President Reagan's Farewell Speech (My Message to Susan Collins and GOP Moderates)

Ronald Reagan

[John Lenin]

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: `We the People.' `We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. `We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which `We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. `We the People' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years.

[Az Joe]

The man gets bigger with each passing year. They will speak his name centuries from now with reverence... Alexander, Charlemagne, Washington, Churchill, Reagan

[John Lenin]

Wow, this is gives me the chills

This following speech was delivered at the Republican National Convention when Ronald Reagan accepted the party nomination for president.

The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership--in the White House and in Congress--for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.

My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.

[bonesmccoy]

It's been a long time since...

[Inglis]

Thank you for posting that speech.

It gave me chills, and I was saluting as I finished the last paragraph.

[RandyRep]

Thank you for posting this.

As I read this, it struck me that the truths about freedom and government and hope and the economy and the people are everlasting, and that we all need to remember them and act upon them.

The part about the tax cut driving prosperity in the '80s led me to think that is why we are still in the economic doldrums. The Congress passed the 2001 tax cut that gave $300 to each of us for 2001 on, but the next rate cuts don't apply until the 2004 tax year, and the last ones don't take effect until 2008. Frankly - it didn't stimulate the economy enough, resulting in our present economic situation. Obviously - we need to pass the 2003 tax cut bill to get the real stimulus.

[BfloGuy]

Wow! Thanks for the post. What a wonderful speech.

And I know this isn't an original thought; we all think the same thing.

But in these times where Carter and Clinton run around the world criticizing American policy, wouldn't it be wonderful to have Mr. Reagan as a counterbalance.

Guess we're on our own.

[risk]

A highly-relevant article from Bill Keller in the New York Times magazine identifies President GW Bush clearly as Reagan's Son. I'm sure you all saw it. If not, take a look. It went a long way towards reassuring me that the Bush Revolution would be a good one for our country, despite my misgivings about the religious right.

Thanks for posting this speech. I wish I'd have understood how profound they were when he spoke the words as I do now.

[applemac_g4]

Bush "revolution"?

Come on. For starters, the man who called the Soviet Union and its satellites an "evil empire" would never have praised Islam like Bush Jr. has.

[risk]

the man who called the Soviet Union and its satellites an "evil empire" would never have praised Islam like Bush Jr. has.

I'd say "it's just public relations and marketing" except this is a fairly complex issue. First, there are muslims who are decent people, and Islam, at least the moderate kind, isn't directly the problem. Second, Bush Jr. is a pragmatist. He doesn't want to offend the center of this country with indescriminant hate. I don't claim to be an expert regarding the clash of civilizations, but I agree with those who say Islam is going through a reformation period now, just like Christianity did 400 years ago. Now, every muslim is free to interpret the Koran whatever way he wants. So now muslims are being told by their fundamentalist masters that Jihad means "kill the infidel." The final outcome of the debate over what jihad means doesn't have to conclude this way. Defeating bin Laden and al Qaida will go a long way toward demonstrating that Allah isn't on their side.

Lots has been written about this matter, so I don't think I need to argue it further: certain people who happen to be muslim are now saying they're our enemies. Other muslims don't agree. We shouldn't hate people just for being muslim, because that's when we stoop as low as the immams who call for jihad.

Do you think I'm being politically correct? Think again. I want to end all immigration from muslim countries, if not 99% of all immigration in general -- at least until we sort out the matter of how to tell who is our enemy and who isn't. I also have no qualms about deporting people with green cards and other temporary status. And I don't think the constitution protects anyone who isn't a citizen. They have their human rights, but those are quite reduced from the Bill of Rights.

Before criticizing Bush's lack of will, or his inability to call a spade a spade, remember that he has the whole world watching him now. Why not bring peaceful muslims over to our side? We even have muslims fighting for us in our military.

The Bush "revolution" is to take back the notion of America's right to pursue its interests all over the world in the name of liberty and idealism. The decision to use preemption is also a revolutionary idea for many Americans. Bush is the best man for helping all reasonable Americans understand why.

Is there a war between civilizations here? I think so. Acknowledging peaceful dwellers on the other side isn't a bad thing.

[applemac_g4]

"Do you think I'm being politically correct?"

No, I don't.

However, in my opinion your views have their root in a serious misunderstanding of the Koran and it's content. It's one thing for Christianity to be hijacked by a politicial entity like the inquisition for a period of time and then to undergo a reformation that brings its reality more into line with the content of it's charter in the Bible.

Islam presents quite a different problem. This reformation of which you speak is basically an attempt to bring the practice of Islam out of alignment with the content of the Koran and such is an effort that is exactly opposite of what occurred in the Christian reformation.

[risk]

First, I'm aware there's a reactionary and a progressive side to the the current state of Islam, and that the fundamentalist view of its teachings represents the reactionary component. Taking a snapshot of Islam's current directions certainly reveals one of the most destructive trends in its history. Second, I understand the violent nature of the Koran's teachings and I deplore them. Finally, I agree that Christianity and Islam have few real parallels in history, and while Christianity moved forward through the Enlightenment, there is no promise that Islam will ever take that positive turn.

But I don't think Islam will go away, and I think regardless of how it is used in turning whole groups of people against the West, we have to distinguish between the religion and the people who follow it. I don't want Americans to engage in pogroms against muslim people. Indiscriminant hate is all too easy a response to the situation we're in now.

The asymmetric nature of terrorism, along with its current trend toward anonymity as a refuge calls for intense reprisals. But we have to measure what we do now carefully. I think we have to measure our own anger in response to it, as well. It should be a tightly focussed laser that cuts and obliterates only what we must do to preserve our safety.

I'm not setting any limits in how we respond, I'm just saying that hatred is dangerous if we aren't aware of its power to overwhelm us as well.

[MHGinTN]

That which one focuses upon, to hate it, tends to inveigle the soul and re-emerge integrated in the hater. Even more frightening, the hater is unable to see that which is hated when it resides within his own soul. The final end is bitterness that directs the life of the hater now enlisted to be that which he started out to hate.

[First_Salute]

Salute.

[First_Salute]

Salute.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Thank you so much for posting this. Reagan's speeches, (I don't think I missed one), used to give me goose bumps and get me all fired up. He was a joy to watch and listen to. No other president has had quite the same effect upon me.

God Bless Ronald Reagan!

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[First_Salute]

[Travis McGee]

BTTT!