No time to write an original post this morning, so I'll have to settle for a nod to the opinion of another.
Coulter: How to Keep Reagan Out of Office
Particularly relevant to this blog's usual object d'homage (how's that for imaginary French?), but also a powerful argument for those conservatives — and you know who you are — who see the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" as "No big deal."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Drew Carey — Living Large
If there's a quota for maximum number of posts per day, I'm probably pushing the limit. Nevertheless, this video was such a breath of fresh air, I had to post it. Drew Carey presents a compelling case that puts the lie to all the naysayers we usually hear on the nightly news.
Living Large and reason.tv ... the American Dream is alive and flourishing ... how blessed we are to be participants (and recipients)!
Living Large and reason.tv ... the American Dream is alive and flourishing ... how blessed we are to be participants (and recipients)!
Proud of My Country
Almost anyone who has taken a gander at the blogosphere or recent news stories is probably aware of Mrs. Barack Obama's February 18th comments in Madison, Wisconsin.
I can't improve on the comments here and here so I won't try.
Candidate Obama's website prominently features the slogan "Change we can believe in." So I have to ask: what changed? The candidate's wife was, by her own admission —"for the first time in my adult lifetime" suddenly "really proud of my country." One must infer a notable CHANGE has, in fact, taken place in Michelle Obama's outlook. And I'm curious. What exactly sparked this swelling of pride?
The context of her comments was Mrs. Obama's contention that "hope is making a comeback" in America. [Especially when lacking experience or wishing to evade specifics, wily political candidates have relied upon a will-o'-the-wisp banner of "hope"as their substitute. Remember Clinton's oft-repeated slogan: "I still believe in a place called Hope."]
If hope is indeed "making a comeback," it's not because circumstances have changed but because some people (Michelle Obama?) choose to view their circumstances through a different lens.
When Ronald Reagan characterized America as "the last best hope of man on earth," it wasn't an accidental turn of the phrase. It was the Great Communicator's acknowledgment of the red-white-and-blue blood that courses through the veins of most American citizens — call it pride. We love our country, and no matter what her shortcomings, America is still land of the free and home of the brave. Proud of my country? You bet!
So what if it took Michelle Obama 40+ years to find in her heart some basic pride for country. I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.
I can't improve on the comments here and here so I won't try.
Candidate Obama's website prominently features the slogan "Change we can believe in." So I have to ask: what changed? The candidate's wife was, by her own admission —"for the first time in my adult lifetime" suddenly "really proud of my country." One must infer a notable CHANGE has, in fact, taken place in Michelle Obama's outlook. And I'm curious. What exactly sparked this swelling of pride?
The context of her comments was Mrs. Obama's contention that "hope is making a comeback" in America. [Especially when lacking experience or wishing to evade specifics, wily political candidates have relied upon a will-o'-the-wisp banner of "hope"as their substitute. Remember Clinton's oft-repeated slogan: "I still believe in a place called Hope."]
If hope is indeed "making a comeback," it's not because circumstances have changed but because some people (Michelle Obama?) choose to view their circumstances through a different lens.
When Ronald Reagan characterized America as "the last best hope of man on earth," it wasn't an accidental turn of the phrase. It was the Great Communicator's acknowledgment of the red-white-and-blue blood that courses through the veins of most American citizens — call it pride. We love our country, and no matter what her shortcomings, America is still land of the free and home of the brave. Proud of my country? You bet!
So what if it took Michelle Obama 40+ years to find in her heart some basic pride for country. I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.
Payday Loans, Part One
Ask five random people what "usury" is and you'll likely get five blank stares. If you were to ask five people who worked in banking, you might find one or two people able to define the term.
Simple answer: usury is charging interest (on a loan) at a rate so excessive the borrower has difficulty paying off the loan. Usury is probably almost as old as economic exchange, but as an Old Testament concept, there was a moral component attached to it; you weren't supposed to charge interest on a loan to your brother (relative) but you could charge interest to a foreigner (stranger).
What's "excessive"? In the Old Testament (Nehemiah 5:10-11), 1% — or 12% per year — is acceptable. (Rates above 1% were considered usury.) Recognizing the truth of Proverbs 22:7b ("the borrower becomes the lender's slave"), once upon a time many state constitutions mandated "usury limits" as a reasonable protection for their citizens.
Given this background, consider a particular television commercial that penetrated my consciousness this morning. Toward the end of the spot I had mostly ignored, a tranquil, but authoritative voice issued this admonition: "Always use payday loans responsibly."
Responsibly? As in, whenever you require extra cash and just happen to feel like 250% interest isn't going to be a problem? As in, you don't have money to buy diapers for the baby so you get a payday loan where the service fees alone would cover the cost for two or more packages of diapers? With interest rates on payday loans ranging (according to one source) "between 390% and 780%," is it possible to use the word responsibly without wondering whether a lightning bolt might reasonably strike you dead?
Do a Google search for "payday loans" and almost 52 million (!) results come up. I didn't check every result but I suspect the majority are gateway sites to these "lenders" who are more than anxious to "serve" you.
Do a Google search for "loan shark" and you'll get a paltry half million (506,000) results, many of which are articles about loan sharks as opposed to vendors (lenders?). (I guess loan sharks are less likely to hang out their shingles, depending instead on their version of a 300-pound, brass-knuckled Vinnie for "customer relations.")
But here's an irony: in its article on loan sharks, Wikipedia mentions payday loans, characterizing them as a "type of consumer finance." Ha! — Similar to Vinnie's brass knuckles being one "type" of non-conforming collection instrument, huh?
In its 2006 report Financial Quicksand, the Center for Responsible Lending determined: "Ninety percent (90%) of payday lending revenues are based on fees stripped from trapped borrowers ... The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan."
One final question: can anyone define "predatory"?
Simple answer: usury is charging interest (on a loan) at a rate so excessive the borrower has difficulty paying off the loan. Usury is probably almost as old as economic exchange, but as an Old Testament concept, there was a moral component attached to it; you weren't supposed to charge interest on a loan to your brother (relative) but you could charge interest to a foreigner (stranger).
What's "excessive"? In the Old Testament (Nehemiah 5:10-11), 1% — or 12% per year — is acceptable. (Rates above 1% were considered usury.) Recognizing the truth of Proverbs 22:7b ("the borrower becomes the lender's slave"), once upon a time many state constitutions mandated "usury limits" as a reasonable protection for their citizens.
Given this background, consider a particular television commercial that penetrated my consciousness this morning. Toward the end of the spot I had mostly ignored, a tranquil, but authoritative voice issued this admonition: "Always use payday loans responsibly."
Responsibly? As in, whenever you require extra cash and just happen to feel like 250% interest isn't going to be a problem? As in, you don't have money to buy diapers for the baby so you get a payday loan where the service fees alone would cover the cost for two or more packages of diapers? With interest rates on payday loans ranging (according to one source) "between 390% and 780%," is it possible to use the word responsibly without wondering whether a lightning bolt might reasonably strike you dead?
Do a Google search for "payday loans" and almost 52 million (!) results come up. I didn't check every result but I suspect the majority are gateway sites to these "lenders" who are more than anxious to "serve" you.
Do a Google search for "loan shark" and you'll get a paltry half million (506,000) results, many of which are articles about loan sharks as opposed to vendors (lenders?). (I guess loan sharks are less likely to hang out their shingles, depending instead on their version of a 300-pound, brass-knuckled Vinnie for "customer relations.")
But here's an irony: in its article on loan sharks, Wikipedia mentions payday loans, characterizing them as a "type of consumer finance." Ha! — Similar to Vinnie's brass knuckles being one "type" of non-conforming collection instrument, huh?
In its 2006 report Financial Quicksand, the Center for Responsible Lending determined: "Ninety percent (90%) of payday lending revenues are based on fees stripped from trapped borrowers ... The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan."
One final question: can anyone define "predatory"?
Angry White Men: The Return
As Obama and Shrillary continue their scorched-earth campaigns across the Democrat party landscape, I found the following column, by Gary Hubbell for the Aspen Times Weekly, extraordinarily enlightening.
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.
Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.
Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...
Monday, February 18, 2008
Where's the Outrage?
Last year, a federal grand jury charged him with three counts of child pornography, and just days ago — in a plea deal — the man admitted guilt to one count of distributing child porn.
Notwithstanding his betrayal of the public trust, the man’s crimes were characterized by one of his defense attorneys as “‘aberrational’ and inconsistent with his history as a dedicated police officer and conscientious citizen.”
Another defense attorney allowed as how “There’s no question that [his client] lived an exemplary life up to this point.” The attorney further claimed his client’s “conduct was not personally violent.” (I get it. Defense attorneys are supposed to present their clients as upstanding members of the community.)
Thankfully, a resolute US Assistant Attorney rejected these defense portrayals, noting the nature of sexual acts perpetrated on children is (and should be justifiably categorized as) the very definition of violence!
Why should this news story matter to me? I don’t know this fellow nor am I acquainted with his family or anyone related to the crime. But the story reminds me, once again, how deceitful are those people who insist pornography is a “victimless crime.” What bilge!
I grieve for this man and the damage his actions have foisted upon (who-knows-how-many?) others! Some questions for the defense attorneys: what possesses a supposedly “exemplary” individual … a husband … a father … a police officer … to consider this behavior acceptable? And what about the degradation inflicted upon the children whose images this “conscientious citizen” admitted to distributing?
Don’t get me wrong. I acknowledge this former officer’s culpability in digging his own hole, but in truth, that’s the story of addiction, isn’t it? People who would never smoke a joint or willingly inject a needle are finding their enslavement to pornography just as insidious ... and addictive ... and destructive.
When will society decide the human toll of pornography (and its residual debasement of the human psyche) has become too much? Not soon enough.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Reagan Mantle
Flannery O'Connor characterized the South as "Christ-haunted." In the two decades following the Reagan presidency, it seems to me the Republican Party must likewise be described as "Reagan-haunted." The numerous Republican debates were a classic example of the Reagan one-upmanship, with frequent variations of the phrase: I'm the one most like Ronald Reagan!
For viewers, the charade resembled a modern-day version of Cinderella; every time a candidate pressed his claim, the Reagan mantle never fit quite like it should ... try as they might, each one came away looking like a pretender.
In a recent conversation with Reagan era deputy press secretary Karna Small Bodman, Glenn Beck broached the subject of the Reagan Mantle. (The pertinent remarks are more than halfway down the page.) Beck queried Bodman whether she saw any politician with Reaganesque qualities.
Her response was most diplomatic: "not exactly." She went on to point out this focus on the Reagan mantle indicates how much the man is justifiably admired. She referred to Reagan's core beliefs guiding him.
I can't imagine Ronald Reagan ever considered himself being possessor of a "mantle" over which others would conceivably wrestle ... simply because he was at the task, day by day, of being Ronald Reagan. (He'd have been unable to focus on the responsibilities of the day if he'd allowed himself to be distracted by what "history" might say about him.)
In his farewell address, Reagan stated: "... when I'm gone, I hope [history] will record I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts." Classic Reagan ... in being who he was, he brought out the best of who we were. That's why the remarkable "Reagan mantle" will never quite fit anyone else who tries to claim it.
Instead of trying to claim Reagan's mantle, wouldn't it be refreshing for one of them to confidently craft his (or her) own?
For viewers, the charade resembled a modern-day version of Cinderella; every time a candidate pressed his claim, the Reagan mantle never fit quite like it should ... try as they might, each one came away looking like a pretender.
In a recent conversation with Reagan era deputy press secretary Karna Small Bodman, Glenn Beck broached the subject of the Reagan Mantle. (The pertinent remarks are more than halfway down the page.) Beck queried Bodman whether she saw any politician with Reaganesque qualities.
Her response was most diplomatic: "not exactly." She went on to point out this focus on the Reagan mantle indicates how much the man is justifiably admired. She referred to Reagan's core beliefs guiding him.
I can't imagine Ronald Reagan ever considered himself being possessor of a "mantle" over which others would conceivably wrestle ... simply because he was at the task, day by day, of being Ronald Reagan. (He'd have been unable to focus on the responsibilities of the day if he'd allowed himself to be distracted by what "history" might say about him.)
In his farewell address, Reagan stated: "... when I'm gone, I hope [history] will record I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts." Classic Reagan ... in being who he was, he brought out the best of who we were. That's why the remarkable "Reagan mantle" will never quite fit anyone else who tries to claim it.
Instead of trying to claim Reagan's mantle, wouldn't it be refreshing for one of them to confidently craft his (or her) own?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
From Reagan Republican to Coulter Democrat
Now that Mitt has -- at least temporarily -- followed Fred into the glorious sunset of their respective campaigns and I'm consoling myself with lots of pre-Valentine's chocolate, I realize I am way overdue blogging on what has been the most important Republican primary in a very long time. Frankly, I don't have the strength to catch up. Instead, I'm going to press on to the general election.
Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee in the minds of the voters, rather than just the adoring media, I've been doing a substantial amount of head-scratching. Does anyone remember who this guy is?
Four years ago, if McCain's name came up, there were only two questions: "Will McCain become John Kerry's running mate?" or "Will he pull a 'Jim Jeffords' and go Independent?"
That's right. John F-ing Kerry. In case you've forgotten (along with the rest of the Democrat party) he was their nominee in 2004.
And his sometime bedfellow is now our presumptive nominee. McCain, the man who, if elected, will lead his party into the next glorious era of Republican political achievement, surpassed only by the Reagan Revolution. Hmmmm. Not so much.
There are a lot of words suitable to describe John McCain: establishment, entitled, opportunistic, flip-flopping, disengaged, old and crabby. Conservative is not one of them. I don't think Republican even qualifies.
The irony is that in order to secure the nom, McCain has done nothing if not swing to the right. For all that he critiques Samuel Alito for "wearing his conservatism on his sleeve," McCain has done everything in his power to get the name of Alito's tailor. He's successfully out-righted Guiliani, Thompson and Romney. The only reason he has yet to be pegged as more conservative than Mike Huckabee is because of that whole "Jesus and Satan are brothers" thing.
Another week of campaigning and I'm certain we'll see Huckabee absolve himself of that Jesus & Satan kerfuffle when he finalizes his own deal with the devil -- in other words, sliding into that VP spot McCain has been keeping warm for him.
If anyone wants to take bets on how long before McCain's Conservative excursion train derails, I'm running a pool. The minute the GOP field has cleared, we're going to see McCain return to his moderate/independent (i.e. liberal) roots and forget he ever mentioned Reagan, strict contructionism, or securing the borders first. I know amnesiac two-year-olds with longer institutional memory than this guy.
Which brings me to Ann Coulter. AKA: Hillary's newest celebrity endorsement.
(SIDEBAR: Do you think Bill has asked Hill's campaign staff to make room on his schedule for some face time with Ann yet?)
The very notion of voting for Hillary has me in cold sweats. Still, the pig's ear that would be the McCain presidency leaves me asking myself: "Who do I want to be held accountable for four years of disastrous liberal occupation of the Oval Office? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?"
Ann Coulter has obviously taken her position on this. El Rushbo himself, though he has yet to outline his strategy publically, has at least decried the lack of leverage a Republican Senate and House would have against a president of their own party.
These are compelling arguments, people. After all, it takes the Congress and the President to complete the legislative process. Making sure we have legislators in Washington in position to put up a fight for Conservatism has me tempted to begin looking for a pharmacy with some OxyClinton left in stock.
Charles Krauthammer laid it out straight, calling the Hillary campaign for the presidency "one giant alimony payment." But even though I agree that a second Clinton presidency would be disastrous, I'm not blind to the seductive pull of liberals giving the nation a violent shove to the right by virtue of nothing more than their rank incompetence to actually solve any problem. (Oh, except that little "problem" of Americans deciding what to do with their own money. They've had that one in the bag for decades.)
If I don't do a Mitt write-in or just stay at home waiting for my healthcare to arrive, I might have no other choice but to become a Coulter Democrat.
Since it only takes nine months for a human embryo -- sorry, "two-celled blob of useless tissue better known as 'a choice'" -- to develop into a full-term baby -- sorry, "a planned and wanted child" -- maybe it will be sufficient time for me to acclimatise myself to this heinous exercise of either-or.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the Ann Coulter and William Jefferson Clinton Campaign Tour: "Little Black Dress Express."
Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee in the minds of the voters, rather than just the adoring media, I've been doing a substantial amount of head-scratching. Does anyone remember who this guy is?
Four years ago, if McCain's name came up, there were only two questions: "Will McCain become John Kerry's running mate?" or "Will he pull a 'Jim Jeffords' and go Independent?"
That's right. John F-ing Kerry. In case you've forgotten (along with the rest of the Democrat party) he was their nominee in 2004.
And his sometime bedfellow is now our presumptive nominee. McCain, the man who, if elected, will lead his party into the next glorious era of Republican political achievement, surpassed only by the Reagan Revolution. Hmmmm. Not so much.
There are a lot of words suitable to describe John McCain: establishment, entitled, opportunistic, flip-flopping, disengaged, old and crabby. Conservative is not one of them. I don't think Republican even qualifies.
The irony is that in order to secure the nom, McCain has done nothing if not swing to the right. For all that he critiques Samuel Alito for "wearing his conservatism on his sleeve," McCain has done everything in his power to get the name of Alito's tailor. He's successfully out-righted Guiliani, Thompson and Romney. The only reason he has yet to be pegged as more conservative than Mike Huckabee is because of that whole "Jesus and Satan are brothers" thing.
Another week of campaigning and I'm certain we'll see Huckabee absolve himself of that Jesus & Satan kerfuffle when he finalizes his own deal with the devil -- in other words, sliding into that VP spot McCain has been keeping warm for him.
If anyone wants to take bets on how long before McCain's Conservative excursion train derails, I'm running a pool. The minute the GOP field has cleared, we're going to see McCain return to his moderate/independent (i.e. liberal) roots and forget he ever mentioned Reagan, strict contructionism, or securing the borders first. I know amnesiac two-year-olds with longer institutional memory than this guy.
Which brings me to Ann Coulter. AKA: Hillary's newest celebrity endorsement.
(SIDEBAR: Do you think Bill has asked Hill's campaign staff to make room on his schedule for some face time with Ann yet?)
The very notion of voting for Hillary has me in cold sweats. Still, the pig's ear that would be the McCain presidency leaves me asking myself: "Who do I want to be held accountable for four years of disastrous liberal occupation of the Oval Office? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?"
Ann Coulter has obviously taken her position on this. El Rushbo himself, though he has yet to outline his strategy publically, has at least decried the lack of leverage a Republican Senate and House would have against a president of their own party.
These are compelling arguments, people. After all, it takes the Congress and the President to complete the legislative process. Making sure we have legislators in Washington in position to put up a fight for Conservatism has me tempted to begin looking for a pharmacy with some OxyClinton left in stock.
Charles Krauthammer laid it out straight, calling the Hillary campaign for the presidency "one giant alimony payment." But even though I agree that a second Clinton presidency would be disastrous, I'm not blind to the seductive pull of liberals giving the nation a violent shove to the right by virtue of nothing more than their rank incompetence to actually solve any problem. (Oh, except that little "problem" of Americans deciding what to do with their own money. They've had that one in the bag for decades.)
If I don't do a Mitt write-in or just stay at home waiting for my healthcare to arrive, I might have no other choice but to become a Coulter Democrat.
Since it only takes nine months for a human embryo -- sorry, "two-celled blob of useless tissue better known as 'a choice'" -- to develop into a full-term baby -- sorry, "a planned and wanted child" -- maybe it will be sufficient time for me to acclimatise myself to this heinous exercise of either-or.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the Ann Coulter and William Jefferson Clinton Campaign Tour: "Little Black Dress Express."
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Reagan Legacy
It's the political season. (It has been for what ... the last 3,000 days? But I digress.) Despite disapprobation from uber-partisans, even Democrat candidate Barack Obama has sought to tap into the mystical mantle of Ronald Reagan! Obama observed how Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." (View video here.)
Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!
[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]
I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.
(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)
The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!
CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?
Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.
History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.
Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!
[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]
I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.
(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)
The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!
CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?
Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.
History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)