The budget deficits enacted in the budgets adopted by the Republican-led Congress from 2000-2006 were excessive, and wrong.

President George Bush has completed his two terms of office and will not run for office again.

The Republican congressmen who voted for the budgets of 2000-2006 should be primary-challenged and replaced with fiscal conservatives. The Republican members of congress who voted for the Wall Street bailouts should be primary-challenged and replaced with fiscal conservatives.

The budget deficits already begun and planned for the future by President Barack Obama are outrageous, and unjustifiable.

The Democrats who voted for the budgets of 2006 and onwards should be opposed and defeated by fiscal conservatives. The Democrat members of congress who voted for the Wall Street bailouts should be challenged and replaced with fiscal conservatives.

The federal government of the United States is too large, and has become too oppressive. It violates the rights of citizens and strangles the productivity and creativity of the American workers and the American businessmen.

The ONLY way to increase the prosperity of the people of the United States is for American workers and American businessmen to be set free to use their ingenuity and creativity to produce more value. The biggest obstacle to this is the nanny state – the oppressively large and bewilderingly complicated regulations of the federal government.

We need less government, not more.

We need less government spending, not more.

We need less government taxation, not more.

The American people are finding their voice. We are crying out for relief. We are looking for leadership.

We do not need speeches about hope and change.

We need leaders with common sense. We need leaders who will reverse the growth of government over the past ten years… the past twenty years… the past thirty years.

Ronald Reagan was right. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Where is the Ronald Reagan of 2010?

What seems to be lacking amongst the main-stream media’s love fest is a little historical perspective.

Obama remains, at this point, neither the messiah nor the devil. The best adjectives to describe him are untested, little known, unproven. We will not really be able to discern the arc of his presidency for some time yet.

Sort of like the Greek proverb, “Call no man happy until he is dead.”

To supply some historical context, I offer the following bit of data:

Presidential approval ratings, ~30 days into office
(Johnson & Ford omitted for obvious reasons)

Barack Obama                   2/21/2009   59%
George Bush (43)             2/21/2001   61%
Bill Clinton                         2/14/1993   51%
George Bush (41)             2/27/1989   60%
Ronald Reagan                  2/16/1981   55%
Jimmy Carter                     2/15/1977   71%
Richard Nixon                    2/25/1969   59%
John Kennedy                   2/15/1961   72%
Eisenhower                        2/26/1953   66%

Source: The American Presidency Project, UC-Santa Barbara
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

In God we trust.

All others, bring data!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8_G-mlKxTY

 

The startling paragraph on Kennedy comes on page 197:

“Six months after becoming general secretary of the CPSU [early 1983], Yuri Andropov received a highly confidential letter from his successor as KGB chief, Viktor Chebrikov. It was classified “Top Secret – Of Special Importance,” and reported an approach to the Soviets made through the good offices of former senator John Tunney of California. The senior American politican making the apporach was Senator Edward Kennedy. He was requesting a personal interview with Andropov because “in the interest of world peace it would be useful and timely to take a few extra steps to counteract the militaristic policies of Ronald Reagan.” (Chebrikov is summarizing Kennedy here rather than quoting him directly.)

. . . Kennedy made several subsequent attempts to advise the Soviets on the best way to outwit Reagan.”

This report is particularly odious, because Andropov was the immediate successor to Brezhnev. He had been the Soviet ambassador to Hungary in 1956 and played a key role in the brutal soviet suppression of the Hungarian revolt. He was also the architect of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And this is the man that Senator Kennedy sought to conspire with in order to thwart Reagan.

Pardon me if I do not join in the encominiums to the Senator from Chappaquidick as the greatest legislator of the past 100 years.

- Rob Shearer

These books are excellent examples of the principle that biography makes the best way to teach history — for the simple reason that children like them and will read them on their own. The series was orginally published by Bobbs-Merrill in the 1940s, ’50s & ’60s – the same time period that Random House was releasing its Landmark series. The COFA books were written for a slightly younger audience than the Landmarks.

Many parents will remember them as hardback titles with either plain red covers, or half-toned drawings. They are currently re-packaged as paperbacks with blue covers and a red & white banner over the name of the “Famous American.” Below is a sample of the covers that have been used for the Robert E. Lee biography:

The text has stayed the same all these years.

In the late 1950s, the interior pages of the Bobbs Merrill editions described their success this way, “it is the children themselves who have made the series so enormously popular. They read the books, love them, reread them.”

WHY SHOULD YOU ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO READ THESE BOOKS?

• Because they are so interesting that they make children good readers. The pleasure children find in these books – and the enlargements of their interests – open the whole world of books to them – and this is perhaps the greatest gift in your power to grant them.
• Because they make the child of today the friend and playmate of the great Americans of the past. He sees why they became famous, sees in them as children the traits which later earned them renown. He is inspired to imitate them, to develop the characteristics you want him to have. Thanks to these good stories – true to time, place, and character – he meets great Americans as old friends whom he knew as children when later he studies the details of our history.
• Because they reflect true Americanism, a love of freedom, equality and fraternity, a strong distaste for racial or religious, economic or social prejudice. They radiate honesty, courage, ambition, kindness. They cover the whole panorama of American life in all periods and regions, showing the way our people lived, their hardships and their triumphs.
• Because their appeal is not limited by age. They have a low vocabulary level, the widest age-level range of interest, the greatest variety of interest. Mary grabs them at eight, still loves them at fourteen. John may not catch the fever until he is twelve. Whatever a child’s interests are, whenever they may develop, whether he is a quick reader or a slow reader, he will find a book here to delight him – and lead him on to other books.
• Because these books compete successfully with distracting interests less helpful to your child. Children don’t have to be coaxed to read them. They always ask for more.

ReadingWell.com in North Carolina specializes in out-of-print, classic children’s books. They have an extensive selection of out-of-print COFAs available for sale on their website. Let them know that Greenleaf Press sent you their way.

Simon and Schuster owns the copyrights to the series now. They have kept many of the original in print, and seem to be re-issuing selected titles that had earlier gone out of print. They’ve also been extending the series. The four book covers across the top of this post show NEW titles in the series. Each has been written in the pattern of the original. The focus is on the CHILDHOOD of someone who later became famous – and how their childhood experiences shaped them.

The story of Christopher Reeve is exhilirating, as well as tragic – but Reeve’s courage and good humor keep it from becoming depressing. Reeve knew quite young that he wanted to be an actor. He worked hard in community theater productions and while pursuing a degree in theater from Cornell, he auditioned for the very prestigious Advanced Acting Program at Julliard. Competing against 200 other applicants, only two of whom were selected for admission. Christopher Reeve and Robin Williams were the two selected – and became lifelong friends.

 Its hard to believe that the orginal series did not include George Patton in its list of Famous Americans, but until now there was no title in the series on him. Patton is unique in many respects, not least his being informally educated by his family (who read the classics out loud to him) and his struggle with what was later diagnosed as dyslexia. Among the intriguing details from Patton’s childhood is the story of his having met the retired Confederate veteran, John Mosby (of Mosby’s Raiders) who had moved to California after the civil war and became a friend of the Patton family.

I think I would really like the editors at Simon & Schuster who are keeping this series available – and adding biographies of Reagan, Patton, & Dale Earnhardt!

There are currently 69 COFA titles in print. We have them in their own section in our on-line store. You can order any of them directly from Greenleaf.

-Rob Shearer
  Publisher, Greenleaf Press
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Try 1952. That’s right, its been 56 years since we held a presidential election in which neither of the nominees for president was an incumbent in the executive branch.

What does that mean? Not sure. The powers of incumbency are formidable. Media attention, staff assistance, executive travel perks, just to name a few. The prestige of being President or Vice-President is intangible, but obviously significant. Only three incumbent presidents lost (Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992). Six won. But of the four vice presidents who ran, only one succeeded in being elected president (Bush 41).

Here’s the list (from memory):

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1956 Eisenhower (President) vs. Stevenson
1960 Nixon (Vice President) vs. Kennedy
1964 Johnson (President) vs. Goldwater
1968 Humphrey (Vice President) vs. Nixon
1972 Nixon (President) vs. McGovern
1976 Ford (President) vs. Carter
1980 Carter (President) vs. Reagan
1984 Reagan (President) vs. Mondale
1988 Bush 41 (Vice President) vs. Dukakis
1992 Bush 41 (President) vs. Clinton
1996 Clinton (President) vs. Dole
2000 Gore (Vice President) vs. Bush 43
2004 Bush 43 (President) vs. Kerry
2008 Clinton? vs. Thompson?

I can do the list from memory, because, with the exception of the 1952 and 1956 elections, I have memories of all these campaigns. My political memories are sharp and clear. My belief that there are political solutions to our problems is growing increasingly dim.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

In the introduction, editor David Brinkley mentions that Reagan is one of only five presidents who kept consistent personal diaries. The other four were Washington, John Quincy Adams, Polk, & Hayes. That observation alone is remarkable, although understandable. Keeping a diary is a discipline – and presidents have way too many distractions. Keeping a  diary is also a way of refining one’s own thoughts. Putting your ideas into words forces you to clarify and articulate what you mean. Keeping a diary also requires one to develop a certain facility with words – which Reagan had, but rarely gets credit for.

But I’ve digressed. I’ve only started the book, but I was immediately struck by an entry from April of 1981. By that point, Reagan had been in office for just over 90 days. He’d also been shot and spent several weeks recuperating from emergency surgery. There is a remarkable diary entry on April 23.

On April 23, Reagan sent a private note to the Soviet President, Leonid Brezhnev – and recorded the text in his diary. In the note, after agreeing with an observation Brezhnev made to him in an earlier note that substantive issues were best discussed face to face, Reagan raises only one issue. It is the height of the cold war. And he devotes 3/4 of his hand-written note to a plea to Brezhnev to release “the man Scharansky an inmate in one of your prisons.”

Reagan tells Brezhnev that, “I can assure you he was never involved in any way with any agency of the U.S. govt.”

The most remarkable part of the letter is Reagan’s offer to forgo any political benefit from securing Sharansky’s release: “. . . this is between the two of us and I will not reveal that I made any such request.”

Two years later, in July of 1983, there is a follow-up entry: “The Soviets are being devious about their promise to let Scharansky go. We’re going to hold them to it.”

Three years later, February 3 1986: “We have a deal to get him out of Russia. Last nite & this morning it was all over the news. I feared the publicity might queer the deal. Turns out the leak was from Moscow.

Finally, eight days later, on February 11, 1986: “1st news of the day ‘Scharansky freed by the Soviets.’ After years of imprisonment he was made part of a spy swap & allowed to rejoin his wife. We flew him to our base at Frankfort & an Israeli plane few to Tel Aviv. Later in day I received a call from P.M. Peres & Scharansky thanking us. I told them Kohl of W. Germany played a big part in putting this together.”

Even in his diary, Reagan refrains from claiming credit for what was accomplished. He does not write “Sharansky thanked me.” He writes “Sharansky thanked us.” And then he further shares the credit with the German Chancellor.

The point of all this: Sharansky is an important (but overlooked) figure in the course of the Cold War. He became a symbol of the Soviet Union’s intolerance of dissent and its denial of human rights. But he was also a person. His personal story inspires as an example of a courageous individual who doggedly refuses to compromise in spite of overwhelming odds.

Another point: Ronald Reagan was hardly an unsophisticated neophyte when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union. The story reveals his skills, but also the personal interest that Reagan took in Sharansky the individual. Reagan’s compassion for Sharansky is a revealing note on his character.

Final part of the story: A month after Sharansky’s release, he visited President Reagan in the White House. Here’s Reagan’s diary entry for that day, May 13, 1986 – about three months after Sharansky’s release:

Met with Anatoly Scharansky. It was fascinating to hear the story of his imprisonment  by the Soviets. I learned that I’m a hero in the Soviet Gulag. The prisoners read the attacks on me in Tass & Pravda & learn what I’m saying about the Soviets and they like me.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Take a moment to give thanks for President Ronald Reagan, the man most responsible for freeing eastern Europe from totalitarian rule.

Powerline has an excellent post, including video of the key moment in the speech. Worth your time to read the memories of the speechwriter, Peter Robinson. Robinson visited Berlin a month before Reagan’s planned visit and spoke with Berliners. He was surprised to discover how passionately they still hated the wall – 26 years after it had been built.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OcVEvG4L9Y]

Listen carefully to the speech. The same themes were articulated by President Bush in his speech in Prague last week. Here’s a transcript of the full “Tear Down This Wall” speech if you prefer to read it.

Peter Robinson (the speechwriter responsible for the “Tear Down This Wall” speech) wrote a memoir seven years ago, titled It’s My Party: A Republican’s Messy Love Affair with the GOP. Christopher Buckley reviewed it in The Washington Monthly. (Most anything written by Christopher Buckley is worthy reading, btw!)

Here’s Buckley’s summary of what Robinson had to go through to keep the speech’s most famous line from being cut from the speech:

You’ll already have anticipated what happened: the Berlin diplomat, the State Department, the National Security Council, the White House staff all went bananas. Was Peter Robinson crazy? Take it out! Out, out! But he would not take it out. Among other reasons, the Leader of the Free World kind of liked the line.

The incident escalated, with 30-year-old Robinson going toe-to-toe with, among others, National Security Council Director Colin Powell. (It was disappointing to read this.) Finally, Reagan had to say to his chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, with a trace of Reaganesque irony, Look here, old shoe, who’s President here? Even skilled White House-hand Duberstein had to back down. Reagan went on to deliver the line. The rest is history.

Thank God for men like Robinson with the patient stubbornness to insist on writing the truth. And thank God for a man like Ronald Reagan who had the courage to speak the truth.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center