An interesting report from Fox News’ Jim Angle. Global investment firm Ernst and Young has studied the tax increases championed by the Obama regime and found they will be a major job killer. Not only will companies have to lay off workers, they’ll pay the ones they have less, or at the very least freeze all pay increases.
The sort of draconian, European style taxes the regime wants will also force many companies to send jobs [and investment dollars] to more business friendly nations. In other words, this will be a complete and total disaster.
I don’t think any of us need a report to tell us this, BTW. It’s just good old common sense.
Megyn Kelly talks to Obama stooge Simon Rosenberg, who tries to say ObamaCare is not a tax, even though Obama’s own lawyer argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax. As usual, Megyn gives these liars no quarter.
In the wake of the massive victory in Wisconsin, I naively thought the so-called “leaders” in the Republican Party would have taken notice, and started immediately working on a national right to work law to guarantee every American’s right to have a job without being forced to pay “tribute” to organized crime bosses …. er, I mean …. “union leaders.” But alas, I put too much faith in those that deserve none, and as usual, the GOP let the nation down. Republicans thought Scott Walker’s incredibly inspiring victory was the end. Conservatives saw it as a beginning.
The democrats, on the other hand, never rest. Once they won a huge victory with ObamaCare, they understood that wasn’t the end, but just a start, with more oppressive laws to come.
Jan Schakowsky, a communist-democrat from Illinois [where else] is already talking about unionizing doctors, saying:
In Israel, when doctors went on strike, health outcomes were better. Though I’m not advocating that.
Unions have destroyed the very fabric of American society. What may have been a good idea a hundred years ago has turning into a criminal organization that strong arms both employers and employees alike. Instead of protecting workers, these union thugs get rich, while sacrificing the very workers they claim to represent. Unions are one of the main reasons some companies decide to manufacture in other countries, rather than continue to try and deal with the this nonsense.
It’s also why Right to Work states have solid economies while union friendly states are on the verge of collapse.
Unionizing doctors would do nothing but make the union thug leaders richer. It would not improve health care. Quite the contrary, it would make it even worse. It would also drive the already sky high costs of health care even higher.
The democrat party is the party of slavery. Always has been. Democrats are opposed to Liberty and Freedom. Lincoln may have freed the Negro slaves, but democrats have never stopped looking for other ways to enslave and oppress. Forcing doctors to join a union, and pay dues to the crime bosses, is just another attempt to enslave a group of people. It’s immoral and indecent. No man or woman should ever have to pay “tribute” to a group of thugs just in order to have a job. Never. Ever.
A little more on Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Here is an ad authorized by her and paid for by her campaign congratulating the DSA, or as they’re better known: The Democrat Socialists of America:
In October of last year, Schakowsky marched with the Communist Party USA, along with SEIU goons, Marxists, anarchists, and assorted street thugs, in support of the “occupy” movement.
Notice that “Get Angry” is seen frequently, and who could miss the flags with mass murdering communist Che Guevara’s likeness on them. What Marxist gathering would be complete without those?
This anti-American subversive isn’t just a Congresswoman from Illinois. Her website states she serves:
…. on the House Democratic Leadership as Chief Deputy Whip and is a member of the Steering and Policy Committee.
She is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where she serves on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Democratic Leader Pelosi appointed her to serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where she is ranking Democrat on the Oversight Subcommittee.
This communist-democrat Schakowsky has infiltrated the upper levels of government. She has the ability to influence policy. And yet, you never hear a peep out of Republicans about these people. No one in the Republican Party [save Allen West] has the guts to call these people out.
ObamaCare, if not repealed, will destroy the Republic, which is exactly what communist-democrats like Schakowsky and Barack Obama are trying to do, just as their associates Andrew Cloward, Francis Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky, and terrorist groups like Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground and the Black Panthers, who came before them. Today’s communist-democrat is far more successful that the 60s radicals and ancient Chicago communists who came before them.
There is an evil that has gripped this land, and We the People are on our own. The “leadership” in the Republican Party is too weak and too uninterested to do what must be done.
In the wake of the mass murders facilitated by President Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder, we’ve seen the democrats take extraordinary measures to deflect attention away from these crimes against humanity.
What is the worst presidential scandal in U S history, has been politicized by the democrats, hoping to muddy the waters. You have classless jackasses like Obama super-donor Bill Maher saying things like “Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans.” And then there is Juan Williams, who when confronted by the panel on The Five about murdered border patrol agent Brian Terry, said “Hey, people die.”:
WILLIAMS: What do you think the government shouldn’t have any secret? You can’t have a private conversation in the White House now about politics?
BOLLING: We gotta go – NO, not when someone’s dead Juan! Not when three hundred Mexicans…
WILLIAMS: We know how the guy died!
BOLLING: …are dead at the hands of the same guns.
WILLIAMS: Hey people die in war! People died…
BOLLING: Don’t you care about the three hundred Mexicans that died from the guns the guns that were traced back to Fast and Furious?
WILLIAMS: I care about human life. But I’m telling you people die. And you know what? We know the facts of Fast and Furious. We know how he died!
Then you have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who lead a walkout of democrats, during the vote to hold Eric Holder both civilly and criminally in contempt of Congress.
Pelosi, couldn’t even bring herself to say agent Brian Terry’s name correctly, even with notes in hand:
The democrats have proven they don’t give a damn about Brian Terry or Jaime Zapata, an ICE agent who may also have been murdered by the guns the Obama regime put in the hands of narco-terrorists. They most certainly don’t give a damn about the hundreds of dead Mexicans.
Murdered Border Agent Brian Terry
Murdered ICE Agent Jaime Zapata
You can imagine how I felt when our friend Ray sent us the following article. While the democrats can’t be bothered by the mass murder of hundreds of innocent Mexicans, or the capital murder of two federal agents, they have written a letter demanding an investigation into the death of an illegal alien.
Anastasio Hernández-Rojas was killed while fighting border agents who were in the process of deporting him after he illegally entered the United States.
Sixteen members of Congress are calling for an investigation into the death of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas after a PBS documentary aired last month that raised questions about just how involved the Border Patrol was in the illegal immigrant’s killing.
The letters sent yesterday to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General ask the federal government to take another look and claim that the Department of Justice has been taking too long to handle the case.
Hernandez Rojas was allegedly tased and beaten to death by U.S. Border Patrol agents two years ago after a fight broke out as he was being returned to the border.
The agency has defended the use of force by its agents, maintaining that Hernandez Rojas’ behavior was “combative” enough to necessitate the use of batons and the stun gun, the Huffington Post reported.
But footage from the PBS documentary claims that Hernandez Rojas was surrounded by more than a dozen agents, hogtied and pleading for help before he was tased.
Luz Rojas, the mother of the Mexican native, has been in the U.S. this week, asking officials to investigate further into the incident.
Advocacy groups including Presente.org and their supporters have gathered in eight cities across the U.S. protesting what they say is the government’s egregious lack of action two years after the incident, according to the Huffington Post.
“The disturbing footage and eye-witness accounts that aired on PBS raise serious questions about the Border Patrol’s role in the death of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas and after two years, we owe it to his family to finally provide some definitive answers,” Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), said in a news release.
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard was one of those who walked out as the House voted to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt.
Reading the Yahoo article it sounds like a lovable Hernández-Rojas was murdered by rogue agents, but the New Your Times, of all places, has a little more information. It seems Hernández-Rojas attacked the agents and they were trying to subdue him: [emphasis mine]
San Diego Police Investigate the Death of a Mexican Man Resisting Deportation
LOS ANGELES — The San Diego police are investigating the death of a Mexican man who was struck with a baton and shocked with a stun gun by federal officers as he resisted being deported. The Mexican government and a human rights group condemned the death, which comes after Mexico has condemned Arizona’s tough new immigration enforcement law.
The police said Anastacio Hernández-Rojas, 32, was struck and stunned by several officers from the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection on Saturday as they were trying to subdue him.
He had been detained by the Border Patrol on Friday east of San Diego after he crossed into the United States from Mexico with his brother. He was taken to a Border Patrol station and, as is customary with Mexican nationals without a criminal record, signed papers agreeing to be quickly deported without a hearing.
He was taken in a van to the San Ysidro border crossing, 15 miles south of downtown San Diego, where officers planned to walk him to a gate and release him to Mexican immigration authorities.
But as they removed his handcuffs about 25 feet from the gate, Mr. Hernández-Rojas began fighting with officers, said Capt. Jim Collins of the San Diego Police Department, which is investigating the case under an agreement it has with Customs and Border Protection for deaths involving officers.
One officer struck him with a baton, and another fired a Taser, Captain Collins said.
Shortly afterward, the officers discovered that Mr. Hernández-Rojas was not breathing, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation and called for an ambulance. He was taken to a local hospital and died after a short time on life support, Captain Collins said.
Customs and Border Protection released a statement saying the man “became combative,” leading officers to use the Taser to “subdue the individual and maintain officer safety.” The agency, which is also investigating the death, declined to comment further.
The San Diego medical examiner is investigating the cause of death. It was not known if Mr. Hernández-Rojas had underlying medical problems, but an autopsy will determine that, Captain Collins said.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT saying this incident shouldn’t be investigated, and if the agents are found to have done something wrong, they should be punished. But let’s look at this from the officers prospective. The border with Mexico is a dangerous place. Narco-terrorists regularly fire on American agents. American agents have been killed.
The number of dangerous criminals, with or without “records,” who sneak across the border is high.
The regular cop on the street in Anytown, USA has to be on his toes, even when making a traffic stop, because you never know who is behind the wheel. For border agents, it’s even more dangerous. They are dealing with criminals who have already broken the law, many who feel they have nothing to lose. The brave men and women who protect our borders put their lives on the live every single day.
In the case of Hernández-Rojas, you have someone who signed papers agreeing to be deported, rather than go to jail. I would imagine the officers felt this was a routine deal, until Hernández-Rojas attacked them. When someone attacks not one, but a group of armed police officers, you gotta figure they are crazy, desperate, and dangerous. The agents were lucky none of them were injured.
But that’s not the point of this article. The point is, the democrat party and the liberal media, is more concerned with the unfortunate death of a criminal who attacked law enforcement officials, than the murder of hundreds of innocent Mexicans, and two of our finest and bravest.
It’s simply maddening. But protecting our lawless President and his equally lawless Attorney General, is more important to democrats than the lives of innocent people.
Sarah Palin says Barack Obama once said the individual mandate “wasn’t a tax“
Moments after the Supreme Court ruled that it was largely upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, Republicans zeroed in on the court’s decision to allow the individual mandate because it is enforced through a tax.
One of the Republicans to speak out was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee. After the court’s decision was announced on June 28, 2012, Palin tweeted, “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.”
We aren’t able to fact-check whether “freedom” is dying, which is solidly in the realm of opinion.
However, we can check her claim that Obama said the individual mandate, a requirement that people buy health insurance or face a tax penalty, “wasn’t a tax.” That was the basis for the court’s decision to uphold the law.
Did Obama say the individual mandate wasn’t a tax?
Given how unpopular taxes are, it’s understandable why Obama would not trumpet the notion that the mandate was a tax. But has he said it was not a tax?
We could find only one example after Obama was president in which he or a top aide explicitly stated that the mandate wasn’t a tax. (When we asked, the Republican National Committee couldn’t come up with any other examples, either.) The one instance came on Sept. 20, 2009, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Here’s an excerpt:
Stephanopoulos: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
Obama: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
Stephanopoulos: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
Obama: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
Stephanopoulos: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
Obama: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. … What if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
Stephanopoulos: I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Obama: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
Stephanopoulos: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.
Sliced up into brief sound bites, the back-and-forth between Stephanopoulos offers some clear evidence of Obama arguing that the mandate is not a tax, most obviously when he says that the mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.”
Still, it’s worth noting that Obama made the case that the alternative was worse — that not having an individual mandate would be unfair and inefficient. The absence of an individual mandate, Obama argued, means passing on the costs of treating Americans uninsured to people who are insured, which amounts to a “tax” on those with coverage, even though it may not be literally fit the dictionary definition of a tax. In essence, Obama was brushing off complaints that he was imposing a tax by contending that a “tax” was already in place under the status quo.
Palin is correct that Obama “said (the individual mandate) wasn’t a tax.” It’s right there in the video.
This makes perfect sense. Hillary Clinton has been a gun-grabber for decades, and as Secretary of State has worked with the UN on plans that would undermine the 2nd Amendment. It’s why I always burst out laughing when people claim Hillary would have made a better president than Obama. Both of these Saul Alinsky communists are cut from the same cloth. Clinton is just better at hiding it.
Anthony Martin has new evidence that shows Hillary was in on this from the start:
According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office.
Vanderboegh relates the following:
My sources say that as Hillary’s trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal.
The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say.
The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates — especially at the Mexico Desk at State — and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it.
There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows “everything” about the “Mexican hat dance” that became the Gunwalker Scandal.
The ‘Steinberg‘ mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an ‘Obama man‘ whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department.
Hillary had said of Steinberg,
Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.
That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, ‘strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.‘
Hillary’s absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico.
According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that ‘90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.‘ As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to ‘prove‘ that the 90% figure was true.
Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:
My sources say that this battle of the “statistics” was taken very seriously by all players — the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players?
If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them?
This statistics mania is similar to the focus on “body counts” in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING.
Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air–90%–which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels.
And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was ‘in the loop‘ on the scheme from the very beginning.
Martin has been all over this scandal. Read more here.
If this is indeed true, add Hillary’s name to the list, that includes Obama and Holder, of people who MUST spend the rest of their lives in prison for mass murder in Mexico, and capital murder here at home. Anything less is unacceptable.
As we wait for the impending Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, I reiterate what I wrote in my first post on this topic nearly three years ago. I stand by everything I wrote in that warning to my fellow Americans because what was true then is true now, and it will remain true as we hear what the Supreme Court has to say.
It was a pretty long post, but a lot of people seem to have only read two words of it: “death panel.” Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and its purpose all along has been to “keep costs down” by actually denying care via price controls and typically inefficient bureaucracy. This subjective rationing of care is what I was writing about in that first post:
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed “too late.” All of Obamacare must go one way or another.
ASSOCIATED PRESS Sculptor Istvan Mate puts some finishing touches on his statue of former President Ronald Reagan, which will be unveiled in Budapest on Wednesday. The bronze statue will stand in the city’s Freedom Square.
By Gary P Jackson
As we continue to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, and remember the positive impact we have world wide, her’s yet another tribute to one of the most monumental accomplishments of Reagan’s, the fall of the Soviet Union, and communism. as a major force.
BUDAPEST — A larger-than-life (7 feet, 2 inches tall) bronze likeness of former President Ronald Reagan will stand in Freedom Square in this historic city – which he never visited, but which is the first in the former Eastern bloc to erect a statue in recognition of his role in dismantling the Soviet empire.
It will be unveiled by Prime Minister Victor Orban, leader of Hungary’s conservative government. The Hungarians, according to a recent government statement, “will always remember with gratitude the unchallengeable role played by the United States and President Reagan in bringing the Cold War to a conclusion, and for the fact that Hungary regained its sovereignty in the process.”
The powerful work by Hungarian sculptor Istvan Mate captures the president in mid-stride, as though walking across Szabadsag (Freedom Square) to the Hungarian parliament a couple blocks away. Along with the issuance of Reagan commemorative stamps by the Hungarian post office, the statue marks the centennial of the 40th president’s birth. In Prague, the Czechs are naming a downtown street after him, but no statue.
Mr. Mate never met Reagan but he based his likeness on photos. The artist recently told the Associated Press that he had to work quickly to finish the statue in time. The commission came from the Orban government (with support from the California-based Reagan Foundation) after the center-right Fidesz party’s victory in the April 2010 election. The socialist government that had been in power for the previous eight years was hardly likely to have ordered such a tribute – particularly since there already is a bust of Reagan in Budapest, unveiled less than five years ago.
A large screen has been set up to show scenes from Reagan’s life during Wednesday’s unveiling, at which former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Edwin Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, were due to speak.
But some noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who famously hailed the former communist satrapies as “the New Europe” for supporting the Iraq War (as opposed to “the Old Europe,” which did not), was not on the list of U.S. guests.
A statue to Reagan in Budapest is likely to irritate the Russians, but there has been no comment out of Moscow. The Hungarians have a history of angering the Russians. There was the abortive uprising in 1956, of course, and after the Cold War the Hungarians and other East Europeans angered the Russians by the alacrity with which they joined NATO, the old enemy.
It is not lost on ordinary Hungarians that the Reagan statue will have a far less popular neighbor in the shape of a 40-foot-high obelisk commemorating Soviet troops who died in Hungary fighting the Nazis during World War II. The Hungarians would like it moved to a less prominent location, but that would deeply offend Russia.
The week’s schedule of events in Budapest requires a delicate choreography of U.S. high-level visitors because the day following the unveiling Ms. Rice’s successor will also be in town. In Budapest for talks with Mr. Orban, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to attend the opening Thursday of an institute of human rights named after the late Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat who was born in Hungary.
When thinking of the Soviet Union, I reflect on the one speech that defined the Soviet Union’s dissolution. I think of Ronald Reagan’s speech on June 12, 1987. In this speech, formally known as, “Tear Down This Wall” Ronald Reagan dares to challenge Gorbachev and the Soviet Union’s totalitarian state. As President Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall, that was separating the free world from the tyrannical one; he exercised his freedom of speech and the need for Liberty, Freedom, Democracy and a Revolution. One of my favorite quotes from this speech is:
Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatred among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
Throughout the entirety of the Soviet Union’s reign, the US was greatly affected. Every day the Soviet Union would grow further away from freedom and liberty, and every day America’s leaders would worry of what may come of this Socialist Power.
As other European countries began to revolt against this Tyrannical Dictatorship, the Soviet Union’s power began to deteriorate. One by one the countries would flee from this corrupt nation, making it that much harder for the Soviet Union to reach its goal, complete and total control, not only of Russia but of the world.
With all of this unrest, the Cold War began. It was the conflict between the Communists, led by the Soviet Union, and the Democratic nations, led by the United States. This was the effect of two opposing views on how people should live. In a Democratic Society everything is based upon the people. In a Communist Society, everything, I repeat everything, revolves around the Government. Obviously it was impossible to find common ground and a moderate compromise with such conflicting views. The US and many other nations knew what had to be done. The Soviet Union must be defeated, once and for all.
Not only was this a war on freedom and economics, but it was also a war on Power. At this time the Soviet Union and the United States were sharing the spot light. They were both considered the great powers of the world.
With the Soviet Union’s citizens’ hurting and the overall welfare declining, at an excessive rate, the United States, and other democracies, knew that something had to be done. With Gorbachev aware of the threats from other countries, he made the decision make a few “changes”. He wanted to exhibit himself as a patriot. He began releasing prisoners and giving people freedom of speech, to a certain extent.
Some people were conned by this “nationalistic” act, but the US Government was not fooled. Following these changes, President Reagan gave his forever honored speech. As President Reagan declared his dedication to this cause he spoke directly to Gorbachev, he said:
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity For the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization:Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
The passion was ignited and the freedom bell was certainly ringing. It was not long after this speech that the Soviet Union began to dissolve. On December 31, 1991, the Soviet Union was defeated once and for all. Democracy once again reigned supreme. The United States of America was once again the world’s Superpower. The end of this Communist dictatorship was a new beginning for democracies everywhere.
Although it was an excruciating hard time for many countries trying to rebuild their economy and their futures, it was a bold step towards a better tomorrow. Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty shined through all of the bad, giving people hope for a brighter future.
President Reagan’s remarks on East-West relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987