“We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” Obama administration official.

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”  President Kennedy

And more from President Kennedy:
Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

1. I will no longer hear people who worry about whether someone is a “light skinned Negro” without a “dialect.” Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada). Racist!
2. I will no longer hear people who call their grandmother a “typical white person.” Barack Obama (D-Illinois).  Racist!
3. I will no longer hear people who state “a wise Latina woman … would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” Justice Sotomayor (D).  Sexist and Racist!
4. I will no longer hear people who refer to people as “mongrels,” were members of the KKK and would not fight “by Negros.” Senator Byrd (D, WV).  Racist!
5. I will no longer hear people that have stated President Obama as electable because he is “clean and articulate” — in contrast with what? – then-Senator Joe Biden (D, DEL).  Racist!
6. I will no longer hear people who say things like “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee’ – Former President Bill Clinton (D).  Racist!
7. I will no longer hear people who refer to those of the Jewish faith as Hymies and “Hymietown.” Jesse Jackson (D). Anti-Semtic!
8. I will no longer hear people who refer to people as the n-word. Jesse Jackson (D) when he thought he was off-air. Racist!
9. I will no longer hear people who say things like “I’m blacker than Barack Obama.” Former Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich. Racist!
10. I will no longer hear people who say that “African Americans and Hispanics” are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write. – Mike Wallace, CBS (D).  Racist!
11. I will no longer hear anti-semites who refer to people as “diamond merchants.” – Al Sharpton (D). Anti-Semetic!

I urge you to ignore these racists too and stop worrying about gender, skin color, and what they call “race.” Embrace the human race, not the sexist, racist, dividers. (I’ll wait until April 15th to worry about whether to get financial advice Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, all D who failed to pay taxes).

Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861?  Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941?  Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?

Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms.  Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf.  Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms.  Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way.  Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended.  Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.

Freedom implies free markets.  Freedom implies free minds.  Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions.  Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom.  It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.

“Canada is not Mexico, it doesn’t have a drug war going on. It didn’t have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country, or suspected or known terrorists have come into our country, it has been across the Canadian border.”

The CBC reporter then asked whether she was referring to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and Napolitano answered:

“Not just those, but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It’s part of sovereignty.”

Napolitano apparently missed the fact that the September 11th terrorists all entered through United States airports. Very comforting to see that level of knowledge displayed yet again in the Obama administration.

Spread my Work Ethic, not my wealth!

Change…giving freeloaders some of what YOU have worked hard for!

Help me Obama, They want me to work and stuff!

Cut taxes, not deals

What part of “limited powers” do you not understand?

It’s my birthday, and all Obama got me was more debt!

It’s my birthday, and all Obama got me was more taxes!

Why make a corrupt government even BIGGER?

Why should I pay for your bad decisions?

Party like its 1773

Obamanomics – Trickle up poverty

Term Limits for Congress!

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

No tax cuts for non-taxpayers!

Cut taxes, NOT more deal$

Freedom Works!

Freedom is all the stimulus we need!

Change is all we’ve got left!

Stop spending money I haven’t earned yet (seen with a 10 year old)

Free speech is not extremism

You are not spending Monopoly Money!

I’ll keep the freedom, you keep the change

Wall Street got a Bailout, Bailout, Bailout, all I got was the bill!

Don’t tax me Bro!

Insanity is trying socialism over and over again and expecting a different result.

As government expands, liberty contracts.  Ronald Reagan, Jan 1989

“DHS Approved”

“Welcome Right Wing Extremists”

If we all paid taxes, we’d ALL be equal.

Get the Pirates out of Washington

Give me liberty, not debt

Wake up and smell the dictator

The worst Pirat is Obamunism

Pork for breakfast, not for Congress

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free!

I’m not an ATM, Mr. President.

Right wing extremists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin

Mr. President: FYI, we stopped BOWING to Kings after 1776

ACORN: Seed of the Obamanut Tree

SOS: Stop Obscene Spending

It’s NOON, do you know where you Wallet is?

A society of sheep eventually begets a government of wolves.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money

Free minds demand free markets.

I am an American, NO and Extremist!

Free markets, not free-loaders!

My paycheck is NOT your piggybank

DHS warns about “disgruntled military veterans.”  Is that how we support our troops?

“I think we can say that, ah, ah, the Constitution reflected a enormous blind-spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and, and, ah, and that ah, the Framers had that same blind spot. Ah, ah, I don’t think that the two views are contradictory to say that it is a remarkable political document, ah, that paved the way for where we are now. And to say it ah, also, ah rep, ah, reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

I met President Reagan twice, both times before he was President Reagan. Merely Governor Reagan. During both the 1976 and 1980 campaigns while he was in Florida I had the chance to meet him and talk with him for a few minutes each time. He was genuinely interested in what people said to him, even a child. It wasn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t an act. Kids are good at telling a phony, and he never was one. Not on the campaign trail or in office. He knew what he believed and stood by it.

In 1980, after staying up late watching the returns, we ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú my parents and I – broke open a bottle of ?¢‚Ǩ?ìGold Wasser?¢‚Ǩ¬ù from Germany to celebrate victory at last of the campaign for freedom that Barry Goldwater ran in 1964. During the 1976 campaign, I was the only grade-schooler who had a Reagan bumper sticker on my books. A fluorescent orange one, no less. Someone fighting for liberty is worth standing up for. He was the first person I voted for, for President, in 1984 – although I voted for him in 1976 and 1980 in spirit.

Human freedom increased worldwide during President Reagan?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s stewardship. He made a big difference in many people?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s lives around the world. He unabashedly espoused the cause of freedom whenever he could. He was one of the few 20th Century politicians who honestly believed what Patrick Henry said: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìbut as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Few contemporary politicians believe it. A few might mouth the words, but they will always later hedge their comments on liberty with ?¢‚Ǩ?ìprotecting people,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsecurity,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsafety,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù or ?¢‚Ǩ?ìfor their own good.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù A handful of politicians in the 20th century could be said to have been true friends of freedom, President Reagan was one. Sadly no other U.S. President since the Great Depression was. None even came close.

The cause of human freedom deserves President Reagan?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s kind of clear, principled, steady, leadership today. He never failed to acknowledge the evil of taking liberty. He stood up to the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìevil empire?¢‚Ǩ¬ù with courage and that pushed the Wall down. When you are defending freedom, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìkinder and gentler?¢‚Ǩ¬ù doesn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t work. Consistency and principles work. Compromising on liberty means losing liberty. For President Reagan there were no causes or goals that trumped freedom.

He understood freedom like few other national politicians: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìSafety?¢‚Ǩ¬ù or ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsecurity?¢‚Ǩ¬ù without freedom would still be tyranny and tyranny is always inherently unsafe; Tyranny, whether of the one or of the majority, is equally evil; Liberty is lost bit by bit; Liberty is extremely difficult to get back once lost; which is why defending liberty is the worthiest cause; accommodation of the Communists, Statists, Fascists, or Socialists means sacrificing the days of one individual’s life for another and that is inherently evil; Compromise with your own destroyers results in your destruction; our rights are ours?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ by birth, not grant; when you are attacked for taking a stand for liberty, you know you are on the right path. Reagan knew that either you preserve liberty while you have it or you would ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsentence [your children] to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù

President Reagan always believed in the capacity of the American people to decide what was right for themselves; he didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t condescend to them unlike most politicians since the 1930s. The American individual never needed to be babied. In short, he believed everyone should have the freedom to make decisions for themselves, even if they were wrong. He knew the nature of liberty is that people have to have the freedom to make good, neutral, or bad choices for themselves or they are really not free. He was never afraid to say that people are born with the right to be free, wherever they were in the world. The vitriol directed against him was invariably of a personal level. He was hated by some, hated because his beliefs gave power over your life to you, instead of some faceless power-hungry bureaucrat or politician. The greater the personal attack, the more he knew the power-hungry were threatened. An “amiable dunce” was the stereotype, yet seeing his writings, his quick wit, the expression of his beliefs, one knows that was anything but true. It was wishful thinking by liberty’s enemies. He had a simple answer to many problems – freedom to the individual solves lots of problems – but that did not mean he was simple. Believing in the power of a person to rule their own life is a simple concept, but difficult to practice and difficult for many elistists, statists, communists, and socialists to accept.

His clear voice has been missed for the decade since he announced he had Alzheimer?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s. No one has successfully taken up the banner of freedom on the U.S. national stage. Now, our 40th President?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s presence will be missed even more by those who admired his optimism, and his un-wavering commitment to restoring freedom to the American people. The void left by this leader will be felt even more acutely now.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan made a difference in my life with his example of principled defense of freedom. My father?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s discussions of then-Governor Reagan?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s views stirred my 7-year old interest in politics, history, philosophy, and the United States. For that, I thank them both. Now they can speak of politics together again.

Christian H. F. Riley, June 6, 2004

http://www.court.com/

[More on this topic in a future installment, but some was apropos here]

The ?¢‚Ǩ?ìcrisis?¢‚Ǩ¬ù in the U.S. about ?¢‚Ǩ?ìexporting jobs,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù will become a campaign issue. However, the immense impact of the United States?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ taxation of exports is being ignored.

Politicians will attempt to dismiss the cause as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìgreed?¢‚Ǩ¬ù by corporate interests which requires more laws from Washington. The fact is that the U.S. taxes our own exports to the rest of the world whereas the rest of the world does not do the reverse. According to Ernest Christian, a tax expert based in Washington D.C., the disadvantage to the U.S. is between $120 billion and $150 billion per year. Think about that number. It is enough to pay 3 million people $50,000 per year. Three million workers – compared to how many outsourced jobs? The second component here is government regulation. This regulatory burden adds further to the harsh tax burden. These two together could easily be costing the United States more than six million jobs per year.

The heavy hand of government plays a tremendous role here. Don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be misled by those who are looking for another excuse to take more freedom from you. They are not out to help you, but to increase their own power. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìAn honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Yet that is exactly what many politicians want ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú power over their fellow citizens by regulating, taxing, and outlawing behavior.

No doubt it will be an enormous campaign issue this year, but remember that the United States is one of the most competitive and efficient countries in the world, when we are allowed the freedom to compete.

So, when you hear politicians calling for the government to fix the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìout-sourcing?¢‚Ǩ¬ù of jobs over-seas, think about the huge negative impact the government has already had on this area and ask yourself if, after causing much of the problem, is it really qualified to fix it?

Christian H F Riley

To the editors, Reader’s Digest (letters@rd.com)

We are writing regarding the “Wouldn’t It Be Great If…” article in the January 2004 Reader’s Digest (published mid-December 2003) which suggests forcing people to give a year of their lives to the government. The author writes, “Think of everything they could accomplish.” If forcing people to give a year of their life to serve the government can accomplish so much and is such a good idea, why not make it 10 or 20? Even 30 or 40?

It is easy to dismiss using force to compel someone else to accomplish your goals with a “Sure, but…” as the article -unbelievably- does. However, that doesn’t make it morally right and shows the shallowness of the author’s argument. If society views that it is entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those forced to serve the whims of society are deprived of those rights and condemned to indentured servitude. And lets be clear about it, when there is one who serves there must, by definition, be one who is the master. Make no mistake about that; the authors intend those in Washington to be the masters.

This country’s founding principles hold that each individual’s life belongs to that individual, not to the collective or to the government as representative of that collective. We find it appalling, but not surprising, that there are those who would advocate forcing others into involuntary servitude in a country founded on the principles of liberty and equality for all.

Ignoring, for the moment, the moral evil associated with such a service requirement, and assuming, arguendo, that such service would return $1.66 for each dollar spent as the author’s allege AmeriCorp does, means merely that they believe that a $.66 return warrants forced labor. How much individual benefit does each indentured servant lose to ostensibly benefit society as a whole? There is no taking into account the losses incurred by those serving and the ripple effects of those losses on the same society allegedly benefited so greatly from that servitude? Does the author really seek to imply that forced loss to some weighs less morally, financially, and socially because some others benefit? We hope not. In short, the authors ignore the loss to “society” that these individuals’ work would contribute otherwise.

“Involuntary voluntarism” is right out of 1984 and a stunning example of doublespeak. History shows that it is much easier to enslave a free nation than to release a nation of slaves. If we are to survive as a free nation, why would we permit an establishment of what amounts to governmentally mandated and socially accepted slavery for a very productive segment of our population? Stepping down the primrose path of “good intentions” from liberty to servitude is much easier than coming back up the path once the precedent of explicit involuntary servitude is accepted for a “good cause.”

As Samuel Adams said: “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

We agree. May posterity forget that the authors were our countrymen. No man in our country has the right to enslave another man, no matter how nobly one couches one’s intentions or how “great” a need it allegedly serves.

Christian H F Riley, Esq.