All posts by CPS

Repugnant Rosenwald, Repulsive Post, Ignorant Hillary || Lifezette

Repugnant Rosenwald, Repulsive Post, Ignorant Hillary

Democrats and bigotry go back to the days of secession and the KKK, but this Washington Post editor paints Ronald Reagan as racist

by Craig Shirley and Scott Mauer | Updated 13 Feb 2018 at 11:15 AM

There was once a time when earning a doctorate was considered the highest honor, one in which you are considered the expert in your field and you virtually have an imprimatur for all things related. No more.

Brian Rosenwald is a senior fellow in the Robert A. Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania. He is an editor for The Washington Post’s new section “Made by History,” dedicated to historical events that have shaped the United States. It’s a noble idea but, like all things Washington Post, has quickly descended into left-wing lies and bile. Surprise.

Rosenwald is also the liberal author of several op-eds in The Post, mostly relating to the Republican Party. “After Charlottesville, Republicans must grapple with their history on race,” he wrote last August. No mention of the Democratic Party’s long association with slavery, Jim Crow, and racism.

This year, he wrote another piece smearing Republicans: “Republicans aren’t hypocrites. They just have flawed principles.” The piece is littered with condescending attitudes and elitist points. “And that, more than hypocrisy, is the real problem facing Republicans — they have principles; those principles just don’t work,” he wrote.

You can almost hear him say “You just don’t understand …” to anyone who may offer a different point of view from his ivory tower. The problem here, it isn’t we who don’t understand. It’s him.

In his earlier piece, he falsely wrote that President Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign at the Neshoba County Fair, close by where three civil rights workers were murdered by racists 14 years earlier.

Hillary Clinton, in her recent book, “What Happened,” lied similarly. The implication is not subtle. Reagan somehow was soft on racism. Hillary long has had only a casual relationship with the truth or reality but, now we know, so does Rosenwald.

A couple of things are going on here: First, this is not true. Reagan did not launch his fall campaign in Mississippi, but in Liberty State Park, New Jersey, on Labor Day. He was surrounded by ethnic Americans, and the towering Statue of Liberty behind him offered a symbolism of hope, renewal, and the American dream.

Reagan made note of this as well: “They came to make America work. They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this — this refuge, the greatest home of freedom in history.” Factually, to say Reagan started his campaign at the Neshoba County Fair is wrong and deliberately wrong. Typical left-wing smear.

Point of fact, Michael Dukakis campaigned at the Neshoba County Fair in 1988. Hence, Dukakis was a racist, right?

But what about Jimmy Carter’s 1980 campaign? Unlike Clinton or Rosenwald, who are deliberately ignorant about Reagan, Jimmy Carter, in reality, launched his fall 1980 campaign in Tuscumbia, Alabama, at a Labor Day picnic, which the Los Angeles Times reported was the “national headquarters of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.”

The national headquarters for the Knights of the KKK was, in fact, just down the road in Pulaski, Tennessee, but only 50 miles away. There at his kickoff, Carter wheeled up the old “Seggie,” George Wallace, another Democrat, who’d been confined to a wheelchair. Carter’s daughter, Amy, kissed Wallace on the cheek. Wallace was the only Democrat on the stage that day, singled out by Carter for praise.

Carter told the crowd, “We southerners believe in the nobility of courage on the battlefield.” Meanwhile, 60 Klansmen marched there in front of Carter in robes with the Confederate battle flag. We could leave it there to let readers draw the false notion that Carter was receiving their endorsement (like the false smear against Reagan) and, while he did not, he did defend the Confederate battle flag.

Reagan attacked Carter for choosing Tuscumbia, but incredibly, Carter, his fellow Democrats, and the national media chose to attack Reagan for criticizing Carter’s choice for launching his fall campaign.

But you’ll be hard-pressed to see people label Carter as a racist. In fact, it is never reported that Carter had kind comments about the Confederate battle flag or the racist Democrat George Wallace.

In fact, let’s flip this around: Some Republicans may have a problem with racists, but so did and do the Democrats and far more, too. Let’s not even touch the Civil War, in which Southern Democrats seceded from the Union for the sole purpose of keeping slavery.

But lynching? The GOP had anti-lynching planks in its platform for years. The Democrats? Not until much later, to placate Southern racists. By the way, the Democratic Party’s KKK’s favorite target for lynching besides blacks was — Republicans.

More recently, however …

How about 1964? The Civil Rights Act, after much controversy and bickering, finally went to the House of Representatives for a vote. Eighty percent of the GOP Representatives — in total 136 — voted yes to the act.

On the other hand, Democratic representatives who voted no made up 37 percent, nearly 100 votes against. It was similar in the Senate, as proportionally the Republican Party overwhelmingly voted yes for the measure, while Democrats half-heartedly cheered it.

Even the chairman of the House Rules Committee, Democrat Rep. Howard Smith, wanted to stop it before it reached anywhere, and the proposal resulted in a 14-hour-long filibuster by racist Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Decades earlier, Democratic hero and 13-year President Franklin Roosevelt, in the name of national security, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent, locking them in internment camps.

It was only under Reagan that reparations were paid. He signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, giving each Japanese-American $20,000. FDR also snubbed Jesse Owens in the 1933 Berlin Olympics after he won four gold medals, becoming the most successful athlete there.

He was never invited to the White House. In 1936, Owens actually said, “Hitler didn’t snub me — it was our president who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.” That says something about Owens’ impression of our president.

We can go on and on. Truman used racial slurs against Jews, African-Americans, and Chinese in his diaries, using terms that even the 1940s would have considered hardcore.

Bill and Hillary Clinton came from Arkansas, so it’s without surprise that campaign slogans and friends had more … white-only attitudes. “SONS of the NEW SOUTH,” read a Clinton-Gore campaign button, with the nominees’ faces superimposed over confederate uniforms and the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy. Byrd was also a longtime friend of the Clintons’, with Hillary calling him “my friend and mentor.”

Yet it is Reagan who is falsely accused of being a racist.

Reagan had a clear and unbroken philosophy based on the unbroken expansion of human freedom. He was a child of the Enlightenment, which is why he quoted Thoreau, Emerson, Jefferson and Paine so often.

Thus, Reagan’s first goal was to reignite Americans belief in themselves. Coupled with this were tax cuts and rearming America. He knew a happy people were a productive people, so his first goal was the restoration of American morale, coupled with the tools of tax cuts, but at the top was national defense.

To Reagan, they all worked together to achieve a higher moral plane. Balanced budgets came last. They were important but the others were more important.  He knew if we lost to the Soviets, a good economy and good national mood were all academic. It was the American people who were the priority.

Related: Trump Is Not the Only President Who Promised to Drain the Swamp

But Reagan’s American conservatism was a consistent and complete philosophy. President Donald Trump, while doing some very good conservative things, is a populist and populism is not a philosophy but a reaction to “the other guy” controlling bigness.

It can’t be understated how influential the Reagan Revolution was to the GOP, both in the 1980s and even today. Politicians are rated according to “What would Reagan do?” It’s a sort of grand philosophy that holds a party together.

So when people like Hillary Clinton or Brian Rosenwald say Republicans are “unprincipled” for whatever reasons, perhaps a look at what the Democratic Party did, is doing, and will continue to do is in order.

Regarding liberals like Clinton and Rosenwald, they are liberals beyond knowledge and beyond help.

Craig Shirley is a New York Times best-selling author and presidential historian. He has written four books on President Ronald Reagan, along with his latest book, “Citizen Newt: The Making of a Reagan Conservative,” about the early career of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He lectures frequently at the Reagan Library and is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College in Illinois, the 40th president’s alma mater. He also wrote the critically acclaimed “December 1941.” Scott Mauer is a research assistant for Craig Shirley.

Statement of Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley on Dr. Ronny Jackson

For Immediate Release
January 17, 2018

Statement of Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley

Trump White House physician “wrong” about Reagan

 Washington, D.C. – White House doctor Ronny Jackson may be an expert in the medical field, but he gets failing grades for his history. In an interview with the White House press corps yesterday, Dr. Jackson falsely said President Ronald Reagan may have had “some evidence of cognitive impairment toward the end of his presidency.” This is unprofessional, pseudo-historical, wrong, and a flat out lie. As a doctor, he of all people should know not to examine, diagnose, or assume anyone’s physical or mental health from afar. He was not President Reagan’s doctor, and every one of Reagan’s attending medical professionals attested to his mental vigor through his eight years in office.

There is an informal term of the ethics manual of the American Psychiatric Association called the “Goldwater Rule,” named after Barry Goldwater. This section of the manual states, “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

Perhaps there should be an update to it, called the Reagan Rule: It is unethical to assume, based on a lack of evidence and a lack of knowledge of the individual, to diagnose or assume any physical or mental impairment of someone you never knew or met or treated.



President Reagan didn’t have Alzheimer’s while in office || CNN

President Reagan didn’t have Alzheimer’s while in office

Why conservatives should oppose shrinking national monuments || Washington Post

Why conservatives should oppose shrinking national monuments

By Craig Shirley

The Western United States may be the last natural bastion of what it means to be a free American. The image of the Old West brings a sense of beauty, with sky-scraping mountain ranges, deep valleys and endless desert and woods. The feeling of utter freedom is something one has to experience to understand.

That sense of beauty and utter freedom is purely American, and for me, also purely conservative. I first traipsed the romantic desolation of New Mexico as a Boy Scout long ago and came to understand the spiritual magnificence of the American West. It was an awakening.

What does it mean to be American? Abraham Lincoln said in his address to Congress in 1862: “A nation may be said to consist of its territory, its people, and its laws. The territory is the only part which is of certain durability.” The United States as a nation may not always exist. The laws of the United States come and go as much as its presidents. But what the United States contains — the Redwood Forest, the Rocky Mountains, and even the national monuments President Trump might decide to shrink, like Bears Ears — is what will last long past our children’s children. Man-made monuments will have fallen, been torn down or been repaired five times over by the year 2100, but not our national parks. As Lincoln quoted the Book of Ecclesiastes in that same speech: “One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earth abideth forever.” The great American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne stated similarly: “Mountains are earth’s undecaying monuments.”

All that is why conservatives like me find ourselves compelled to speak out against the Trump administration’s decision last month to shrink two national monuments originally established by Democratic presidents. (My public affairs firm, Shirley & Banister, has done work for the American Monuments Alliance, a group of conservative leaders who also oppose shrinking the monuments.) A Republican with close ties to the administration, Newt Gingrich, recently published an article in Fox News arguing that it borders on hysteria to criticize Trump’s move. The former House speaker wrote that “redefining the boundaries of these monuments will not harm the environment, open the flood gates for dangerous mining or natural resource exploitation.” Maybe. Yet Gingrich, in his 2005 book “Winning the Future,” had made the case that environmental beauty is indeed conservative: “I am a conservative who likes to walk in Central Park in New York and along the Chicago lakefront and along the Chattahoochee recreation area. We can give our children and grandchildren better environments in their lifetimes through reasonable foresight.”

The initial push to shrink these lands was largely due to energy corporations. Take, for example, Energy Fuel Resources, which lobbied the administration to shrink Bears Ears, Utah, by 85 percent, paying lobbying firm Faegre Baker Daniels tens of thousands of dollars in the process. (That firm’s head just so happens to be the nominee for deputy secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler.) The shrunken territory, as planned, has a high concentration of uranium mines — exactly what Energy Fuel Resources wants.

“The uranium deposits are outside the monument now,” Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert told The Washington Post last month — but that’s only because the parks have been shrunken. Extraction corporations already have access to 98 percent of the millions of acres under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. We are talking about setting aside a paltry 2 percent.

Lest we forget, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is already under some scrutiny for his stewardship of natural resources. His agency was just involved in a suspicious deal to revitalize Puerto Rico’s electrical industry after Hurricane Maria with a contract to a tiny company in Whitefish, Mont., Zinke’s hometown. No bid, naturally. Millions of dollars, of course. National Review recently battered him over the seediness of the arrangement, saying in their headline that it “stinks.” Whitefish Energy, National Review wrote, had “no real workforce, no experience in comparable government projects, and a job that is, by itself, about 300 times the firm’s reported revenue.” In 2017, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management sold hundreds of thousands of acres  to companies, and the first half of 2018 could see nearly 1 million acres sold.

(To be clear, Zinke’s ethical questions go back to his days as a House member from Montana in 2014, when he created a leadership PAC that wound up with a $200,000 discrepancyin its accounting.)

Protecting natural beauty has long been a conservative priority. Ronald Reagan loved and lived in California. His ranch — Rancho del Cielo — meant everything to him. It was there he could take in the sparkling morning air, clear his thoughts and make decisions that changed the world. He wrote and spoke often about the ranch, even in his farewell address to the nation. Reagan’s favorite poet may have been Robert Service, a big, handsome man who wrote about the American West: “My lake adores my mountain …” Reagan’s ranch, high in the Santa Ynez, had mountains and a small lake.

Barry Goldwater loved and lived in Arizona. Both, giants among giants, saw the West and the landscapes as pinnacle Americana. Goldwater, in his immeasurably important work, “Conscience of a Conservative,” dedicated most of a chapter to the environment, writing that it is “our job is to prevent that lush orb known as the Earth … from turning into a bleak and barren, dirty brown planet.” Goldwater recognized that the environment took priority over what corporations and companies may want, and applauded President Richard M. Nixon’s war against polluters.

Goldwater was in many ways the father of 20th century political conservatism, and he had no greater disciple than Reagan. As president, Reagan called “the preservation of our environment … common sense.” He signed such preservation laws as the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, which forbade federal subsidies to new development in certain areas. He requested “one of the largest percentage budget increases of any agency” to the EPA in 1984, saying that $157 million budget was for obtaining new lands to conserve.

The framers of the Constitution and Founding Founders would have realized, as most were farmers of their time, that turning the land into infertile soil — as Energy Fuel surely wants to do with the land it claws back from the monuments — would have been unnecessary. George Washington was a member of the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, and in his address to the Continental Congress in 1776, he asked “whether [Americans’] houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed” by the British. Centuries later, what was the work of a foreign army is now domestic business. Thomas Jefferson noted that Washington would “had rather be on his farm than to be made Emperor of the world.” Jefferson, the agrarian son of the Enlightenment, saw the Louisiana Purchase as not just doubling the size of the country, but doubling the size of the American aspiration to be free and unencumbered. Corporations, like governments, encumber human freedom.

According to a recent poll by the GOP firm of McLaughlin and Associates, 85 percent of Republicans  want “more” monuments or wanted to keep them “as is.” Only 15 percent support reduction.

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, along with the generations of Americans after them, looked to the West and saw immense natural beauty, and declared that it was Manifest Destiny for these ranges and valleys to be under the Stars and Stripes. If we were to shrink the monuments, we risk turning them into simply more oil fields and mining corporations.

As the great Enlightenment writer and thinker Henry David Thoreau said, “in nature is the preservation of the world.” In the preservation of the world is the preservation of the dignity and privacy of the private and free individual.


Statement of Reagan biographer Craig Shirley on the passing of John Anderson

Statement of Reagan biographer Craig Shirley on the passing of John Anderson

December 4, 2017

John Anderson did not tip the 1980 campaign to Ronald Reagan as some falsely claim. Pollsters have told me that without Anderson in the race, his voters would have been spread proportionally between Reagan and President Carter.

Still, Anderson did much to add spice and intellectualism to the 1980 campaign and had the courage to raise questions some

other politicians were not willing to address. He was one of the first—along with George Wallace and later Ross Perot and finally Donald Trump—to identify a third voter in America—populist, anti-establishment, anti-status quo, unmoored to either party.

As a Reagan biographer and author of the most comprehensive book on the 1980 campaign, I interviewed Anderson countless times to get an often forgotten side of the election. Anderson represented very much a “third way” between the liberal Carter versus the conservative Reagan.

His most important legacy though was to always question the established order and in this he was a real patriot and a real American.

John Anderson, RIP.