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

Shokin has said that at the time of his firing, in March 2016, he’d made “specific plans” to investigate Burisma that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

Joe Biden has insisted that the US wanted Shokin removed over corruption concerns, which were shared by the European Union.

Meanwhile, an email dated May 12, 2014 — shortly after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board — shows Pozharskyi attempting to get him to use his political leverage to help the company.

The message had the subject line “urgent issue” and was also sent to Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the Burisma board at the time.

Pozharskyi said that “the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”

N.Z. isn’t identified in the email but appears to be a reference to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, whose first name is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”

When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.

“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” he added.

Vadym Pozharskyi and Hunter Biden
Yalta European Strategy / Getty Images


Hunter Biden responded by saying he was with Archer in Doha, Qatar, and asked for more information about “the formal (if any) accusations being made against Burisma.”

“Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” he added.

The exchange came the same day that Burisma announced it had expanded its board of directors by adding Hunter Biden, who was put in charge of its “legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations,” according to a news release that’s since been scrubbed from Burisma’s website.

Hunter Biden actually joined the board in April 2014, according to multiple reports.

His lawyer said last year that Hunter was “not a member of the management team,” adding, “At no time was Hunter in charge of the company’s legal affairs.”

About four months after Hunter Biden’s correspondence with Pozharskyi, Archer forwarded Hunter Biden an email chain with the subject line “tax raise impact on Burisma production,” which included Pozharskyi saying that the Ukrainian cabinet had submitted new tax legislation to the country’s parliament.

Photos from Hunter Biden's hard drive

“If enacted, this law would kill the entire private gas production sector in the bud,” Pozharskyi wrote.

In the Sept. 24, 2014, email, Pozharskyi also said he was “going to share this information with the US embassy here in Kyiv, as well as the office of Mr Amos Hochstein in the States.”

At the time, Hochstein was the State Department’s newly appointed special envoy and coordinator for international energy ­affairs.

Devon Archer
Patrick McMullan via Getty Image


In December 2017, the Naftogaz Group, Ukraine’s state-owned energy company, announced that Hochstein had joined the company as an independent director, but on Monday he announced his ­resignation.

“The company has been forced to spend endless amounts of time combating political pressure and efforts by oligarchs to enrich themselves through questionable transactions,” Hochstein wrote in an op-ed published by the Kyiv Post.

In addition to denying that’s he’s spoken to Hunter Biden about his overseas business dealings, Joe Biden has repeatedly denied any conflict of interest or wrongdoing by either of them involving ­Burisma.

Last February, he got testy during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show when co-host Savannah Guthrie questioned whether it was “wrong for [Hunter] to take that position, knowing that it was really because that company wanted access to you.”

“Well, that’s not true. You’re saying things you do not know what you’re talking about,” the elder Biden responded.

Photos from Hunter Biden's hard drive

Last December, Joe Biden also lashed out during a Democratic primary town hall event in Iowa, where a man accused him of sending Hunter to Ukraine “to get a job and work for a gas company, he had no experience with gas or nothing, in order to get access to . . . the president.”

“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true and no one has ever said that,” Biden fumed.

Biden then continued berating the man as he stepped forward, called the man “fat” and challenged him to “do push-ups together, man.”

The FBI referred questions about its seizure of the laptop and hard drive to the Delaware US Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson said, “My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.”

Hunter Biden’s lawyer refused to comment on the specifics but instead attacked Giuliani.

“He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence,” the lawyer, George R. Mesires, said of Giuliani.

Pozharskyi and the Joe Biden campaign did not return requests for comment. Hochstein could not be reached.

Additional reporting by Ebony Bowden

Hunter Biden emails show leveraging connections with his father to boost Burisma pay By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/hunter-biden-emails-show-leveraging-connections-with-dad-to-boost-burisma-pay/

October 14, 2020

Hunter Biden discussed leveraging his connection to his father in a bid to boost his pay from a Ukrainian natural gas company, according to an email he sent around the time he joined the firm’s corporate board.

In a lengthy memo to his then-business partner, Devon Archer, who already sat on the Burisma board, Biden repeatedly mentioned “my guy” while apparently referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Under President Barack Obama, the elder Biden was the point person for US policy toward Ukraine, and he held a press conference there with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on April 22, 2014.

Hunter Biden’s email to Archer is dated a little more than a week earlier.

“The announcement of my guys [sic] upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking- but what he will say and do is out of our hands,” Hunter Biden wrote on April 13, 2014.

“In other words it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit.”

The email, labeled from Robert Biden — Hunter’s first name — is among a trove of messages, documents, photos and videos purportedly recovered from a MacBook Pro laptop that a Delaware computer shop owner told The Post was brought in for repair in April 2019 and never picked up.

In the email, Hunter Biden wrote to Archer, “We need to ask for long term agreement and across the board participation. This is a huge step for us that could easily become very complicated. And if we are not protected financially regardless of the outcome we could find ourselves frozen out of a lot of current and future opportunities.

“The contract should begin now- not after the upcoming visit of my guy.

“That should include a retainer in the range of 25k p/m w/ additional fees where appropriate for more in depth work to go to BSF for our protection. Complete separate from our respective deals re board participation.”

It’s unclear if Hunter Biden or Archer got any of the $25,000 a month ­mentioned.

Hunter Biden was reportedly paid as much as $50,000 a month by Burisma before his lawyer has said he “stepped off” the board in April 2019.

That move came amid increasing scrutiny about potential conflicts of interest involving his dad, who announced his candidacy for president that same month.

Photos from Hunter Biden's hard drive

“BSF” appears to refer to the high-profile law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, which represented Al Gore during the US Supreme Court battle over the results of the presidential 2000 election, which was won by George W. Bush.

Hunter Biden, a graduate of Yale Law School, was “of counsel” to the firm when he was asked to join the Burisma board in April 2014, according to a statement posted by his lawyer, George Mesires, on the website Medium in October.

The email to Archer contained 22 bullet points and bore the subject line “Tmrw.”

In No. 22, Hunter Biden told Archer, “Buy a cell phone from a 7/11 or CVS tmrw and ill do the same.”

Following the bullet points, Hunter Biden wrote, “This could be the break we have been waiting for if they really are smart enough to understand our long term value. If they are looking to just use us until the storm passes then we risked far too much for far too little.

“Finally, we need to have a plan on how we develop a corporate entity or LLP that allows us to draw on funds generated here to free us from existing (under-producing current commitments) and to build our own investment and expansion strategy. Maintaining the status quo is not an option,” he added.

“We can preserve our interest in the areas where minimal involvement is appropriate but should not get greedy and try to keep all the balls in the air that exist today.”


Hunter Biden then used a series of initials — RCP, RSTP and BHRT — to apparently refer to the men’s other business interests that “all make sense and can co-exist and progress without our day to day oversight.”

“But Advisors and the BD need a transition plan,” he added.

The email wrapped up with Hunter Biden saying, “We should also find a highly credible and discreet firm to perform due diligence and deep information for us on an ongoing basis. The kind of people that can get us information that’s not available through a google search and some phone calls.”

“We can use our own funds to pay for it and I’m sure your buddies down in Little Creek have some trusted independent contacts that do that sort of work,” he added.

The reference to Little Creek is unclear, but there is a US Navy station located in Virginia Beach, Va., that’s called Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story.

In 2018, Archer was convicted in an unrelated Manhattan federal court case involving a scheme that defrauded the Oglala Sioux Indian tribe and multiple pension funds through the sale of $60 million worth of tribal bonds.

His conviction was later overturned by the presiding judge, who cited an “unwavering concern that Archer is innocent,” but reinstated this month by a Manhattan federal appeals court.

Archer faces a maximum of 25 years in prison at his scheduled sentencing in January.

Hunter Biden’s lawyer refused to comment on the specifics but instead attacked Rudy Giuliani.

“He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence,” the lawyer, George R. Mesires, said of Giuliani.

The Joe Biden campaign did not return requests for comment.

Additional reporting by Ebony Bowden

Twitter, Facebook censor Post over Hunter Biden exposé By Noah Manskar

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-post-from-posting/

October 15, 2020

Both Twitter and Facebook took extraordinary censorship measures against The Post on Wednesday over its exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails — with Twitter baselessly charging that “hacked materials” were used.

The suppression effort came despite presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign merely denying that he had anything on his “official schedules” about meeting a Ukrainian energy executive in 2015 — along with zero claims that his son’s computer had been hacked.

The Post’s primary Twitter account was locked as of 2:20 p.m. Wednesday because its articles about the messages obtained from Biden’s laptop broke the social network’s rules against “distribution of hacked material,” according to an email The Post received from Twitter.

Twitter also blocked users from sharing the link to The Post article indicating that Hunter Biden introduced Joe Biden to the Ukrainian businessman, calling the link “potentially harmful.”

“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” a Twitter spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

The company said it took the step because of the lack of authoritative reporting on where the materials included in The Post’s story originated.

Hunter Biden speaking at the Democratic National Convention DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION/A

In a lengthier statement Wednesday night, the social media company said articles in The Post exposé, “include personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.”

They reiterated the baseless claim that the story relied on hacked material, but added that “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves, aren’t a violation of this policy.”

“Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves,” the statement says.

Users who clicked the link on Twitter were shown an alert warning them that the webpage may be “unsafe” and could contain content that would break Twitter’s rules if it were shared directly on the platform.

The extraordinary move came after Facebook said it would limit the spread of The Post’s story on its own platform. The social network added that the story would be eligible for review by independent fact-checkers.

US Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) fired off a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday demanding answers about why the platform “censored” The Post’s reporting.

“The seemingly selective nature of this public intervention suggests partiality on the part of Facebook,” Hawley wrote. “And your efforts to suppress the distribution of content revealing potentially unethical activity by a candidate for president raises a number of additional questions, to which I expect responses immediately.”

The message received when clicking on a link to the Post's Hunter Biden expose from Twitter.

Hawley later sent a similar letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, blasting the company for what he said was “an unusual intervention that is not universally applied to all content.”

The senator demanded to know how Twitter had determined that The Post’s story was violating its policy on hacked materials and why the company had taken the “unprecedented action” to lock the news org’s account.

“I ask that you immediately answer these questions and provide the necessary justifications so that your users can feel confident that you are not seeking to influence the outcome of the presidential election with your content removal decisions,” Hawley wrote.

Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

October 15, 2020



Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be “interesting for me and my family,” emails obtained by The Post show.

One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line “Expectations,” included details of “remuneration packages” for six people involved in an unspecified business venture.

Biden was identified as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.

His pay was pegged at “850” and the email also noted that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.”

In addition, the email outlined a “provisional agreement” under which 80 percent of the “equity,” or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with “H” apparently referring to Biden.

The deal also listed “10 Jim” and “10 held by H for the big guy?”

Neither Jim nor the “big guy” was identified further.

The email’s author, James Gilliar of the international consulting firm J2cR, also noted, “I am happy to raise any detail with Zang if there is [sic] shortfalls ?”

“Zang” is an apparent reference to Zang Jian Jun, the former executive director of CEFC China.

The email is contained in a trove of data that the owner of a computer repair shop in Delaware said was recovered from a MacBook Pro laptop that was dropped off in April 2019 and never retrieved.

The computer was seized by the FBI, and a copy of its contents made by the shop owner shared with The Post this week by former Mayor Rudy ­Giuliani.

Photos from Hunter Biden's hard drive.

Another email — sent by Biden as part of an Aug. 2, 2017, chain — involved a deal he struck with the since-vanished chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, for half-ownership of a holding company that was expected to provide Biden with more than $10 million a year.

Ye, who had ties to the Chinese military and intelligence service, hasn’t been seen since being taken into custody by Chinese authorities in early 2018, and CEFC went bankrupt earlier this year, according to reports.

Biden wrote that Ye had sweetened the terms of an earlier, three-year consulting contract with CEFC that was to pay him $10 million annually “for introductions alone.”

“The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned by him,” Biden wrote.

“Consulting fees is one piece of our income stream but the reason this proposal by the chairman was so much more interesting to me and my family is that we would also be partners inn [sic] the equity and profits of the JV’s [joint venture’s] investments.”

A photo dated Aug. 1, 2017, shows a handwritten flowchart of the ownership of “Hudson West” split 50/50 between two entities ultimately controlled by Hunter Biden and someone identified as “Chairman.”

According to a report on Biden’s overseas business dealings released last month by Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a company called Hudson West III opened a line of credit in September 2017.

Credit cards issued against the account were used by Hunter, his uncle James Biden and James’ wife, Sara Biden, to purchase more than $100,000 “worth of extravagant items, including airline tickets and multiple items at Apple Inc. stores, pharmacies, hotels and restaurants,” the report said.

The company has since been dissolved, and Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco PC, was one of two owners, according to the report.

Biden’s email was sent to Gongwen Dong, whom the Wall Street Journal in October 2018 tied to the purchase by Ye-linked companies of two luxury Manhattan apartments that cost a total on $83 million.

Dong, who owns a sprawling mansion in Great Neck, LI, has been identified in reports as CFO of the Kam Fei Group, an investment firm based in Hong Kong.

Ye Jianming, former chairman of the Shanghai-based CEFC China Energy conglomerate

The documents obtained by The Post also include an “Attorney Engagement Letter” executed in September 2017 in which one of Ye’s top lieutenants, former Hong Kong government official Chi Ping Patrick Ho, agreed to pay Biden a $1 million retainer for “Counsel to matters related to US law and advice pertaining to the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm or Lawyer.”

In December 2018, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Ho in two schemes to pay $3 million in bribes to high-ranking government officials in Africa for oil rights in Chad and lucrative business deals in Uganda.

Ho served a three-year prison sentence and was deported to Hong Kong in June.

Neither Biden’s lawyer, the Joe Biden campaign, Gilliar, Dong nor Ho’s lawyers returned requests for comment, but Biden’s lawyer has previously said, “There is no need for comment on any so-called information provided by Rudy Giuliani.

“He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence. His record of dishonesty in these matters speaks for itself,” lawyer George Mesires added.

Additional reporting by Reuven Fenton

Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make millions from China: Goodwin By Michael Goodwin

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-biz-partner-confirms-e-mail-details-joe-bidens-push-to-make-millions-from-china/

October 22, 2020

Wait until Scranton hears about this.

One of Joe Biden’s ways of contrasting himself with President Trump has been to declare the election a battle of Park Avenue values vs. Scranton, Pa., values.

Now we learn that Biden has secretly been playing footsie with China.

The statement Wednesday night asserting that the former vice president was a willing and eager participant in a family scheme to make millions of dollars by partnering with a shady Chinese Communist firm is a singular event in a presidential race already overflowing with drama and intrigue.

The dynamite assertion, believable because it aligns with earlier information we know to be true, came in a statement by Tony Bobulinski, who describes himself as a former partner of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Joe’s brother Jim in the China scheme. Bobulinski unloads his bill of accusations in blunt but precise language and detail.

He confirms that he was one of the recipients of the May 13, 2017, email published by The Post eight days ago. That email, from another partner in the group, laid out cash and equity positions and mysteriously included a 10 percent set-aside for “the big guy.”

Sources have said the “big guy” was Joe Biden. In a matter-of-fact manner, Bobulinski states that the “email is genuine” and that the former vice president and the man leading in the 2020 race is indeed “the big guy.”

That claim alone rips out the heart of nearly everything Joe Biden has ever said about Hunter’s many businesses and Joe’s knowledge of them. His repeated insistence that the two never spoke of the son’s global sources of money didn’t pass the laugh test.

After all, they traveled together to China on Air Force Two, where Hunter landed a $1.5 billion commitment from a government-controlled Chinese bank. Then there was Hunter’s $83,000-a-month gig on the board of a Ukrainian energy company — despite his lack of experience in Ukraine or knowledge of energy.

It was no coincidence that the vice president was the Obama administration’s point man in both countries. Wherever Joe went, Hunter went along, not to do good, but to do well. Very well.

There were similarly lucrative deals in Russia, Romania and ­Kazakhstan — that we know of.

Now, because his role in the China deal has been credibly confirmed, it’s beyond dispute that Joe didn’t just know what was going on. At least in this case, Joe was a player and had his hand out.

To that point, in perhaps the most devastating paragraph of the 689-word statement, Bobulinski writes that Hunter Biden also referred to his father as “my chairman and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”

“I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business,” says Bobulinski, who was the CEO of the company being formed. “I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”

That’s a remarkable line, one suggestive of the idea that the plan was always to sell Joe Biden’s fame and influence. In ­effect, Hunter, and sometimes Joe’s brother Jim, were turning the office of the vice president of the United States into a pot of gold for themselves.

What is not clear yet is whether Joe Biden had secret stakes in any of Hunter’s other deals. As for this one, while the date on the May 2017 email would be nearly four months after Biden left the White House, it’s not known when discussions among the partners and with the Chinese first began. Certainly they started before the email.

And while such deals would be legal for Joe Biden when he left government service, the facts take on extra significance during a campaign where China policy is a frequent topic — and a big dispute between Trump and Biden.

Earlier, during the Democratic primaries, Biden scoffed at the notion that the Asian power is a threat, saying, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.”

When Trump blocked flights from China during the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, Biden accused him of “xenophobic fear-mongering” and labeled the president a “racist” for calling the disease the “Wuhan virus.”

Bobulinski, a former wrestler at Penn State University who spent four years in the Navy, insists he has voluminous evidence to back up his explosive charges, reportedly including documents, emails, messages and other proof.

Late Wednesday, he uploaded many to a file-sharing service.

He also says he turned over all his evidence Wednesday to two Senate committees that requested it.

An earlier report by one panel, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), revealed things about the Biden partnership that Bobulinksi says he didn’t know.

As he puts it: “The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.”

He blasts much of the media and Big Tech for shielding Biden from questions after The Post published the China email and one on Ukraine. Both were on a laptop computer Hunter left with a Delaware repairman and never retrieved.

“I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now,” Bobulinski wrote.

While it’s far too early to say what effect the dramatic disclosures will have on the race, Trump is certain to raise them at Thursday’s debate.

Suffice it to say that Biden’s response will command America’s attention.

Full statement from Tony Bobulinski to the New York Post

My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.

This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.

I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.

Tony Bobulinski


If the media and Big Tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.

After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.

What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.

Hunter Biden called his dad “the Big Guy” or “my Chairman,” and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.

I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.

I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.

I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.

God bless America.


Hunter’s ex-partner Tony Bobulinski: Joe Biden’s a liar and here’s the proof By Ebony Bowden and Steven Nelson

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/

October 22, 2020



NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate Tony Bobulinski accused Democratic nominee Joe Biden of lying about his involvement in his family’s overseas dealings in a stunning appearance just 90 minutes before Thursday evening’s presidential debate.

“I have heard Joe Biden say he has never discussed his dealings with Hunter. That is false. I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden,” Bobulinski said following The Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s private emails.

Bobulinski, who will be a guest of President Trump at the debate, showed three phones spanning 2015 to 2018 as evidence and said he would be meeting with the Senate and the FBI to hand over electronics.

The US Navy veteran said he was introduced to the former veep on May 2, 2017, by Hunter Biden and the lawmaker’s brother Jim Biden before the Global Milken Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif.

“That night, we discussed the Bidens’ history, the Biden family’s plans with the Chinese, with which he was plainly familiar, at least at a high level,” he said in Memphis, Tenn., ahead of the final debate between President Trump and Biden.

“I have no wish to bury anyone. I’ve never been political. The few contributions I have made have been to Democrats. But what I am is a patriot, and a veteran, to protect my family name, and my business reputation. I need to ensure that the true facts are out there,” he said, batting away accusations that he was part of a misinformation plot.

Bobulinski came forward earlier Thursday to corroborate emails revealed exclusively by The Post last week about the Biden family’s murky overseas dealings in China involving both Hunter Biden and uncle Jim Biden.

The US Navy veteran accused former Vice President Joe Biden of being directly involved in a plot to make millions of dollars, identifying to him as “the big guy” named in the May 13, 2017, email.

That email showed the four partners each getting 20 percent shares in the business, with 10 percent going to “Jim” and the remaining 10 percent “held by H for the big guy?”

The Navy veteran said he was approached in late 2015 by James Gilliar, a man he had known “for many years,” about joining him in a deal with Chinese state-owned energy company CEFC and “what he called one of the most prominent families in the United States.”

The whistleblower said he was told the Biden family wanted to form a new entity with CEFC to invest in infrastructure, real estate, and technology in the US and around the world.

Fox News

Bobulinski also released hundreds of text messages and emails from his time as CEO of the company being formed between the Biden family and China’s largest private energy company, named SinoHawk Holdings.

In one message sent on May 20, 2017, Gilliar warned Bobulinski not to mention the Democratic nominee’s involvement in the SinoHawk deal.

“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid,” a screenshot of the message from Gilliar read.

Bobulinski said Gilliar and fellow partner Rob Walker were “paranoid about keeping Joe Biden’s involvement secret.”

The famous family has been dogged for years by allegations of impropriety following Hunter Biden’s lucrative role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father was vice president.

A tranche of emails from a hard drive belonging to Hunter Biden — published exclusively by The Post last week — revealed how the scandal-scarred son tried to leverage his family connections to land lucrative deals overseas and boost his Burisma pay.

Speaking before reporters at a Marriott hotel near the debate site Thursday evening, Bobulinski claimed he had a falling out with the Biden family when Hunter Biden wanted to pocket $5 million from an initial $10 million cash injection into SinoHawk, ponied up by CEFC.

“He said, referring to ‘the chairman,’ his father, that CEFC was really investing in the Biden family, that he held the trump card and that he was the one putting his family legacy on the time,” said Bobulinski, who declined to take questions afterward.

“During these negotiations I repeated to Hunter and others that SinoHawk could not be Hunter’s personal piggy bank,” he went on.

“CEFC through July 2017 was assuring me the funds would be transferred to SinoHawk, but they were never sent to our company. Instead, I found out from Senator Johnson’s September report that the $5 million was sent in August 2017 to entities affiliated with Hunter,” he said, referring to the Wisconsin senator’s congressional probe into potential corruption in the Biden family.

Ending the press conference, the former Navy lieutenant said he would be meeting with Johnson’s Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.

“Tomorrow I will be meeting with the Senate committee members concerning this matter and I will be providing the FBI the devices which contain the evidence corroborating what I have said, so I will not be taking any questions at this time.”

“Can you tell us a little more about this evidence?” a reporter asked.

“The evidence sits on these three phones, I don’t want to go into anything any further. This will all be discussed with Senator Johnson and his committee and the American people can decide what’s fact,” he said.

Biden and wife Jill Biden have both dismissed the reporting as a smear campaign while Hunter Biden has yet to respond.

In a statement, Biden spokesman Andrew Bates called the allegations a “pathetic farce” and flatly denied that the 77-year-old candidate had ever been involved in overseas business deals with his family.

“As Chris Wallace said on the air about this very smear, ‘Vice President Biden has actually released his tax returns — unlike President Trump — and there is no indication he ever got any money from anybody in these business deals,’” said Bates.

“Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any overseas business whatsoever. He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever held stock for him,” Bates said.

“What is true is that Tony Bobulinski admitted on the record to Breitbart that he is angry he was *not* able to go into business with Hunter and James Biden. What is also true is that in contrast to Vice President Biden, Donald Trump has a secret Chinese bank account and pays more in taxes in China than he pays in federal income taxes in the United States — and that this is a separate, pathetic farce executed by a flailing campaign with no rationale for putting our country through another four years of hell.”

Thursday, October 01, 2020

Ben Carson: Trump's health care vision for America is impressive -- don't be fooled by mainstream media


Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/healthcare/ben-carson-trump-health-care-vision

September 28, 2020

President Trump has delivered tangible health care results on behalf of the American people

The Trump administration has an impressive story to tell on health care. For nearly four years, President Trump has championed policies that brought desperately needed reforms to American health care.

Despite the media’s refusal to attribute proper credit, the president has delivered tangible health care results on behalf of the American people – resulting in better care, more choice, and lower costs.

The historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act removed the widely unpopular individual mandate tax penalty in ObamaCare. The ObamaCare mandate forced Americans into buying health insurance.

Unfortunately, this mandate disproportionately harmed middle-class and lower-income Americans for years, coercing those individuals into purchasing care that they did not want.

As a result of President Trump’s substantial reforms to ObamaCare, premiums declined over the last two years for the first time since the flawed law was enacted.

A staple of President Trump’s approach to health care reform is rooted in returning the choice to individuals as opposed to government bureaucrats.

One of the prime examples of this is President Trump expanding health care options for terminal patients. Every year more than 1 million Americans die from a terminal illness.

In 2018, President Trump signed “Right to Try” legislation, allowing certain experimental drugs to be administered to the terminally ill who exhausted all other options. President Trump moved the government out of the way and gave Americans who had seemingly no hope a chance to survive.

Over the summer, President Trump worked to solve a problem that had sadly proved too difficult for his predecessors – lowering prescription drug prices. The president signed an executive order ensuring the United States pays the lowest price available in economically advanced countries for Medicare Part B drugs.

This order is finally reducing the inflated prices that so many Americans pay for Part B medications. Even before that specific action, prescription drugs saw their largest price decrease in over a half century in 2018 thanks to President Trump’s commonsense approach – his executive order will only bolster that progress. Where previous administrations ran into the same old obstacles, President Trump cleared them out of the way and delivered for the American people.

Dating all the way back to his historic 2016 campaign, President Trump vowed to always protect Americans with pre-existing conditions, and he’s held up that noble promise in the White House. In fact, President Trump made a key point to “cover all pre-existing conditions” in his bold second-term agenda.

He gave a roadmap of what that will look like on Thursday when he released his Healthcare Vision for America. President Trump signed the first executive order in American history declaring it is the policy of the United States government to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions.

The president’s important declaration will ensure individuals with pre-existing conditions always have access to the care they need.

President Trump’s executive order will also work to substantially lower health care costs for Americans. The president has already taken steps to end the culprit practice of surprise billing in this country, which unfairly rips off American patients.

In May 2019, President Trump announced principles to encourage congressional action to prohibit inflated surprise medical bills. Unfortunately, Congress failed to act on that critical guidance, and American patients are still vulnerable to this deceptive practice.

Despite that setback, President Trump continued to lead Congress by example when in the spring, the Trump administration “required providers to certify, as a condition of receiving supplemental COVID-19 funding, that they would not seek to collect out-of-pocket expenses from a patient for treatment related to COVID-19 in an amount greater than what the patient would have otherwise been required to pay for care by an in-network provider.”

President Trump is again imploring Congress to reach a legislative solution by years end to safeguard any more American patients from falling victim to surprise billing.

Finally, President Trump is delivering for the most treasured citizens of our great country – senior citizens. In his announcement last week, the president announced that 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $200 that can be used toward prescription drugs. This will make a significant positive difference in helping American seniors better afford their needed medications.

Ahead of this year’s crucial presidential election, don’t allow the mainstream media to fool you. President Trump has made so much progress in positively reforming American health care. With four more years, I’m confident President Trump will continue advancing policies that improve the health and well-being of all Americans.


Dr. Benjamin S. Carson Sr., M.D., is the 17th secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and chairman of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council.

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Leo Terrell: The Democratic Party left me this year — here's what I am going to do now

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democratic-party-left-me-leo-terrell
August 17, 2020

My vote depends upon one thing: who will fight for every American in this country?

Fox News viewers have long known me as an ardent Democrat, ready to fight for the ‘other’ side. However, in the past eight months, this has changed. It has changed so drastically that I’m jokingly referred to as “Leo 2.0.” It is a change so complete that I am campaigning and preparing to vote Republican in this election — for the first time ever.

As the Democratic Party gets ready to hold its national convention, I’d like to explain why I’ve left the Democratic party and will proudly cast my vote for President Donald Trump. First let me say, I did not leave the Democrats, they left me. The party of the Civil Rights movement, the party of JFK and “Ask not what your country can do for you” has abandoned all its principles and handed the reins over to extremists.

Let’s start at the top with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. On May 22, in an interview with Charlamagne tha God, Biden told him, “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” In case you don’t know, I AM Black, and I did not know that the color of my skin also came with a mandate that I vote for the old White guy who’s been in politics for 47 years (without a discernible record of accomplishments on behalf of Black people.)

I didn’t know that Black Americans were expected to form a monolithic voting bloc, one in which we bow down to the almighty Democrats, and do whatever they say. Again, I ask, what has Biden done for Black America? It’s not just Biden — or his dubious choice for vice president — that has me casting a Republican ballot.

What has happened to the Democratic party? I don’t even recognize it anymore — not since they allowed all policy decisions to be made by extremists within the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. Thanks, but I’ll take a hard pass on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. dressing up in a kente cloth and taking a knee.

I need, WE need, for Democrats to support law and order. We need Democrats to acknowledge that ALL Black lives matter ... that it means more than just the George Floyds of the world. It means the Black-on-Black crime that’s killing children in Chicago, and the looting and riots that killed retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, a Black man.

Instead of seeing the very real and very necessary reason for police in poor neighborhoods, Democrats are calling to “Defund the Police.” If you do this, who will answer the call to fight the drug dealers and the gang members in the neighborhood? I can assure you, it won’t be a social worker and it won’t be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Finally, the Democratic party has left me by refusing to acknowledge that President Trump is right about the corrosion of America’s largest cities. Our cities are literally going up in flames, all while the elected officials blithely watch. And guess who’s running them?

Democrats. In New York, it’s Bill DeBlasio, who has even managed to appall traditional Democrats. Chicago has Lori Lightfoot. Seattle has its very own summer-of-love Mayor Jenny Durkan. And there’s Los Angeles, where Eric Garcetti has effectively managed the rapid decline and decay of my beloved home city. These cities regularly make the news for riots, looting, murders and rampant homelessness. The quality of life in these cities has declined — all on the watch of the Democrats.

As a Civil Rights attorney, it would seem out of character for me to vote for Donald Trump. But I am a fair-minded individual and have witnessed our president pass a comprehensive police reform executive order, at the same time supporting law enforcement.

I know from my work that inner-city residents need and depend upon a police presence to fight crime and violence. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has turned its back on me and all Americans by giving in to chaos and dismissing the needs of the poor and middle classes.

My vote depends upon one thing: who will fight for every American in this country? It’s the candidate who will fight for law and order, and fight for equality of educational opportunities. My vote has been earned by a Republican, and that is our current President, Donald J. Trump.


Leo Terrell is a Civil Rights attorney in Los Angeles. In addition to his appearances on Fox News, you can subscribe to his podcast and follow him on Twitter @TheLeoTerrell.

Thursday, September 03, 2020

Ronald Reagan's 'Mashed Potato Circuit' Pre-Presidential Speeches Were Dyn-o-mite! - Government Is The Problem

3/31/1975-Ronald Reagan, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, and Gerald R. Ford pose together at the Eldorado Country Club in Indian Wells, California.


Ronald Reagan - 2nd Annual CPAC Convention
March 1, 1975

Let Them Go Their Way



Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/428-ronald-reagan-let-them-go-their-way

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached "the gospel," in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The "Young Turks" had campaigned against "evil politicians." They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals -- and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and independents -- classify themselves as "conservatives" than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to "spread the word."

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business -- including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions -- the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I'm sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The "lab test" of my theory – California -- was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: "We’re spending $1 million more a day than we're taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!" That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation's caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of "cut, squeeze and trim" and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we'd run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as "an unnecessary expenditure of public funds."

For more than two decades governments -- federal, state, local -- have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over -- for the first time in almost a quarter of a century -- a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is "60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy." That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation -- a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say "no."

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called "Economics and the Public Purpose." In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a "first strike" possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged -- in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners -- to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing -- adjusting the brackets to the cost of living -- so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government's share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.



Excerpts of remarks by the Hon. Ronald Reagan,
former Governor of California,
before the Thirteenth Annual Dinner
of the Conservative Party of New York,
Americana Hotel, New York, New York.
Monday, October 20, 1975.


"LET THE PEOPLE RULE"

"In his first Inaugural Address, nearly a century and three-quarters ago, President Thomas Jefferson defined the aims of his Administration. He said, 'A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of 'good government.' Jefferson believed the people were the best agents of their own destinies, and that the task of government was not to direct the people but to create an environment of ordered freedom in which the people could pursue those destinies in their own way. But he also knew that from the very beginning the tendency of government has been to become player as well as umpire. 'What has destroyed the liberty and the rights of men in every government that has ever existed under the sun?', Jefferson asked, and then answered,'The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.'

"If Jefferson could return today, I doubt that he would be surprised either at what has happened in America, or at the result. When a nation loses its desire or ability to restrain growth and concentration of power, the floodgates are open and the results are predictable.

"The Fiscal Year 1976 ends four days before our bicentennial. At the end of this fiscal year, government at all levels will have absorbed 37 percent of the Gross National Product and 44 percent of: our total personal income. We destroy the value of our pensions and savings with an inflation rate that soars to 12 percent a year, at the same time we suffer unemployment rates of eight and nine percent.

Every minute that I speak to you here, the federal government spends another $700,000. Now, let me make it clear, there is no connection between my speaking to you and their spending.. I'd stop talking if they'd stop spending. But, Washington is spending a billion dollars every day and going into debt another billion-and-a-third dollars every week. I think it would hardly surprise Jefferson to learn that the real spendable weekly income of the average American worker is lower than it was a decade ago --even though in these 10 years that same worker has increased his productivity by 23 percent. Now, that is taking bread from the mouth of labor --the bread it has earned.

"If government continues to take that bread for the next 25 years at the same rate of increase it has in the last 40, the percentage of Gross National Product government consumes will be 66 percent --two-thirds of all our output --by the end of this century. A single proposal now before Congress, Senator Kennedy's national health insurance plan, would push that share of the Gross National Product consumed by government from 37 to more than 45 percent, all by itself. That's rather expensive 'Teddy Care'.

"This absorption of revenue by all levels of government, the alarming rate of inflation, and the rising total of unemployment all stem from a single source: The belief that government, particularly the federal government, has the answer to our ills, and that the proper method of dealing with social problems is the transfer of power from the private to the public sector, and within the public sector from state and local governments to the ultimate power center in Washington.

"This collectivist, centralizing approach, by whatever name or party label it wears, has created our economic problems. Government is not the solution --government is the problem. Not only does it impose an intolerable tax burden, greater than any nation in history has ever been able to survive, but then it spends over and beyond even this, creating horrendous inflation. By saddling the economy with an ever-increasing network of regulations and controls, it has raised the consumer prices, destroyed jobs and choked off the vital supplies of food and energy.

"Last year, in spite of the ambitious programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the private sector lost 2.3 million jobs. The public payroll increased by 715,000. Now, as if that were not enough, the crushing weight of the central government has distorted the relationship between the levels of government, and worse, between the people and their government.

"The individual feels helpless, unable to have any influence on the government he is supposed to control. The state and local communities have been demeaned into little more than administrative districts --bureaucratic subdivisions of a big brother government in Washington. Thousands of towns and neighborhoods have seen the peace disturbed by bureaucrats and social planners, through busing, questionable educational programs and attacks on family unity.

"Even so liberal an observer as Richard Goodwin could identify what he correctly called 'the most troubling political fact of our age: that the growth of central power has been accompanied by a swift and continual reduction of significance of the individual citizen, transforming him --from a wielder into an object of authority.' At this rate, we'll soon live in a land where everything that isn't prohibited is compulsory.

"Now, it isn't good enough to approach this confusion by saying that we'll try to make it more efficient or responsible; or that we'll modify an aspect here or there or do a little less of all these objectionable things than will the Washington bureaucrats and those who supported them. This may have worked in the past, but not any longer. The problem must be attacked at its source. All Americans must be rallied to preserve the good things that remain in our society and to restore those good things that have been lost. We can, and we must, reverse the flow of power to Washington --not simply slow it or paper over the problem with attractive phrases or cosmetic tinkering; this would give the appearance of change but leave the basic machinery untouched.

"In fact, it reminds me of that short fable of Tolstoy's: 'I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means --except by getting off his back.'

"What I propose is nothing less than a systematic transfer of authority and resources to the states --a program of creative federalism for America's third century.

"Federal authority has clearly failed to do the job. Indeed, it has created more problems in welfare, education, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, community and regional development, and~revenue sharing, to name a few. The sums involved and the potential savings to the taxpayer are large. Transfer of authority in whole or part in all these areas would reduce the outlay of the federal government by more than $90 billion, using the spending levels of Fiscal 1976.

"With such a savings, it would be possible to balance the federal budget, make an initial five-billion-dollar payment on the national debt, and cut the federal personal income tax burden of every American by an average of 23 percent. By taking such a step we could quickly liberate much of our economy and political system from the dead hand of federal interference, with a benefical impact on every aspect of our daily lives.

"Not included in such a transfer would be those functions of government which are national rather than local in nature; and others which are handled through trust arrangements outside the general revenue structure. In addition to national defense and space, some of these areas are Social Security, Medicare, and other old-age programs; enforcement of federal law; veterans affairs; some aspects of agriculture, energy, transportation, and environment; TVA and other multi-state public-works projects; and certain types of research.

"Few would want to end the federal government's role as a setter of national goals and standards --I doubt that anyone would want to do that. And no one would want to rule out the role for Washington in those few areas where its influence has been important and benign; crash efforts like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, and massive self-liquidating programs like the Homestead Act and the land-grant colleges. And, certainly the federal government must take an active role in assuring this nation an adequate supply of energy.

"Keeping these programs in Washington does not mean there would be no effort at reform. To the contrary.

"Regulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly business and industries must set a date certain for ending federal price-fixing; and in the immediate years ahead should achieve an end to regulations which prevent the entry of newcomers in the various lines of business or industry, fore-stalling competition.

"Steps must be taken to keep spending and borrowing by off-budget agencies under control; and our major trust funds must be reformed to ensure solvency and accountability. Particularly important is the need to save Social Security from the colossal debt that threatens the future well-being of millions of our citizens, even while it overtaxes the workers at a growing and extravagant rate. Today, the average worker is buying Social Security --what amounts to fifth-rate term and liability insurance --and he is paying three or four times what he would have to pay for that same thing out on the open market.

"I think we must put a statutory limit on the growth of our money supply so that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity. This is the only way we can restore the strength and purchasing power of our anemic dollar. I can remember when we used to say that nothing could replace the American dollar --and now it practically has.

"We must reform the tax system and we can begin by radically simplifying the method of tax collection so the average citizen can figure out what he owes in a matter of minutes without legal help. We're the only country in the world where it takes more brains to figure out the tax than it does to earn the income. Genuine tax reform would also make it more rewarding to save than to borrow. Surtax brackets should be indexed to keep government from profiting from inflation and the individual from being penalized for trying to keep pace with the increased cost of living. Such reforms, plus sharp reductions in the income tax, would vastly increase every American's purchasing power.

"Today, taxes are the biggest family expense item. It is greater than food, shelter and clothing combined. Last year, according to a study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, income taxes at all levels rose by 26.5 percent --without any actual increase in the rates --just the effect of inflation. With all our complaining about rise in prices, this increased cost of government was the sharpest-hitting increase of any item in the family budget. The bite of the personal income tax gets sharper as inflation pushes us up into higher surtax brackets. Government doesn't have to raise the rates to profit by inflation. The progressive tax is based on the number of dollars earned, not their actual value. With political courage instead of demagoguery, we could have a reform of business taxes that would encourage a wider ownership in American industry by the workers in those industries.

"Finally, real tax reform would set a limit on the percentage of the total earnings of the people that government could take without expressed consent of the people.

"In the months ahead, I will say more on each of these major areas of national policy. But right now, let me tell you what I think the massive transfer of federal program to the states would mean.

"It would be a giant step toward solving the problems of inflation that are sapping the strength of our economy and cheating American wage-earners and pensioners. There is no mystery about inflation. It is caused by spending money not yet earned. Without the enormous pressure of a $60 or $80 billion deficit, the Federal Reserve System would have no mandate to pump many dollars into the economy -- which is ultimately the only cause of inflation. Inflation, in turn, is the cause of recession. The federal deficit is the chief debaucher of our dollar.

"Some of the tax cuts I propose would be balanced by increases in taxes at the state or the local level; but still the savings would be considerable. One thing, when we begin making payments on the national debt, we make further reductions in the tax burden. Right now, we are being billed a billion dollars every ten days just to pay interest on the debt. Reducing that debt will progressively reduce the level of taxation. Senator Hubert Humphrey once was excusing government spending and rationalized what had taken place by saying, 'Well, you have to realize that a billion here and a billion there -- it adds up.' Well, it can work the other way around.

"With the spending reduction I propose, the federal government will no longer be crowding capital markets to finance its deficits. That will make available billions of dollars in new capital for private investment, housing starts, and job creation --and the interest rates for all of us will come down.

"The transfer I propose does not mean that the specific programs in question are not worthwhile. Many are, though in my opinion many others are not. But the point is that all these programs are losing their effectiveness because of the federal government's preemption of the levels of government that are closer to the problems, coupled with Washington's ability to complicate everything it touches.

"The decision as to whether the programs are worthwhile and whether to continue them or cancel them will be placed where it rightfully belongs: with the people in each one of our states.

"It is theoretically possible that local governments will simply duplicate some of the existing programs as they are turned over to them; and if that is what the people in that particular state want, that is exactly what should happen. The federal bureaucrats who run them now will be available --there certainly won't be any work for them in Washington.

"Some of the more worthwhile programs will be retained essentially as they are, others will be modified, many will be dropped. But all the surviving programs will be run at a much lower cost than is presently the case.

"The present system is geared to maximize expenditure and minimize responsibility. There is no better way to promote the lavish outlay of tax money than to transfer programs and funding authority away from state and.local governments to the federal level, ensuring that recipients of aid will have every reason to spend and none to conserve. They can get 9-9-9. political credit for spending freely, but they don't have to take the heat for imposing the taxes. The French economist Bastiat, 100 years ago, said, 'Public funds seemingly belong to no one and the temptation to bestow them on someone is irresistable.'

"So long as the system continues to function on this basis, we are going to see expenditures at every level of government soar out of sight. The object is to reverse this: to tie spending and taxing functions together wherever feasible, so that those who have the pleasure of giving the money away will also have the pain of raising them. At the same time, we can sort out which functions of government are best performed at each level. And that process, I hope, would be going on between state and its own local governments at the same time.

"The transfer of spending authority to Washington blurs the difference between wasteful states and prudent ones and this, too, destroys incentives toward economy. If a state spends itself into bankruptcy on welfare, under the present system it is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab. Indeed, many federal programs are geared toward encouraging this kind of behavior. The way to more is to spend more.

"By the same token, efforts at state economy are punished under the present system. A state that keeps s fiscal house in order and, for example, prevents the welfare problem from getting out of hand will find it derives no benefits from its action. It will discover, as we did in California, that efforts to impose some common sense in welfare will run afoul of federal bureaucrats and guidelines and its citizens will be called upon to pay in federal taxes and inflation for other states that don't curb their spending.

"Another benefit of localizing these programs is that. state and local governments are more accessible to the local citizen, and in most cases prevented by statute from going in debt. When tax increases are proposed in state assemblies and city councils, the average citizen is better able to resist and to make his influence felt. This, plus the ban on local deficits, tends to put an effective lid on spending.

"Federal financing is the spender's method of getting around these restraints. Taxes are imposed at a level where the government is far away and inaccessible to the average citizen. The connection between big spending and high taxes is hidden, and the ability to run up deficits and print more money makes the efforts to control the problem through the taxation almost meaningless.

"The proposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those who are benefiting from the present system, and from many more who think they are. We must turn a deaf ear to the screams of the outraged if this nation and this way of life are to survive. The simple fact is, the producing class of this nation is being drained of its substance by the non-producers --the taxpayers are being victimized by the tax consumers. And, already in the last few weeks, we have discovered we are outnumbered. There are 71 1/2 million Americans working and earning, producing in the private sector. They are the total source of all government revenue --all the money must come from those 71 1/2 million people. There are 80 1/2 million people today receiving checks at one time or another from government. We are outnumbered by nine million.

"Many have based their political lives on appealing to this non-producing bloc --always at the further distress of the body of people that make this great system work. Well, the ship can't stay afloat unless we man the pumps.

"Of course, there will be those in government and elsewhere whose life style depends on consuming other people's earnings, and they'll fight to the last limousine and carpeted anteroom.

"But if we ignore the taxers and the centralizers and do the things we know we can do, we'll do more than survive: we will inaugurate a new era of American diversity.

"Now, you take, for example, education. The United States built the greatest system of public schools the world has ever known --not at the federal level, or even at the state level, but at the level of the local school district. Until a few years ago, the people had direct control over their schools --how much to spend, what kind of courses to offer, whom to hire. Is it an accident that, as local control gave way to funding and control by the federal and state governments, reading and other test scores in the college entrance exams have gone down -- nosediving, actually --in the last 10 years, and this year hitting an all-time low?

"Dr. James Coleman, of Johns Hopkins University, in what is probably the most thorough study of the public schools ever made, found that over a 20-year period, enrollment in the public schools has gone up 88 percent. The cost has risen in constant dollars 350 percent. The number of school employees has increased 203 percent. The average cost of educating a student has risen in the last decade 211 percent, while the cost of living has only gone up 57 percent. The truth is, a good education depends far more on local control than on the amount of money spent.

There is no question but that under local agencies certain abuses did take place and certainly they needed to be cured -- sometimes by federal interference. This was certainly true of the racial segregation in the South. But now that according to some estimates the South is the most integrated area of the country now that there is an ongoing enforcement structure in the Department of Justice --is there any further reason to deny local control and funding of our schools?

"Or take welfare. For years the fashionable voices have been calling for a federal takeover of welfare. Well, they did take over the old-age portions --and in the first 18 months, they paid out over a billion dollars by mistake! If there is one area of social policy that should be at the most local level of government possible, it is welfare. It should not be nationalized --it should be localized. If Joe Doaks is using his welfare money to go down to the pool hall and drink beer and gamble, and the people on his block are paying for it, as they are, but if they also have a say in running the program, Joe is apt to undergo a change in his life style.

"This is an example of why our task force in California found that the smaller and more local governments become, the less they cost. The more you localize government, the less you will see a situation like the one in Massachusetts, where a mother of six is receiving from government, in cash and services, the equivalent of a $20,000-a-year income. The average family income in Massachusetts is just one-half of that.

"The truth is that people all over America have been thinking about all of these problems for years. This country is bursting with ideas and creativity, but a government run by bureaucrats in Washington has no way to respond. If we send the power back to the states and localities, we'll find out how to improve education, because some districts are going to succeed with some ideas, others are going to fail with ideas, and the word will spread between them like wildfire. The more we let the people decide, the more we'll find out about what policies work and what policies don't work. Successful programs and good local governments will attract bright people like magnets, because the genius of our federalism --that we have grown so far toward destroying in recent decades --is that people can vote with their feet. If local or state governments get tyrannical and costly, the people will move. By the same token, if one of them shows up doing something right, people will pack up and move toward that. If the federal government is the villian, there is no escape.

"I am calling also for an end to giantism, for a return to the human scale the-scale that human beings can understand and cope with; the scale of the local fraternal lodge, the church congregation, the block club, the farm bureau. It is the locally-owned factory, the small businessman who personally deals with his customers and stands behind his product, the farm and consumer cooperative, the town or neighborhood bank that invests in the community, the union local.

"In government, the human scale is the town council, the board of selectmen, and the precinct captain.

"It is this activity on a small, human scale that creates the fabric of conm1unity, a framework for the creation of abundance of liberty. The human scale nurtures standards of right behavior, a prevailing ethic of what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.

"Three-and-a-half centuries ago, people from across the sea began to cross to this great land, searching for freedom and a sense of community they were losing at home. The trickle became a flood, and we spread across a vast, virtually unpeopled continent and caused it to blossom with homesteads, villages, cities, great transportation systems, all the emblems of prosperity and success. And we did every bit of that without an urban renewal program or an area redevelopment plan. We became the most productive people in the history of the world.

"Two hundred years ago, when this process was just beginning, we rebelled when, in our eyes, a mother country turned into a foreign power. We rebelled not to overturn but to preserve what we had, and to keep alive the chance for doing more. We established a republic, because the meaning of a republic is that real leadership comes not from the rulers but from the people; that more happens in a state where people are the sculptors and not the clay.

We are losing that chance today, and we know we are losing it. Two hundred years ago it was London that turned into a foreign power. Today, it is sad to say, it is Washington, D.C. The coils woven in that city are entrapping us all, and, as with the Gordian knot, we cannot untie it. We have to cut it with one blow of the sword.

"In one reference book, cutting the Gordian knot is defined as 'solving a perplexing problem by a single bold action'. The Gordian knot of antiguity was in Phrygia, and it was Alexander the Great who cut it, thereby, according to the legend, assuring the conquest of Persia.

"Today, the Gordian knot is in Washington, and the stakes are even higher. But this is a republic, and we don't have a king with a sword, only we the people, and our sword has been fashioned into a ballot box. What applies to the role of government applies equally to the means of changing that role: leadership is necessary, but even more necessary is popular choice. The anonymous sage who defined leadership must have lived in a republic, for he said, 'He is not the best statesman who is the greatest doer, but he who sets others doing with the greatest success.'"



Citizens for Reagan
For President


STATEMENT BY THE HON. RONALD REAGAN
NOVEMBER 20, 1975


Thank you for coming.

I have called this press conference to announce that I am a candidate for the Presidency and to ask for the support of all Americans who share my belief that our nation needs to embark on a new, constructive course.

I believe my candidacy will be healthy for the nation and my party.

I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of events in the united States and in the world.

In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation, unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching 10 percent and even more.

Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less effective.

Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our dependence on foreign sources is growing.

A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to everything we stand for.

Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a soonger indication that they also seek a lasting peace with us.

In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here--in Washington, D.C. Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for its own benefit--increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes.

Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems--the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, big business and big labor.

If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them and seeks to return government to them. We need a government that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.

For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive. We worked against high odds--an opposition legislature for most of those years and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.

In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people it is they who should decide how much government they want.

I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people believe it either.

We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. We must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then, I am sure, the people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our way of life and release that energy that is the American spirit.



Editorial Advisory: Ronald Reagan Appearance Schedule, Nov. 20-21

Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0204/1512162.pdf#page=3

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The following tentative schedule of appearances for former California Governor Ronald Reagan has been released by the Citizens for Reagan Committee. This schedule will be followed, assuming Gov. Reagan announces that he will become a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.

THURSDAY, NOV. 20:

Washington, D.C. (EST)
9:30 a.m. News Conference (30 min.), Grand Ballroom, National Press Club (corner 14th & F Streets, N.W.). Announcement on Candidacy Decision.
10:30 a.m. Depart National Press Building
11:00 a.m. Depart National Airport; charter flight
Miami, Florida (EST)
1:10 p.m. Arrive Miami International Airport
1:40 p.m. Speech (20 min.), Main Ballroom, Ramada Inn (3941 West 22nd Street)
2:15 p.m. News Conference (20 min.) in partitioned, designated area of North-South Room, Ramada Inn. Filing facilities available.
3:30 p.m. Depart Ramada Inn for airport
3:50 p.m. Depart Miami International Airport

Manchester, New Hampshire(EST)
6:40 p.m. Arrive Manchester Airport, Main Terminal
8:25 p.m. Speech with Q&A Session (approx. 1 hr.) before "Town Meeting," Nain Ballroom, Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel, Manchester. Filing facilities· available.

OVERNIGHT: Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel, Manchester
FRIDAY 1 NOV. 21:

8:00 a.m. News Conference (20 min.), Main Ballroom, Sheraton Wayfarer Hotel
8:25 a.m. Depart Wayfarer Hotel for airport
8:50 a.m. Depart Manchester airport

Charlotte, North Carolina (EST)
10:50 a.m. Arrive Charlotte Airport
11:05 a.m. Speech (15 min.) on arrival at Cannon Aviation Hanger
1:25 a.m. News Conference (20 min.) in National Guard Auditorium, Charlotte airport. Filing facilities available.
12:25 p.m. Depart Charlotte airport

Chicago, Illinois (CST)
1:10 p.m. Arrive O'Hare Airport, Butler Aviation Terminal
1:15 p.m. Ne\olS Conference (20 min.), Butler Aviation Terminal
1:45 p.m. Depart O'Hare Airport

Los Angeles, California (PST)
4:00 p.m. Arrive Hollywood-Burbank Airport
4:05 p.m. "Homecoming Celebration" with speech (15 min.) to Rally, just outside Hanger #24
4:30 p.m. News Conference (30 min.) inside Hanger #24. Filing facilities available.
6:00 p.m. Depart Hollywood-Burbank Airport for Beverly Hilton Hotel


MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESS:
Governor Reagan will vary the attached speech slightly at each stop to meet the local situation.

SPEECH BY RONALD REAGAN, NOV. 20-21, 1975


Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0204/1512162.pdf#page=8

There's a passage in the Bible that says, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

Well, just to make sure no one mistook the sound of the trumpet, I took it to Washington this morning to announce my candidacy for the Presidency.

I chose Washington because it is such an intimate part of our troubles: inflation, recession, unemployment, bureaucracy and centralized power.

There are times in a nation's history when the people become aware that only a new and constructive course can solve the problems besetting them. America is in such a time now.

Ironically, it was in another troubled time more than four decades ago that we set in motion some of the forces which have brought us to this present time of decision.

Back in the Depression years there were those who promised to overcome hard times. Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a course that made bold use of government to ease the pain of those times. Although some of his measures seemed to work, he was soon moved to sound a warning. He said, " ...we have built new instruments of public power in the hands of the people's government...but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people."

Unfortunately, that warning went unheeded. Today, there is an economic autocracy, born of government's growing interference in our lives. Yet Washington, for all its power, seems powerless to solve problems any more.

I am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of events in the United States and in the world.

In just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation, unemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching 10 percent and even more.

Government at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal income. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less effective.

Our access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our dependence on foreign sources is growing.

A decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to everything we stand for.

Through detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should continue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication that they also seek a lasting peace with us.

In my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here--in Washington, D.C. Our nation's capital has become the seat of a "buddy" system that functions for its own benefit--increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes.

Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problems--the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, big business and big labor.

If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them, and seeks to return government to them. We need a government that is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.

For eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive. We worked against high odds-an opposition legislature for most of those years and an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.

I am convinced that under the layer of self-doubt that seems to have settled like a fog on our country, the true, strong spirit of the American people still glows, ready to be reignited so that we can once again have a sense of mission; a pride in our capacity to perform great deeds.

Washington seems to have lost track of the American Dream. But you and millions more like you across this land have not. You are determined to be free and independent, to solve your own problems and to help your neighbors solve theirs. Over the last ten months, visiting nearly every corner of America and meeting many thousands of people, I have seen this determination in their faces and I have heard it in their voices.

I have become a candidate because I believe strongly in this American spirit to move forward; to try the untried; to dream the new dream--knowing that our energy and our ingenuity can turn them into realities.

In the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people it is they who should decide how much government they want.

I don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in Washington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people believe it either.

I am here to tell you that I shall be running in your primary. Not just running, but putting all my energy into it. I cannot reach the goal alone. I need your help. Together, we can reach it.

We, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that is growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. As we work toward our goal, we must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then I am sure the people will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our life and release that energy that is the American spirit.


Ronald Reagan - March 31, 1976


To Restore America


Source: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/exhibits/campaign/020400462-001.pdf

Good evening to all of you from California. Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about issues. Issues which I think are involved--or should be involved in this primary election season.

I'm a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. But I hope that you who are Independents and Democrats will let me talk to you also tonight because the problems facing our country are problems that just don't bear any party label.

In this election season the White House is telling us a solid economic recovery is taking place. It claims a slight drop in unemployment. It says that prices aren't going up as fast, but they are still going up, and that the stock market has shown some gains. But, in fact, things seem just about as they were back in the 1972 election year. Remember, we were also coming out of a recession then. Inflation had been running at round 6%. Unemployment about 7 [percent]. Remember, too, the upsurge and the optimism lasted through the election year and into 1973. And then the roof fell in. Once again we had unemployment. Only this time not 7%, more than 10. And inflation wasn't 6%, it was 12%.

Now, in this election year 1976, we're told we're coming out of this recession just because inflation and unemployment rates have fallen, to what they were at the worst of the previous recession. If history repeats itself, will we be talking recovery four years from now merely because we've reduced inflation from 25% to 12%?

The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. It took this nation 166 years until the middle of World War II to finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took this administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the debt. And this administration has run up almost one-fourth of the total national debt in just these short nineteen months.

Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease. There's only one cause for inflation— government spending more than government takes in. The cure is a balanced budget. Ah, but they tell us, 80 percent of the budget is uncontrollable. It's fixed by laws passed by Congress. Well, laws passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress. And, if Congress is unwilling to do this, then isn't it time we elect a Congress that will?

Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he would end inflation. Indeed, he declared war on inflation. And, we all donned those WIN buttons to "Whip Inflation Now." Unfortunately the war—if it ever really started—was soon over. Mr. Ford without WIN button, appeared on TV, and promised he absolutely would not allow the Federal deficit to exceed $60 billion (which incidentally was $5 billion more than the biggest previous deficit we'd ever had). Later he told us it might be as much as $70 billion. Now we learn it's $80 billion or more.

Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion tax cut, to be matched by a S28 billion cut in the proposed spending—not in present spending, but in the proposed spending in the new budget. Well, my question then and my question now is, if there was $28 billion in the new budget that could be cut, what was it doing there in the first place?

Unfortunately, Washington doesn't feel the same pain from inflation that you and I do. As a matter of fact, government makes a profit on inflation. For instance, last July Congress vaccinated itself against that pain. It very quietly passed legislation (which the president signed into law) which automatically now gives a pay increase to every Congressman every time the cost of living goes up.

It would have been nice if they'd thought of some arrangement like that for the rest of us. They could, for example, correct a great unfairness that now exists in our tax system. Today, when you get a cost of living pay raise—one that just keeps you even with purchasing power—it often moves you up into a higher tax bracket. This means you pay a higher percentage in tax, but you reduce your purchasing power. Last year, because of this inequity, the government took in $7 billion in undeserved profit in the income tax alone, and this year they'll do even better. Now isn't it time that Congress looked after your welfare as well as its own?

Those whose spending policies cause inflation to begin with should be made to feel the painful effect just as you and I do. Repeal of Congress's automatic pay raise might leave it with more incentive to do something to curb inflation.

Now, let's look at Social Security. Mr. Ford says he wants to "preserve the integrity of Social Security." Well, I differ with him on one word. I would like to restore the integrity of Social Security. Those who depend on it see a continual reduction in their standard of living. Inflation strips the increase in their benefits. The maximum benefit today buys 80 fewer loaves of bread than it did when that maximum payment was only $85 a month. In the meantime, the Social Security payroll tax has become the most unfair tax any worker pays. Women are discriminated against, particularly working wives. And, people who reach Social Security age and want to continue working, should be allowed to do so without losing their benefits. I believe a presidential commission of experts should be appointed to study and present a plan to strengthen and improve Social Security while there's still time—so that no person who has contributed to Social Security will ever lose a dime.

Before leaving this subject of our economic problems, let's talk about unemployment.

Ending inflation is the only long range and lasting answer to the problem of unemployment. The Washington Establishment is not the answer. It's the problem. Its tax policies, its harassing regulation, its confiscation of investment capital to pay for its deficits keeps business and industry from expanding to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all need.

No one who lived through the Great Depression can ever look upon an unemployed person with anything but compassion. To me, there is no greater tragedy than a breadwinner willing to work, with a job skill but unable to find a market for that job skill. Back in those dark depression days I saw my father on a Christmas eve open what he thought was a Christmas greeting from his boss. Instead, it was the blue slip telling him he no longer had a job. The memory of him sitting there holding that slip of paper and then saying in a half whisper, "That's quite a Christmas present"; it will stay with me as long as I live.

Other problems go unsolved. Take energy. Only a short time ago we were lined up at the gas station— turned our thermostats down as Washington announced "Project Independence." We were going to become self-sufficient, able to provide for our own energy needs.

At the time, we were only importing a small percentage of our oil. Yet, the Arab boycott caused half a million Americans to lose their jobs when plants closed down for lack of fuel. Today, it's almost three years later and "Project Independence" has become "Project Dependence." Congress has adopted an energy bill so bad we were led to believe Mr. Ford would veto it. Instead, he signed it. And, almost instantly, drilling rigs all over our land started shutting down. Now, for the first time in our history we are importing more oil than we produce. How many Americans will be laid off if there's another boycott? The energy bill is a disaster that never should have been signed.

An effort has been made in this campaign to suggest that there aren't any real differences between Mr. Ford and myself. Well, I believe there are, and these differences are fundamental. One of them has to do with our approach to government. Before Richard Nixon appointed him Vice President, Mr. Ford was a Congressman for 25 years. His concern, of necessity, was the welfare of his congressional district. For most of his adult life he has been a part of the Washington Establishment.

Most of my adult life has been spent outside of government. My experience in government was the eight years I served as governor of California. If it were a nation, California would be the 7th-ranking economic power in the world today.

When I became governor, I inherited a state government that was in almost the same situation as New York City. The state payroll had been growing for a dozen years at a rate of from 5 to 7,000 new employees each year. State government was spending from a million to a million-and-a-half dollars more each day than it was taking in. The State's great water project was unfinished and under-funded by a half a billion dollars. My predecessor had spent the entire year's budget for Medicaid in the first six months of the fiscal year. And, we learned that the teacher's retirement fund was unfunded—a $4 billion liability hanging over every property owner in the state. I didn't know whether I'd been elected governor or appointed receiver.

California was faced with insolvency and on the verge of bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well, this came very hard for me because I felt taxes were already too great a burden. I told the people the increase in my mind was temporary and that, as soon as we could, we'd return their money to them.

I had never in my life thought of seeking or holding public of office and I'm still not quite sure how it all happened. In my own mind, I was a citizen representing my fellow citizens against the institution of government.

I turned to the people, not to politicians, for help. Instead of a committee to screen applicants for jobs, I had a citizens' recruiting committee, and I told this committee I wanted an administration made up of men and women who did not want government careers and who'd be the first to tell me if their government job was unnecessary. And I had that happen. [A] young man from the aerospace industry dissolved his department in four months, handed me the key to this office, and told me we'd never needed the department. And to this day, I not only have never missed it—I don't know where it was.

There was a reason for my seeking people who didn't want government careers. Dr. Parkinson summed it all up in his book on bureaucracy. He said, "Government hires a rat-catcher and the first thing you know, he's become a rodent control officer."

In those entire eight years, most of us never lost that feeling that we were there representing the people against what Cicero once called the "arrogance of officialdom." We had a kind of watchword we used on each other. "When we begin thinking of government as we instead of they, we've been here too long." Well, I believe that attitude would be beneficial in Washington.

We didn't stop just with getting our administration from the ranks of the people. We also asked for help from expert people in a great many fields, and more than 250 of our citizens volunteered to form into task forces. They went into every department and agency of state government to see how modern business practices could make government more efficient, economical and responsive. They gave an average of 117 days apiece full time, away from their own jobs and careers at no cost to the taxpayers. They made eighteen hundred specific recommendations. We implemented more than sixteen hundred of those recommendations.

This was government-by-the-people, proving that it works when the people work at it. When we ended our eight years, we turned over to the incoming administration a balanced budget, a $500 million surplus, and virtually the same number of employees we'd started with eight years before—even though the increase in population had given some departments a two-thirds increase in work load.

The water project was completed with $165 million left over. Our bonds had a triple A rating, the highest credit rating you can get. And the teachers' retirement program was fully funded on a sound actuarial basis. And, we kept our word to the taxpayers—we returned to them in rebates and tax cuts, $5 billion, $761 million.

I believe that what we did in California can be done in Washington if government will have faith in the people and let them bring their common sense to bear on the problems bureaucracy hasn't solved. I believe in the people.

Now, Mr. Ford places his faith in the Washington Establishment. This has been evident in his appointment of former Congressmen and longtime government workers to positions in his Administration. Well, I don't believe that those who have been part of the problem are necessarily the best qualified to solve them.

The truth is, Washington has taken over functions that don't truly belong to it. In almost every case it has been a failure. Now, understand, I'm speaking of those programs which logically should be administered at state and local levels.

Welfare is a classic example. Voices that are raised now and then urging a federalization of welfare don't realize that the failure of welfare is due to federal interference. Washington doesn't even know how many people are on welfare—how many cheaters are getting more than one check. It only knows how many checks it's sending out. Its own rules keep it from finding out how many are getting more than one check. Well, California had a welfare problem. Sixteen percent of all welfare recipients in the country were drawing their checks in our state. We were sending welfare checks to families who decided to live abroad. One family was receiving its check in Russia. Our caseload was increasing by 40,000 people a month. Well, after a few years of trying to control this runaway program and being frustrated by bureaucrats here in California and in Washington, we turned again to a citizens' task force. The result was the most comprehensive welfare reform ever attempted.

And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by more than 300,000 people, saved the taxpayers $2 billion, and increased the grants to the truly deserving needy by an average of 45%. We also carried out a successful experiment which I believe is an answer to much of the welfare problem in the nation. We put able-bodied welfare recipients to work at useful community projects in return for their welfare grants.

Now, let's look at housing. Washington has tried to solve this problem for the poor by building low-cost houses. So far it's torn down three and a half homes for every one it's built.

Schools—in America we created at the local level and administered at the local level for many years the greatest public school system in the world. Now through something called federal aid to education, we have something called federal interference, and education has been the loser. Quality has declined as federal intervention has increased.

Nothing has created more bitterness, for example, than forced busing to achieve racial balance. It was born of a hope that we could increase understanding and reduce prejudice and antagonism. And I'm sure we all approved of that goal. But busing has failed to achieve the goal. Instead, it has increased the bitterness and animosity it was supposed to reduce. California's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles (himself a Black), says, "The concept that Black children can't learn unless they are sitting with white children is utter and complete nonsense. " Well, I agree. The money now being wasted on this social experiment could be better spent to provide the kind of school facilities every child deserves. Forced busing should be ended by legislation if possible— by constitutional amendment if necessary. And, control of education should be returned to local school districts.

The other day Mr. Ford came out against gun control. But back in Washington, D.C., his Attorney General has proposed a seven-point program that amounts to just that: gun control. I don't think that making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns will lower the crime rate— not when the criminals will always find a way to get them. In California I think we found an answer. We put into law what is practical gun control. Anyone convicted of having a gun in his possession while he committed a crime: add five to 15 to the prison sentence.

Sometimes bureaucracy's excesses are so great that we laugh at them. But they are costly laughs. Twenty-five years ago the Hoover Commission discovered that Washington files a million reports a year just reporting there is nothing to report.

Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file billions of reports every year required of them by Washington. It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year, and it adds $50 billion a year to the cost of doing business. Now, Washington has been loud in its promise to do something about this blizzard of paperwork. And they made good. Last year they increased it by 20%.

But there is one problem which must be solved or everything else is meaningless. I am speaking of the problem of our national security. Our nation is in danger, and the danger grows greater with each passing day. Like an echo from the past, the voice of Winston Churchill's grandson was heard recently in Britain's House of Commons warning that the spread of totalitarianism threatens the world once again and the democracies are "wandering without aim."

"Wandering without aim" describes the United States' foreign policy. Angola is a case in point. We gave just enough support to one side to encourage it to fight and die, but too little to give them a chance of winning. And while we're disliked by the winner, distrusted by the loser, and viewed by the world as weak and unsure. If détente were the two-way street it's supposed to be, we could have told the Soviet Union to stop its trouble-making and leave Angola to the Angolans. But it didn't work out that way.

Now, we are told Washington is dropping the word "détente," but keeping the policy. But whatever it's called, the policy is what's at fault. What is our policy? Mr. Ford's new Ambassador to the United Nations attacks our longtime ally, Israel. In Asia, our new relationship with mainland China can have practical benefits for both sides. But that doesn't mean it should include yielding to demands by them, as the administration has, to reduce our military presence on Taiwan where we have a longtime friend and ally, the Republic of China. And, it's also revealed now that we seek to establish friendly relations with Hanoi. To make it more palatable, we're told that this might help us learn the fate of the men still listed as Missing in Action.

Well, there's no doubt our government has an obligation to end the agony of parents, wives and children who've lived so long with uncertainty. But, this should have been one of our first demands of Hanoi's patron saint, the Soviet Union, if détente had any meaning at all. To present it now as a reason for friendship with those who have already violated their promise to provide such information is hypocrisy.

In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger have taken us from hinting at invasion of Cuba, to laughing it off as a ridiculous idea. Except, that it was their ridiculous idea. No one else suggested it. Once again— what is their policy? During this last year, they carried on a campaign to befriend Castro. They persuaded the Organization of American States to lift its trade embargo, lifted some of the U.S. trade restrictions. They engaged in cultural exchanges. And then, on the eve of the Florida primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called Castro an outlaw and said he'd never recognize him. But he hasn't asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose a single sanction, nor has he taken any action himself. Meanwhile, Castro continues to export revolution to Puerto Rico, to Angola, and who knows where else?

As I talk to you tonight, negotiations with another dictator go forward— negotiations aimed at giving up our ownership of the Panama Canal Zone. Apparently, everyone knows about this except the rightful owners of the Canal Zone—you, the people of the United States.

General Omar Torrijos, the dictator of Panama, seized power eight years ago by ousting the duly-elected government. There have been no elections since. No civil liberties. The press is censored. Torrijos is a friend and ally of Castro and, like him, is pro-Communist. He threatens sabotage and guerrilla attacks on our installations if we don't yield to his demands. His foreign minister openly claims that we have already agreed in principle to giving up the Canal Zone.

Well, the Canal Zone is not a colonial possession. It is not a long-term lease. It is sovereign United States Territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the states that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase. We should end those negotiations and tell the General: We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we intend to keep it.

Mr. Ford says détente will be replaced by "peace through strength." Well now, that slogan has a—a nice ring to it, but neither Mr. Ford nor his new Secretary of Defense will say that our strength is superior to all others.

In one of the dark hours of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "It is time to speak the truth frankly and boldly." Well, I believe former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was trying to speak the truth frankly and boldly to his fellow citizens. And that's why he is no longer Secretary of Defense.

The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one and in reserves four-to-one. They out-spend us on weapons by 50 percent. Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface ships and submarines two-to-one. We're outgunned in artillery three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours four-to-one. Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger, more powerful and more numerous than ours. The evidence mounts that we are Number Two in a world where it's dangerous, if not fatal, to be second best.

Is this why Mr. Ford refused to invite Alexander Solzhenitsyn to the White House? Or, why Mr. Ford traveled halfway 'round the world to sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our stamp of approval on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations? We gave away the freedom of millions of people— freedom that was not ours to give.

Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own freedom. Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he thinks of the United States as Athens and the Soviet Union as Sparta. "The day of the U.S. is past and today is the day of the Soviet Union." And he added, "...My job as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position available."

Well, I believe in the peace of which Mr. Ford spoke—as much as any man. But peace does not come from weakness or from retreat. It comes from the restoration of American military superiority.

Ask the people of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary—all the others: East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania—ask them what it's like to live in a world where the Soviet Union is Number One. I don't want to live in that kind of world; and I don't think you do either.

Now we learn that another high official of the State Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger refers to as his "Kissinger," has expressed the belief that, in effect, the captive nations should give up any claim of national sovereignty and simply become a part of the Soviet Union. He says, "their desire to break out of the Soviet straightjacket" threatens us with World War III. In other words, slaves should accept their fate.

Well, I don't believe the people I've met in almost every State of this Union are ready to consign this, the last island of freedom, to the dust bin of history, along with the bones of dead civilizations of the past. Call it mysticism, if you will, but I believe God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and the courage to leave the countries of their birth. From our forefathers to our modern-day immigrants, we've come from every corner of the earth, from every race and every ethnic background, and we've become a new breed in the world. We're Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny. We spread across this land, building farms and towns and cities, and we did it without any federal land planning program or urban renewal.

Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man's relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us.

Now a self-anointed elite in our nation's capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it's too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems.

Why should we become frightened? No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans—the Americans living in this land today. There isn't any problem we can't solve if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.

Recently on one of my campaign trips I was doing a question-and-answer session, and suddenly I received a question from a little girl—couldn't have been over six or seven years old—standing in the very front row. I'd heard the question before but somehow in her asking it, she threw me a little bit. She said, why do you want to be president? Well, I tried to tell her about giving government back to the people; I tried to tell her about turning authority back to the states and local communities, and so forth; winding down the bureaucracy. [It] might have been an answer for adults, but I knew that it wasn't what that little girl wanted, and I left very frustrated. It was on the way to the next stop that I turned to Nancy and I said I wish I had it to do over again because I—I'd like to answer her question. Well, maybe I can answer it now. I would like to go to Washington. I would like to be president, because I would like to see this country become once again a country where a little six-year old girl can grow up knowing the same freedom that I knew when I was six years old, growing up in America. If this is the America you want for yourself and your children; if you want to restore government not only of and for but by the people; to see the American spirit unleashed once again; to make this land a shining, golden hope God intended it to be, I'd like to hear from you. Write, or send a wire. I'd be proud to hear your thoughts and your ideas.

Thank you, and good night.



Ronald Reagan - Republican National Convention Speech

August 19, 1976


Source: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/republican-national-convention-speech-1976

Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President-to-be, the distinguished guests here, you ladies and gentlemen. I was going to say fellow Republicans here but those who are watching from a distance (including) all those millions of Democrats and independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them. Mr. President, before you arrive tonight, these wonderful people, here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome. That, plus this, plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.

Watching on television these last few nights Ive seen also the warmth with which you greeted Nancy and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that. May I say some words. There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and is doesnt very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than is has ever been before, I believe the Republican party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades. We have just heard a call to arms, based on that platform.

And a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a rerunning of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.

If I could just take a moment, I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.

It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write about the problems and issues of the day. And I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldnt help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.

And then as I tried to write-let your own minds turn to that task. You're going to write for people a hundred years from now who know all about us, we know nothing about them. We dont know what kind of world theyll be living in. And suddenly I thought to myself, If I write of the problems, theyll be the domestic problems of which the President spoke here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are the challenges that we must meet and then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have aimed and poised at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each others country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.

And suddenly it dawned on me; those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge.

Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here. Will they look back with appreciation and say, Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom? Who kept us now a hundred years later free? Who kept our world from nuclear destruction?

And if we fail they probably wont get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they wont be allowed to talk of that or read of it.

This is our challenge and this is why were here in this hall tonight. Better than weve ever done before, weve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than weve ever been but we carry the message theyre waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory. Mr. President.


Ronald Reagan - 4th Annual CPAC Convention
February 6, 1977

The New Republican Party


Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/430-ronald-reagan-the-new-republican-party

I’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait.

Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.

Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves "conservative" are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.

A Harris poll released September 7, l975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would "prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one."

Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.

Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from "right-of-center" (which was defined as "conservative") to left-of-center (which was defined as "liberal").

* Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal * Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle * Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.

What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.

Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call "social" conservatism and "economic" conservatism. The so-called social issues -- law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems -- are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues -- inflation, deficit spending and big government -- are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism -- or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called "social" issues and those interested in "economic" issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?

I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.

Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for "ideological purity." Whatever ideology may mean -- and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it -- it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country "ideology" is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don't happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing -- he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education -- he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right -- those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply "making room" for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: "Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support." We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs -- and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted.

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms.

Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don't have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.

It is at this point, however, that we come across a question that is really the essential one: What will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance?

Fortunately, we have an answer to that question. That answer was provided last summer by the men and women of the Republican Party -- not just the leadership, but the ones who have built the party on local levels all across the country.

The answer was provided in the 1976 platform of the Republican Party.

This was not a document handed down from on high. It was hammered out in free and open debate among all those who care about our party and the principles it stands for.

The Republican platform is unique. Unlike any other party platform I have ever seen, it answers not only programmatic questions for the immediate future of the party but also provides a clear outline of the underlying principles upon which those programs are based.

The New Republican Party can and should use the Republican platform of 1976 as the major source from which a Declaration of Principles can be created and offered to the American people.

Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.

As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.

Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.

Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.

Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.

In his inaugural speech President Carter said that he saw the world "dominated by a new spirit." He said, and I quote: "The passion for freedom is on the rise."

Well, I don’t know how he knows this, but if it is true, then it is the most unrequited passion in human history. The world is being dominated by a new spirit, all right, but it isn’t the spirit of freedom.

It isn’t very often you see a familiar object that shocks and frightens you. But the other day I came across a map of the world created by Freedom House, an organization monitoring the state of freedom in the world for the past 25 years. It is an ordinary map, with one exception: it shows the world’s nations in white for free, shaded for partly free and black for not free.

Almost all of the great Eurasian land mass is completely colored black, from the western border of East Germany, through middle and eastern Europe, through the awesome spaces of the Soviet Union, on to the Bering Strait in the north, down past the immensity of China, still further down to Vietnam and the South China Sea -- in all that huge, sprawling, inconceivably immense area not a single political or personal or religious freedom exists. The entire continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, all that vastness is almost totally unfree. In the tiny nation of Tanzania alone, according to a report in the New York Times, there are 3,000 people in detention for political crimes -- that is more than the total being held in South Africa! The Mideast has only one free state: Israel. If a visitor from another planet were to approach earth, and if this planet showed free nations in light and unfree nations in darkness, the pitifully small beacons of light would make him wonder what was hidden in that terrifying, enormous blackness.

We know what is hidden: Gulag. Torture. Families -- and human beings -- broken apart. No free press, no freedom of religion. The ancient forms of tyranny revived and made even more hideous and strong through what Winston Churchill once called "a perverted science." Men rotting for years in solitary confinement because they have different political and economic beliefs, solitary confinement that drives the fortunate ones insane and makes the survivors wish for death.

Only now and then do we in the West hear a voice from out of that darkness. Then there is silence -- the silence of human slavery. There is no more terrifying sound in human experience, with one possible exception. Look at that map again. The very heart of the darkness is the Soviet Union and from that heart comes a different sound. It is the whirring sound of machinery and the whisper of the computer technology we ourselves have sold them. It is the sound of building, building of the strongest military machine ever devised by man. Our military strategy is designed to hopefully prevent a war. Theirs is designed to win one. A group of eminent scientists, scholars and intelligence experts offer a survey showing that the Soviet Union is driving for military superiority and are derided as hysterically making, quote, "a worst case," unquote, concerning Soviet intentions and capabilities.

But is it not precisely the duty of the national government to be prepared for the worst case? Two Senators, after studying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have reported to the Armed Forces Committee that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe have the capability to launch, with little warning, a "potentially devastating" attack in Central Europe from what is termed a "standing alert."

Reading their report, one can almost see the enormous weight of the parts of the earth that are under tyranny shifting in an irresistible tilt toward that tiny portion of land in freedom’s light. Even now in Western Europe we have Communists in the government of Italy, France appeasing terrorists, and England -- for centuries the model or the sword of freedom in Western Europe -- weak, dispirited, turning inward.

A "worst case"? How could you make a good case out of the facts as they are known? The Soviet Union, poised on the edge of free Europe, capable of striking from a standing start, has modern tanks in far greater numbers than the outmoded vehicles of NATO. We have taken comfort from NATO’s superiority in the air, but now the Soviet Union has made a dramatic swing away from its historic defensive air posture to one capable of supporting offensive action. NATO’s southern flank is described in the Senate report with a single word: shambles.

The report is simply reality as it was, with different names and faces, in Europe in the late 1930s when so many refused to believe and thought if we don’t look the threat will go away.

We don’t want hysteria. We don’t want distortion of Soviet power. We want truth. And above all we want peace. And to have [recognition] that the United States has to immediately re-examine its entire view of the world and develop a strategy of freedom. We cannot be the second-best super-power for the simple reason that he who is second is last. In this deadly game, there are no silver medals for second.

President Carter, as a candidate, said he would cut five to seven billion dollars from the defense budget. We must let him know that while we agree, there must be no fat in our armed forces. Those armed forces must be capable of coping with the new reality presented to us by the Russians, and cutting seven billion dollars out of our defense budget is not the way to accomplish this. Some years ago, a young President said, we will make any sacrifice, bear any burden, and we will, to preserve our freedom.

Our relationship with mainland China is clouded. The so-called "Gang of Four" are up one day and down the next and we are seeing the pitfalls of making deals with charismatic personalities and living legends. The charisma fades as the living legends die, and those who take their place are interested not in our best wishes but in power. The keyword for China today is turmoil. We should watch and observe and analyze as closely and rationally as we can.

But in our relationships with the mainland of China we should always remember that the conditions and possibilities for and the realities of freedom exist to an infinitely greater degree with our Chinese friends in Taiwan. We can never go wrong if we do what is morally right, and the moral way -- the honorable way -- is to keep our commitment, our solemn promise to the people of Taiwan. Our liberal friends have made much of the lack of freedom in some Latin American countries. Senator Edward Kennedy and his colleagues here in Washington let no opportunity pass to let us know about horrors in Chile.

Well, I think when the United States of America is considering a deal with a country that hasn’t had an election in almost eight years, where the press is under the thumb of a dictatorship, where ordinary citizens are abducted in the night by secret police, where military domination of the country is known to be harsh on dissenters and when these things are documented, we should reject overtures from those who rule such a country.

But the country I’m describing is not Chile -- it is Panama.

We are negotiating with a dictatorship that comes within the portion of that map colored black for no freedom. No civil rights. One-man rule. No free press.

Candidate Carter said he would never relinquish "actual control" of the Panama Canal. President Carter is negotiating with a dictatorship whose record on civil and human rights is as I have just described and the negotiations concern the rights guaranteed to us by treaty which we will give up under a threat of violence. In only a few weeks we will mark the second anniversary of the death of freedom for the Vietnamese. An estimated 300,000 of them are being "re-educated" in concentration camps to forget about freedom.

There is only one major question on the agenda of national priorities and that is the state of our national security. I refer, of course, to the state of our armed forces -- but also to our state of mind, to the way we perceive the world. We cannot maintain the strength we need to survive, no matter how many missiles we have, no matter how many tanks we build, unless we are willing to reverse:

* The trend of deteriorating faith in and continuing abuse of our national intelligence agencies. Let’s stop the sniping and the propaganda and the historical revisionism and let the CIA and the other intelligence agencies do their job!

* Let us reverse the trend of public indifference to problems of national security. In every congressional district citizens should join together, enlist and educate neighbors and make certain that congressmen know we care. The front pages of major newspapers on the East Coast recently headlined and told in great detail of a takeover, the takeover of a magazine published in New York -- not a nation losing its freedom. You would think, from the attention it received in the media, that it was a matter of blazing national interest whether the magazine lived or died. The tendency of much of the media to ignore the state of our national security is too well documented for me to go on.

My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation.

We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin.

Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.

The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.



Ronald Reagan - 5th Annual CPAC Conference
March 17, 1978

America's Purpose in the World


Source: https://patriotpost.us/pages/431-ronald-reagan-americas-purpose-in-the-world

As a part-time journalist faced with producing a syndicated daily radio broadcast and twice-a-week newspaper column, I find being on the mailing lists of an almost endless array of organizations most helpful. Now some of the flood of materials crosses my desk very swiftly. But not all of it. One thick handout I got late last year was especially fascinating, not only because of content but just because it was mailed to me at all.

It was from the White House Press Office. Under the title "Domestic and Foreign Policy Accomplishments" it told me, in 21 single-spaced pages, of the wonders of the Carter administration's first year.

Beginning with the modest statement that - quote - "The president tackled directly and comprehensively major domestic problems that had been almost completely ignored in previous years." - unquote - it then recited an impressive list of major accomplishments. True, the White House hadn't claimed to find a way to control the weather or to eliminate crab grass on the White House lawn, but it did think it had solved -- or nearly solved -- our energy problems, Social Security's $17-trillion deficit, the size of a big government (we added 52,000 new employees in the first 10 months of 1977), the welfare mess and a host of other problems that have been center stage in American life for quite some time.

Tonight, perhaps we should discuss some of those White House claims and see if they have stood the test of even the three months that have passed since they were made. I know that's a little cruel -- like checking up on someone's New Year's resolutions. After all, the administration has scarcely gotten a single domestic program worth noting through Congress. I'll tell you what. Let us concentrate on the administration's handling of foreign affairs, national security and its sense of priorities.

On priorities, there is the matter of issuing the former budget director a diplomatic passport; the taking of depositions from bartenders and issuing a 33-page denial that the president's chief aide expectorated at or in the direction of a young woman. It boggles the mind to think what they would have done if he'd spit on the sidewalk. Then there was the solemn oath to appoint and retain a U.S. attorney who goes investigating suspected wrongdoing on the part of Congressmen who belong to the president's own party.

Moving on to the Carter administration's record in foreign affairs -- let me say a few words about Panama and our canal there. And I do mean a few words.

With yesterday's vote on the so-called Neutrality Treaty, you might say that round one is over. Now, there has been confusion in some news reports which called this the "first treaty," saying that the Senate would next take up the "second treaty." Actually, the Senate decided to reverse the procedure. The Neutrality Treaty is the second treaty. They just voted on it first. Next they will deal with the basic treaty, the one called the Panama Canal Treaty. It is the basic treaty because it is the one which would relinquish our rights and would actually eliminate the canal zone as soon as it goes into effect -- if it does.

I hope the Senate will devote as much detailed attention to this basic treaty as it did to the Neutrality Treaty. Meanwhile, I can't get a question out of my head. It is this: Even though the Neutrality Treaty supposedly guarantees our right to go back in to defend the Canal after 1999, if there is no canal zone, wouldn't any such move on out part be branded as interference in the internal affairs of Panama?

On the other hand, if the basic treaty is not ratified, the Neutrality Treaty itself won't have much meaning because our rights and our presence in the canal zone would continue. And, when all is said and done, it is always easier to defend something you have than to get back something you gave away.

My fundamental concern has always been primarily with this basic treaty which would eliminate our rights there. I think there are alternatives to it which would be better for all concerned.

You are all activists, and I know you will make your views known to your elected representatives on this next treaty debate.

My purpose tonight, however, is not to repeat my views on this question. Panama is an important issue. The final outcome is not yet certain, and certainly the matter won't end with the final vote in the Senate. In a way, that will only begin it.

But, whatever the outcome on Capitol Hill, the smug assumptions of many of the treaties' proponents have been successfully and vigorously challenged.

Few Americans accept the belief of some of those now in positions of importance in guiding our foreign policy that America's purpose in the world is to appease the mighty out of a sense of fear or to appease the weak out of a sense of guilt.

But a question remains. Is the faulty thinking that has led us to these particular treaties an isolated particle, or is it part of a much larger whole?

In reviewing the foreign policy of this administration, one can only come to the conclusion that the mistaken assumptions that led to its course on the Panama Canal treaties are being duplicated around the world.

Its policy is rooted in well-meaning intentions, but it shows a woeful uncertainty as to America's purpose in the world.

The administration means to do good by espousing a human rights doctrine it cannot define, much less implement. In the process, this policy has met with scorn from our enemies and alarm from our friends. That self-graded, 21-page White House report card said, with regard to human rights, "The president has strengthened our human rights policy and we are letting it be known clearly that the United States stands with the victims of repression." Is that why our representatives at the Belgrade Conference remained silent in the face of a final report that contained not one word about Russian violations of the human rights provisions in the Helsinki Agreement?

If the Carter administration "stands with the victims of repression," the people of Cuba, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the mainland of China have yet to hear about it. The fact is, the Carter human rights policy is whatever his appointees who guide it want it to be. In practice, they have ceaselessly scolded authoritarian governments of countries that are friendly and ignored authoritarian and totalitarian countries that are not.

Mr. Carter might find a reading of the historian Charles Beard informative. Nearly 40 years ago, Beard concluded that the defect of a foreign policy based on what he called "the selfish sacrifice required by an absolute morality" was the inability to understand "the limited nature of American powers to relieve, restore and maintain life beyond its own sphere of interest and control - a recognition of the hard fact that the United States ... did not possess the power ... to assure the establishment of democratic and pacific government."

But, by using a combination of heavy-handed moves against allied countries, on the one hand, and making "pre-emptive concessions" toward unfriendly or potentially unfriendly countries on the other, the Carter administration has managed to convey the view that it desperately wants the whole world to have democratic institutions that would be the envy of the most ardent ACLU lawyer, and that wishing will make it so.

That view of the world ranks along with belief in the Tooth Fairy. But confusion of purpose and a false sense of guilt are not the only elements in this administration's foreign policy.

Too often, the president is advised by men and women who are forever trapped in the tragic but still fresh memory of a lost war. And from Vietnam they have drawn all the wrong lessons. When they say "never again," they mean the United States should never again resist Communist aggression.

In saying "never again," implying that the war should have been lost -- that it is all right for the victors to conduct a brutal campaign against their own people, violating even minimal human rights.

That it is alright to ignore these massive violations and alright for us to seek better relations with the governments responsible. That White House document lists as an "accomplishment" the fact that "the administration has started the process of normalizing relations" with the Communist conquerors of South Vietnam. The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that never again will Americans be asked to fight and die unless they are permitted to win. We need a foreign policy stripped of platitudes, cant and mere moral earnestness -- an earnestness fatally compromised by the massive crimes of some of the Communist world's newer members.

This pattern of Communist violations of human rights should come as no surprise to us. Over and over again, newly established Marxist regimes have committed them. In the 1920s and '30s it was the Soviet Union, in the late '40s the new Iron Curtain countries, in the '50s and through the Cultural Revolution of the '60s it was Communist China and Cuba, and now it is Vietnam and Cambodia.

The problem with much of the Carter team is that they know too little, not too much, of history. And, they have lost faith in their own country's past and traditions.

Too often, that team has operated under the assumption that the United States must prove and reprove and prove again its goodness to the world. Proving that we are civilized in a world that is often uncivilized -- and unapologetically so -- is hardly necessary.

The themes of a sound foreign policy should be no mystery, nor the result of endless agonizing reappraisals. They are rooted in our past -- in our very beginning as a nation.

The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less.

To carry out that purpose, our fundamental aim in foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and to protect those others who share our values. Under no circumstances should we have any illusions about the intentions of those who are enemies of freedom. Our Communist adversaries have little regard for human rights because they have little interest in human freedom. The ruling elites of those countries wish only one thing: to preserve their privileges and to eliminate the nagging reminder that others have done and are doing better under freedom.

Every American president since World War II has known or quickly learned that the Soviet Union, for example, is not benign in its intentions.

The Soviet Union has no interest in maintaining the status quo. It does not accept our soft definition of "detente." To the Soviet Union, "detente" is an opportunity to expand its sphere of influence around the world.

The Soviet Union has steadily increased its capacity for such expansion. That capability has grown enormously since 1945 and, above all, since 1962 when the Cold War was first declared "over" by the hopeful and naive.

Today, the U.S.S.R. continues its drive to dominate the world in military capability: on land, on water, and in the air. Meanwhile, the Carter administration seems confused and torn, partly believing the realities and partly listening to those who believe that pre-emptive concession by the Soviets. But they don't bargain that way. They understand strength; they exploit weakness and take advantage of inexperience. And, possibly, it was inexperience that led the president to placate the most dovish members of his party by scuttling the B-1 bomber -- one of his bargaining chips -- even before the SALT II negotiations began.

One of the reasons given for cancellation of the B-1 was economy, and even here there was a lack of accuracy. First of all, the price given for the aircraft was what the price will be in 1986 if inflation continues -- which incidentally suggests a lack of resolve in the administration's anti-inflation fight. Second, we were told the B-52 or the F-111 could be modified to do the job the B-1 was supposed to do. Here the cost differential shrinks sizeably when we look at the facts. The modification itself is quite costly, and we can double that cost. It will take two planes to substitute for every B-1 because the B-1 carries twice the payload the others will. It will carry that load twice as fast in a plane only half the size of a B-52, and it is far less vulnerable to the Soviet defense system.

While confusion and conflicting advice seem to tug and pull at the White House, the Soviet Union continues to build up its capability for world domination. It has even gone so far as to put entire factories underground and to disperse much of its industrial capacity -- the most sophisticated civil defense program ever developed. The knowledge that our strategic missiles, if they ever had to be used, would inflict minimal damage on the Soviets, compared to the havoc theirs would produce on our continent, should, in itself, be sufficient to spur the administration to making certain that we be number one in the world in terms of national defense capabilities. So far, though, this does not seem to be a White House priority.

Today, we can see the brunt of the Soviet Union's capabilities at work in the Horn of Africa.

To most Americans, that part of the world seems remote, as Korea and Vietnam seemed remote, along with those other places where the Soviets have sought advantage.

In Ethiopia, formerly a close friend of the United States, the Soviets with their Cuban foreign legion have turned that country into a free-fire zone in order to subdue Ethiopia's two principal enemies, Somalia and the Eritrean rebels.

The Soviet goal is obvious: to secure a permanent foothold for itself on the Red Sea. If the Soviets are successful -- and it looks more and more as if they will be -- then the entire Horn of Africa will be under their influence, if not their control. From there, they can threaten the sea lanes carrying oil to western Europe and the United States, if and when they choose.

More immediately, control of the Horn of Africa would give Moscow the ability to destabilize those governments on the Arabian peninsula which have proven themselves strongly anti-Communist. Among them are some of the world's principal oil exporters.

Moscow can also turn its full attention south if it can ensure its position in the Horn of Africa. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see that Rhodesia is a tempting target. Cuban leaders now boast that it is.

What are we doing about it? Apparently, our response to the Rhodesian settlement proposed by the moderate black leaders and Prime Minister Ian Smith is not to tell the Soviets -- behind the scenes -- to get lost or risk pressures elsewhere that they won't like. No, our response seems to be best summed up by our ambassador to the United Nations, who is unhappy with the moderate, democratic solution in Rhodesia because he's afraid (he says) it will bring on a massive Soviet arms buildup. What does he think we're having now? He seems to believe that the only Rhodesian plan we can afford to support is one to the liking of the two terrorist guerrilla leaders. But if they have their way, one or the other of them will become the sole power in Rhodesia, fronting of course for the Soviet Union. Unless we want to make the world safe for terrorist guerrillas, the only sensible course is for us to support the moderate solution in Rhodesia and quietly tell Moscow to keep its hands off -- unless, of course, we are too weak to do that. Is that what Mr. Young is trying to tell us? I hope not, for a Marxist Rhodesia would lead to even more tempting targets for Moscow in Africa. Perhaps Djibouti, Sudan, Chad, the old Spanish Sahara (where guerrillas are already in operation).

And one other which will cost us dearly. Whatever we may think of South Africa's internal policies, control of its mineral riches and its strategic position are the Soviet Union's ultimate goal in Africa.

Unless the White House can bring itself to understand these realities, it is not too much to say that in a few years we may be faced with the prospect of a Soviet empire of proteges and dependencies stretching from Addis Ababa to Capetown. Those who now reject that possibility out of hand -- and they seem to have the ear of the man in the Oval Office -- have yet to explain Angola, Mozambique, the situation in the Horn of Africa or the terrorists in Rhodesia. One thing is certain: Soviet successes will not breed caution in the Kremlin. Rather, the reverse.

Those in the Carter administration who are not even inclined to protest the recent Soviet moves assure us that, sooner or later, the Soviets will make serious mistakes and our doing nothing will hasten that day.

But to say, as they do, that all is well because the Soviets are creating their own Vietnam is nonsense. These Carter advisers seem to forget that the Soviets won in Vietnam and they intend to win again -- this time in Africa. They learned the true lesson of the Vietnam war: certainty of purpose and ruthlessness of execution wins wars. Vietnam held no terror for the Soviets as it did for so many Americans. And, adventures in Africa hold no terror for them either.

To say, as some in the administration do, that African nationalism will stop the Soviets is the weakest reed of all. The reason is simple: African nationalism, as such, does not exist. No African government has yet condemned the Russians, nor do the halls of the Organization of African Unity ring with anti-Soviet slogans -- perhaps because those halls happen to be in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.

The criticism by African states of the Soviets that the administration seems to be so desperately hoping for will not materialize. After all, there is in Africa, as around the world, a healthy respect for power and the determined use of power.

One veteran West European diplomat put the African situation in perspective recently. He was quoted as saying: "This situation is going to make the leaders of a lot of these small, weak nations stop and think. And what do they see on the American side? Apparent indecision, attempts to talk, a reluctance to give weapons to friends" -- and, he might have added, a "belief that there are nasty, immoral wars of imperialist aggression and nice clean wars of national liberation."

The administration's uncertainty of purpose isn't confined to the world's current hot spots. It is apparent even in our own hemisphere.

That White House tally sheet I mentioned listed its "accomplishments" in Latin America. It said, "The administration has developed a new global approach to Latin America...."

Well, what it has done from the beginning was to accept the notions fashionable in the most liberal circles that surrender of the Panama Canal and rapprochement with Cuba were the keys to successful relations with Latin America.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. Of Panama, I have already had a good deal to say. But let me say again, we have earned no respect or lasting affection in Latin America with these treaties.

Unfortunately, our policy toward Latin America has not only entailed friendship for one dictator who is a sworn enemy and for another who routinely suppresses human rights and may be involved in the worst sort of corruption -- that policy has also entailed hostility toward our friends.

Let me cite just one example, Brazil. An ally in World War II, (contributing a division which saw hard action in Europe), a friend through most of the '60s and now a great hope for contributing to the future industrial strength of the West, Brazil now finds itself turned on by us -- with a vengeance. Whatever the motives, human rights or worries over nuclear proliferation, the ends did not justify the means. The result is that we have nearly lost a friend without achieving any of the administration's professed objectives.

It is time to try another approach, an approach based on reality and not the slogans and romantic notions of ideologues who just happen to have access to the Oval Office.

First, let us end this cycle of American indifference, followed by frenzied activity in Latin America (as it has been elsewhere). It leaves our southern neighbors bewildered and cynical. Instead, I propose a steadier course in which Latin America's growing importance is recognized not as an act of charity, but in our own self-interest. Latin America, with all its resources and vitality, should be encouraged to join not the Third World, much less the Communists' Second World, but the First World -- that community of stable, prosperous and free nations of Western Europe, North America and Japan.

Today, there is hope that much of Latin America might do so. First, many nations have learned the cost of Socialist experimentation: Argentina under the Perons, Chile under Allende, Peru under Velasco, Mexico under Echeverria. All suffered economic catastrophe. Their successors learned the bitter truth that defying the laws of economics benefits no one and, in fact, hurts most the poor whose cause those earlier leaders so demagogically espoused.

Today, as a result of those experiments which went so badly out of control, more and more of our neighbors are turning to the free market as a model of development. Their acceptance of economic rationality should be neither ignored nor penalized but actively encouraged.

At the same time, we must recognize that Latin America is once again leaving a period of strictly military rule and entering a more democratic phase. But in this case the United States is doing too much pushing, rather than too little.

Unhappily, the change from military to civilian rule is not an easy one. Nor can it be rushed. If it is, we will only succeed in creating weak and vulnerable democratic governments that will soon be swept out of power by just another generation of military strongmen even more convinced of the defects of democracy.

Above all, we want a free and prosperous Latin America. And, to obtain that, we cannot continue to reward our self-declared enemies and then turn around and punish our friends.

That leads me again to Panama. The treaties that have occupied so much of our attention in recent months represent both the good instincts and the bad impulses of American diplomacy.

The bad, for reasons I have repeated on many occasions: the feeling that we are guilty of some sin for which we must now atone and our inability to say "no," not out of truculence, but because it was the proper thing to say to secure our interests and to reaffirm our greater responsibility, which is leadership of all that remains of the free world.

Yes, the treaties represent the good instincts of American diplomacy, too -- a spirit of generosity and willingness to change with times. A good foreign policy must have both elements: the need to say "no" and the willingness to change, in just the right proportions. Unfortunately, accepting change because it seems fashionable to do so, with little real regard for the consequences, seems to dominate our foreign policy today.

Too many in positions of importance believe that through generosity and self-effacement we can avoid trouble, whether it's with Panama and the canal or the Soviet Union and SALT.

But, like it or not, trouble will not be avoided. The American people and their elected leaders will continue to be faced with hard choices and difficult moments, for resolve is continually being tested by those who envy us our prosperity and begrudge us our freedom.

America will remain great and act responsibly so long as it exercises power -- wisely, and not in the bullying sense -- but exercises it, nonetheless.

Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the Carter administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.

But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?

The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom.

If we are to continue to be that example -- if we are to preserve our own freedom -- we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.

We must shoulder our burden with our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today, not counting on mere hope or wishes. We must be willing to carry out our responsibility as the custodian of individual freedom. Then we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.