Remembering Reagan Through His Speeches

Ronald Reagan 1911-2004

Televised Nationwide Address on Behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater October 27, 1964

Ronald Reagan’s CPAC Speeches 1974 – 1988

Inaugural Address January 20, 1981

Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals March 8, 1983 (What the Media called his “Evil Empire” speech)

Remarks at the Normandy Invasion Ceremony June 6, 1984

Remarks at the U.S. Ranger Monument June 6, 1984

Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate June 12, 1987

Farewell Address to the Nation January 11, 1989

Ronald Reagan speeches on YouTube

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Remembering Reagan Through His Speeches

  1. Big J says:

    Red Pill:

    Thank you for a couple of things. I linked to your website through the comment section of michellemalkin.com. At that time (a couple of weeks ago, I think), you posted an incredible speech by Evan Sayet. I watched the entire speech, unable to take my eyes and ears off of it. I also found a more recent speech given to the Heritage Foundation this year. The guy is phenomenal! For that I thank you.

    My second thanks stems from the Reagan speeches you have posted. It took my back to a much better place in time, a much better time in our country. I beamed with pride as I read his inaugural speech, and shed a tear as he gave his farewell speech. I was a little young at the time to be that interested in politics, but I remember loving the man. Most people did.

    The contrast to the current occupant in the white house is startling. Where The Gipper wanted to shrink government, Hussein wants to grow it exponentially. Where The Gipper believed in America and it’s greatness, Hussein wants to trash us in foreign countries around the world. Where The Gipper stood strong for freedom and against tyranny, Hussein throws out limp-wristed statements, depending on which way the political wind is blowing. There are far too many other contrasts to list here, suffice to say that I AM MISSING REAGAN!

    Anyway, thanks for the post.

  2. Big J says:

    Oops! “It took my…” = “It took me…

    Fixed it for myself!

  3. Big J,

    Thank you for your kind words.

    Don’t give up hope for “the next Reagan”. A man who spent a lot of time around Ronald Reagan said:

    Governor Huckabee has probably inspired me as much as Ronald Reagan did. I’ve looked a long time to find a candidate like that…A lot of people walk around talking about the Reagan days and the next Reagan. I was with the old Reagan and I can promise you that this man comes as close as anyone to filling those shoes.

    I firmly believe that Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are two examples of “Reagan Republicans”. I think a ticket with the two of them is a winning ticket, and could lead to 16 years of conservative government (which we will most certainly need after 4 disasterous years of the ObamaNation).

  4. Jax says:

    By “standing strong for freedom and tyranny,” you mean traded the same arms that are now being used to shoot protesters so we could fund the contras in Nicaragua?

  5. That would be “against tyranny”, sport.

    The One who who is “standing strong for tyranny” is Obama.

  6. Jax says:

    Sweet. Iran. Arms. To fund the Contras. Who murdered, raped and tortured hundreds. “Sport.”

  7. … traded the same arms that are now being used to shoot protesters

    1) Back up your claim with evidence. Otherwise it’s a baseless claim.

    2) Even if you are correct that the guns used to shoot protesters came from Reagan (which I highly doubt), guns don’t kill people, people do. And you are blaming a President who left office over 20 years ago, and died over 5 years ago, as somehow influencing the people who shot the protesters. Yet you think the actions of the current President have no influence at all over those shooters’ actions.

    Nice try, sport.

    And while you’re at it, please count up for me the millions of people who have been killed by Communists.

    Ronald Reagan was solidly anti-Communist, and I thank God for that.

  8. Jax,

    I’m also curious about this… most people comment from 1 (sometimes 2) IP address(es).

    You, however, have commented from no less than 12 IP addresses.

    Why?

    Are you really an individual, or are you a team of O-bots?

  9. Math says:

    @red: not everyone has broadband. changing IPs are typical for dial-up users, where you get a different IP everytime you dial in. Similarly, you would get a different IP if you use PPPOE ADSL, which requires you to “dial-in” your broadband. Unless the IPs are all from different blocks/ISPs, this is meaningless.

  10. Math,

    They are from a wide variety of blocks and ISPs.

  11. Big J says:

    Doesn’t matter anyway, Red Pill. The guy’s obviously a troll. Much like lgm over at Michelle’s site, absolutely clueless.

  12. Yeah, Big J, I know… I have a bad habit of feeding the trolls.

    I enjoy honest, intelligent debate, and I tend to interact with the naysayers more that others do (and possibly more than I should… but I usualy do anyway in the chance that we both may learn something).

    In this particular case, I’m curious if Jax really is an individual who can explain his variety of DSL, Cable, and corporate ISP addresses, or if “Jax” is really a front for a group of O-bots.

    I learned a long time ago that people who disagree with you tend to be many times more vocal than the people who agree with you. So, that makes me appreciate it all the more when people like you who agree with me take their time to voice their support.

    Thanks,
    Red Pill

  13. Math says:

    Big J: I don’t think you know the definition of a troll (here’s a hint: it’s not “whoever disagrees with me”).

    “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

    Where was he off-topic or inflammatory? He pointed out that the Iran government’s weapons may have come from Iran-Contra, which happened under Reagan. This post is about Reagan.

    Now you’re implying he’s a o-bot for some reason? Maybe he’s a travelling businessman? But of course, he must be an o-bot, simplest and more logical explanations be damned.

  14. Big J says:

    Not biting, math. Don’t have the “want-to”, as we say down in Texas. I am sure you will take this as a “victory”, a simple way to “avoid the truth”, as it is in your world. So be it. If it makes you feel better.

    Thanks for defining troll, although it is a display of redundancy. Wikipedia? Now there’s and accurate and unbiased source of information.

    Next thing you know, you’ll be quoting Snopes.

    Not that it matters, but I was directing the troll comment at jax.

    Sheesh!

    Hey Red: Check my site when you get a chance.

  15. Math says:

    Big J: you’re right, BigJpedia is a much more reliable information source. I will concede you the troll definition and admit that I and any other person who disagrees with you is a troll.

    Now I will borrow a page from your book and stop having “want-to”, it’s much easier to win arguments that way, I should have thought of it long ago.

  16. Math says:

    And by the way, you guys are deluded if you think this blog is on any pro-Obama organization’s radar. Just saying.

  17. Obama’s minions have a track record of attacking anyone who criticizes (or even questions) “The One”.

    Just some examples here. (Not every hit is a match, but plenty of them are)

  18. Math says:

    What examples are we talking about? http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=Obama+Thug&type=story&sortby=relevance&search=Search&count=30&wayback=3153600&wayfront=0

    Your source has as much credibility to my eyes as mine has to yours.

  19. Your source has as much credibility to my eyes as mine has to yours.

    Let’s compare the credibility of our sources.

    My source (Michelle Malkin) has sold more books than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Your source (Daily KOS) posted a forged Certification of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama (no more authentic than another forgery posted by Daily KOS … “Haye I.B Ahphorgerie“). Follow that link and note how obvious it becomes that “Barack’s COLB” is a “KOS Kiddie” creation that similarly screams, “Hey! I Be A Forgery!“

    Oh, but sure, you imply your source is credible and mine is not.

    Incredible.

  20. Math says:

    I never implied my source was credible, I just implied yours wasn’t. I hold Michelle Malkin’s blog in the same regard you hold Daily KOS, that’s what I said.

    I didn’t know Nancy Pelosi was such an highly considered author. Never mind the fact Michelle Malkin published like 2-3 times more books than her. But Stephen King sold more books than Michelle Malkin, and he’s a liberal, so there. :-p

    The COLB posted by Daily KOS has not been proven a forgery. No credible document expert would ever make such a bold affirmation without actually having handled the document. One that won’t even stand behind his findings with his real name and credentials. So some wise guy knows how to use Photoshop. It says nothing about the original document though. What it does say, however, is that there is no way to prove from that scan that the document is authentic or a fraud.

    There is quite a stretch between that uncertainty and affirming without a shadow of a doubt that it is a forgery.

  21. Math,

    Do you believe “Haye I.B Ahphorgerie” is authentic?

    Or do you believe it screams “Hey! I Be A Forgery!”?

    Do you not see that Obama’s COLB is no more authentic than this clear forgery?

    They were posted within minutes of each other on Daily KOS. They are both fraudulent. And Obama claims that one of them is his authentic birth certificate.

    The State of Hawaii has never authenticated the document Obama claims is his COLB.

    Instead of us having to prove the “Obama COLB” is fake, isn’t the burden of proof on him to prove it’s real?

    I repeat, the State of Hawaii has never authenticated the document Obama claims is his COLB.

    The State of Hawaii has also never issued a statement saying that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii.

    Birth location is actually only a secondary matter. My interest an authentic birth certificate, certified and released directly from the State of Hawaii, is that I believe Obama is covering something up. It could be something as simple as his legal name being Barry Soetoro (changed by the adoption but never legally changed back).

    If his legal name is Barry Soetoro, then he has committed perjury every time he has said under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

    Even even if his legal name is Barack Hussein Obama, and even if he was born in Hawaii, he is still not eligible to be President.

    Before the election, Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Can you please tell me how a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?

  22. Math says:

    Reread what I said. I never said I be a forgery was authentic. I just said that you cannot conclude that Obama’s is not authentic because of that clear forgery. Just because one is a forgery does not prove the other one is a forgery.

    He’s a sworn president, which means he has satisfied all the Constitutional requirements. As far as the Constitution is concerned, he’s eligible. Since he’s already assumed to be eligible, the burden is on you to prove he’s not. And some not so clever Photoshop work and the testimony of a so-called anonymous “document expert” is not going to help you achieve that.

    I don’t know why you’re so hellbent on your definition of a natural born citizen, the term is not defined in the Constitution and no court has ever clarified it completely either.

  23. He’s a sworn president, which means he has satisfied all the Constitutional requirements.

    No, it means he was sworn in without Congress and the Supreme Court doing their due diligence.

    the testimony of a so-called anonymous “document expert” is not going to help you achieve that.

    Yet you and Congress accepted the testimony of a group that does not even claim to be “document experts”, who lied about what they examined (it was not the “original birth certificate”), who lied about what Dr. Fukino said in her statement (she never claimed Obama was born in Hawaii), and who likely have political connections to Obama (via Chicago Annenberg Challenge), Annenberg Political Fact Check.

    I don’t know why you’re so hellbent on your definition of a natural born citizen, the term is not defined in the Constitution and no court has ever clarified it completely either.

    Which is precisely why the Supreme Court was negligent in not addressing this issue (the definition of Natural Born Citizen) in one of the multiple cases which were brought to it before the inauguration (one of which was brought even before the election).

  24. I love the portion of Reagan’s speech that is used to close out this video:

  25. Ronald Reagan tells joke about Democrats

  26. Hat Tip: Knight4GFC

    U.S Armed Forces – We Must Fight – President Reagan (HD)

  27. President Ronald Reagan, for Reagan/Bush ’84

    The difference between the two competing world views is essentially the same in 2012 as it was in 1984.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s