By US Daily Review Staff.

Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, sends operatives into and out of Iran on a regular basis; and the mysterious men on motorcycles who have assassinated at least four Iranian nuclear scientists are Israelis.

Those are among the revelations in a new book about Israeli espionage, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman (Levant Books: published July 9).

Raviv and Melman’s previous book about Israel’s intelligence community, Every Spy a Prince, was a national (New York Times) best seller for fourteen weeks in 1990.  They have more details on their blog, IsraelSpy.com.

According to their new book, Israeli spies have a multitude of routes for entering and exiting Iran, and the routes and safe houses inside Iran date back to before 1979, when a revolution brought the Islamic Republic’s ayatollahs to power.

The authors write that Israel – for decades using the Mossad as “an alternative foreign ministry” – maintains cooperative relationships with Kurds and other ethnic minorities inside Iran and just outside its borders.  But the book says the assassinations of scientists were not conducted by Iranian dissidents.

From the Website:

The authors write: ““For such a sensitive dangerous and daring mission as a series of assassinations in Iran’s capital, the Mossad would not depend on hired-gun mercenaries,” Raviv and Melman assert. “They would be considered far less trustworthy and there was hardly any chance that the Mossad would reveal to non-Israelis some of its assassination unit’s best methods.”

Al Monitor reports further: “One strength of the book is that the authors do not use euphemisms. The Mossad had a ‘kill list’ long before US President Barack Obama and has stolen military technology from the United States that Israel could not obtain by other means, they say.”

By World Jewish Congress, Special for US Daily Review.

In an open declaration, Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, sent (according to a statement) “a clear and powerful message in support of Middle East peace” urging President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to accept Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel’s multiple offers to come to the peace table and negotiate without preconditions.

Lauder said, “Israel has extended its hand in peace to the Arab countries ever since 1967.  Since 1979, two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan, have signed peace treaties with Israel. As events take unpredictable turns in an ever-changing Middle East, we believe that it is urgent that Israel and the Palestinians move together forward to a diplomatic solution and make peace.  Though Prime Minister Netanyahu has made repeated offers to come to meet at any time and any place for direct talks, Israel has remained alone at the peace table.”

“During my recent meeting with Mr. Abbas, I urged him to accept this historic chance to make peace and achieve statehood. It is more important than ever for Abbas to seize this opportunity and finally come to an historic agreement with Israel. Any Palestinian unilateral moves by way of the international organizations would seriously undermine the trust that is needed to make a genuine peace and cannot resolve any of the core issues that are critical to a durable and lasting peace. Only through direct talks around the peace table can the claims on both sides be addressed and a peaceful solution be found.”

“This time, the Palestinians cannot afford to miss an opportunity – it is vital for the entire region. We urge President Abbas to take the courageous step that will benefit his people and the people of Israel for generations to come. It takes two sides to make peace,” said Lauder.

WJC Ad in Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2012:

On June 14, 2009, exactly three years ago today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared his government recognizes the need to establish a Palestinian state and offered to meet with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate an agreement.

With his historic speech at Bar-Ilan University broadcast live in Israel and parts of the Arab world, Prime Minister Netanyahu extended his hand. “I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well.”

Yet three years have now gone by. And the Palestinians still decline the offer to begin direct talks with no preconditions.

Neither the Israelis, nor the Palestinians, nor any of us who seek peace in the region can afford further delay.

President Abbas, both your people and the people of Israel will benefit from an agreement. Both will continue to suffer without one.

Accept the offer to talk, President Abbas. It takes two sides to make peace.

Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

By US Daily Review Staff. Source: American Jewish Committee.

“Israel has no greater friend in the world today than Canada,” declared Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird at the AJC Global Forum.

“Our strong support for Israel is not about politics at home, and certainly not about winning popularity contests at the United Nations. Canada certainly has the scars to show for it,” Baird said. “It’s about values.”

The foreign minister was addressing the AJC World Leaders Plenary, attended by an audience of more than 1,500, including many ambassadors in Washington, D.C. The foreign ministers of Cyprus and Germany also spoke at that Global Forum session.

Canada’s pro-Israel position, he said, was a matter of principle, based on the values of “freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law” that Canada shares with Israel and the U.S.

“At the UN and elsewhere, we make it clear that Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable. We vote against one-sided and unfair resolutions,” he said.

Canada has not always been so friendly to Israel, said Baird, who recalled two incidents in his own career when his suggestions to speak up for the Jewish state were rebuffed as naive and politically unrealistic.

“That is no longer how Canada operates,” he declared, “Not under this Foreign Minister. And not under this Prime Minister.” Baird’s speech was interrupted by frequent applause.

The current Canadian government “rejects the concept of moral relativism in international relations,” said Baird, adding that inCanada’s view “liberal democracies and international terrorist groups are not equal.”

Baird remarked that over the decades Canada has “paid a high toll for the principles that guide us” in fighting against hatred and intolerance, and in defense of freedom, democracy and dignity in two world wars and other conflicts around the world.

“In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and sacrificed more than 150 lives to ensure that country never again becomes a haven for terrorism,” said Baird.

Baird also expressed his country’s commitment to human rights, specifically denouncing Iran for its persecution of women, Christians and Baha’i; China for driving Christianity underground; and Egypt for its treatment of Coptic Christians.

And he pointed out that AJC, similarly, “does important advocacy work” not just for Jews but supports “dignity and respect for allpeoples.”

The Foreign Minister also stressed the importance of economic prosperity for areas of the world that are beset with unrest and violence. He described his government’s success in providing “jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.”

Noting that Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world, Baird spoke of the potential benefits to his country and the U.S. of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which AJC strongly supports.

By the ACLJ, Special for US Daily Review.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) – along with its international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – today applauded a report issued by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejecting claims that accused Israel of war crimes in a conflict in Gaza in 2009. The ACLJ, which presented arguments before the Office of the Prosecutor in support of Israel, says today’s decision represents a significant defeat for those organizations and countries that attempted to demonize Israel by using international law.

“This is a major victory for Israel in the international arena and a sound defeat for the unfounded ‘lawfare’ attack leveled againstIsrael,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ and ECLJ, who presented arguments before the ICC in support of Israel. “What’s clear is that this legal assault against Israel not only lacked jurisdiction, but amounted to nothing more than an international campaign to discredit and demonize Israel. We applaud the findings of the Office of the Prosecutor, which paralleled our arguments in defense of Israel. This decision closes the case, removes it from the court’s docket, and brings finality to this issue ending a flawed attempt to use the international legal system in an effort to wrongly punish Israel before the international community.”

In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority attempted to accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC by lodging a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC for “acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002.”  Since only “States” may accede to ICC jurisdiction, the question immediately arose concerning whether Palestine was a “State.”  For the past three years, the ICC Prosecutor has been examining that question.  In a decision released today, the Prosecutor finally determined that there was no firm evidence that Palestine is a state, thereby precluding ICC jurisdiction.

The ECLJ filed numerous legal memoranda and other documents with the ICC arguing that Palestine did not meet the international criteria for statehood, and Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and other ECLJ attorneys twice met with the ICC Prosecutor to argue against Palestinian accession to the ICC jurisdiction.

The ICC Prosecutor’s language reflects the arguments in our documents filed with the ICC.

“The Rome Statute provides no authority for the Office of the Prosecutor to adopt a method to define the term ‘State’ under article 12(3) . . . .”  Instead, the ICC Prosecutor recognized that “it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations” to determine whether Palestine qualifies to be a state. The Prosecutor also concluded: “[T]he current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of ‘observer’, not as ‘Non-member State’”. . . . [This] informs the current legal status of Palestine for the interpretation and application of article 12 [which limits accession to States].”

The complete decision by the ICC Prosecutor is posted here.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based inWashington, D.C. and the European Centre for Law and Justice is based in Strasbourg, France.

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

Todd Dollinger of the Trendline Group is a financial expert that focuses on Israel. On a recent Price of Business he discussed the economic rise of this Middle East nation.

Watch that interview in its entirety here.

Sponsoring US Daily Review is easy. Email info@usdailyreview.com. 

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review.  Featuring Doug Williams, US Daily Review and Price of Business Contributor. 

Reported in The Hill:

Assassinations on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group aided by Israel, according to U.S. officials, NBC Newsreported.

The group that’s assassinating Iranian scientists, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as MEK, is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accused both Israel and the United States of being behind the attacks, the latest of which occurred last month when a motorcyclist strapped a bomb on a scientist’s car.

The report quoted U.S. officials as saying the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but does not have any involvement.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Khamenei, told NBC that Israel’s secret service, the Mossad, is training and paying members of the…(read more)

By Keith D. Rodebush, Contributor for US Daily Review.

The price of weakness is war. In all cases historically, an enemy never attacks if it believes it’s foe is superior in strength and resolve. However, they will almost always attack when they perceive their foe to be weak or irresolute. All around the world the United States is invariably perceived as militarily strong, but lacking the will to take advantage of it’s strength. For decades our enemies have become ever more emboldened to strike out at America. From North Korea’s defiant nuclear proliferation and threats to South Korea, to Osama bin Ladens attacks on 9/11, the underlying trigger is always perceived weakness. While there was a brief respite after President Bush began the ‘War on Terror’ recent events are a disturbing reminder that the price of perceived weakness is very high and in fact ultimately will lead to more death and destruction.

Recently there has been another attack in Pakistan in which Pakistani forces apparently opened fire on U.S. coalition forces in Afghanistan. The resulting counter attack by our forces left dozens dead and the Pakistani government sounding ever more defiant. Pakistan has again closed the supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan threatening an escalation to these current skirmishes. Pakistan has never been anything other than a reluctant participant in the West’s attempt to root out the Taliban, which came into being with the blessing and support of the Pakistani intelligence service. In fact, then President Pervez Musharraf claimed that America threatened to ‘Bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age’ if they refused to cooperate. While unconfirmed and certainly uncouth, it should be noted that Pakistan agreed and was very helpful in the early days of the Afghan war, presumably for their own security reasons. I do not endorse such bombastic threats, however, I do support firm controlled positions of strong military action against the enemies of America, whomever they shall be. It is obvious that when America was perceived as strong and united after 9/11, there was wide cooperation. As the war weary American electorate has vacillated and the Obama administration has continued to show weakness or indifference, the anti-American fervor in Pakistan has grown. Strategically, it was in our greater interest to support India and fight against both the Taliban and the Pakistan Islamists; birds of a feather with like minded philosophies that are polar opposite of both India and America.

It is hard to argue that the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ is nothing more than a move by Islamists to overthrow governments that were either Western friendly or at least neutered by Western foreign aid and/or military threat, to replace them with pro-Islam, pro-Sharia governments. While the situation is still volatile, the fundamentalist Islamists appear to be emerging very strong from these revolutions. America has not only seemed weak, completely abandoning long time ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, but has indeed supported the Islamists in overthrowing the cowering dictator Qaddafi of Libya. Thus far we have seen blatant attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, vociferous threats against Israel and expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. History has not yet written the result of this American weakness, but by most accounts it will get much worse before it gets better. Recent riots in Egypt show full well that this revolution will not provide democracy as planned.

Any casual observer can tell that the weaker the American government is seen, the more radical the rhetoric and actions of Iran become. While marching unabated towards nuclear development, Iran has constantly and methodically fostered anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Through Syria and Lebanon they have kept Israel isolated and undermined all efforts at peace by countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Recently even Turkey has began to abandon it’s secular government and embraced more fundamentalist Islamic policies. Indeed Iran is close to circling the entire Middle East with rabid anti-Western Islamist regimes that portend a disastrous conflict with any Western allied country such as Saudi Arabia. If the end of Mubarak is any indication of our ‘support’, no one will blame these countries if they eventually disavow their relations with the West and join Iran in it’s pursuit of a fundamentalist Islamic Middle East, void of Israel or any Western influence. This will no doubt lead to world wide catastrophic events both economically and militarily. One can not imagine just how bad it could be. The collapse of the European economy, coupled with America’s perceived lack of resolve to exert her power, can only speed up events that will lead to this detrimental end.
 
So what accounts for the astounding lack of leadership in the Western world to lead us away from this suicidal spiral? Where is the Winston Churchill of our time? The answer can be found in the fact that all of the solutions available for current leaders is soley the politically correct variety and as such are wholly inadequate to the task. Only a staunch and righteous defense of individual Liberty rooted in Judeo-Christian values coupled with free-market Capitalism based on the rule of law can save Western civilization as we know it. Even the current political class vying for the Presidency of the United States seem reticent to unashamedly provide this defense. Political correctness has permeated Western Civilization to such an extent that merely defending Western values and society is perceived by Marxist trained ideologues as intolerent. In this case tolerance will lead to the annihilation of any semblance of Western civilization. The resulting societal break-down will be catastrophic. If Western democracies do not return to their roots of rule of law republicanism based on Judeo-Christian values, then the rise of Islam worldwide will continue unabated, our economies will fall and the only possible result will be totalitarian government of one form or another. The Islamists are positioning themselves to be the power to fill the void. God help us all if we allow it to pass.

Keith D. Rodebush is a Christian businessman, a writer and an armchair scholar. He has a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Arkansas. Keith is currently working on a novel and periodically writes at his blog “Ignarus Semino Dominatus“

By Ed Hubbard, Contributor to US Daily Review.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that many of our political and social problems here in the U.S. and in Europe stem from the fact that over the last 250 years we have misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied the teachings of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin.  These failings apply equally over the centuries to those who have purported to be their followers as well as to their critics.  Moreover, these failings intertwined to fuel diabolical military, political and social misadventures that cursed the world from the 1930s and through the 1960s.

But this is not a post about either of these men or their teachings.  It is about a third man—a man of the 20^th Century—who, unfortunately, now is arguably among the most misunderstood of recent history:  Ronald Reagan.  As we head into a political season when his real ideas are needed as much as, if not more than ever, we need to address and correct the misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misapplications by both his followers and his critics, or else we could end up making matters far worse in the long run than they are today.

Let me start by saying that I don’t pretend to be a “Reagan Scholar”.  On occasion over the years, I have shared with others the fact that I was lucky to have interacted with Reagan when I was young on a handful of occasions when I was between the ages of 10 and 17, and it was based on the last of those interactions that I became a steadfast follower of his ideas—and have remained such a follower ever since.  Although I may at some point elaborate on those experiences, what I am going to say now has nothing to do with them.  Instead, my observations come from years of following what the man actually wrote, said and did over many decades.

I want to start with the biggest misunderstanding that has permeated our memory of Reagan—the idea that his leadership was primarily a product of his unique speaking skills.  Though this fallacy is embraced almost universally, it is the driving interpretation of Reagan from the left.  They never saw Reagan as a man of substance, but rather as a “pied piper” who led through the hypnosis of his speaking skills and cue cards (that were written by others).  As a character in John Ford’s famous movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance said, “once the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”  For decades now, the idea that Reagan was simply “the Great Communicator” has become part of our social legend.

Reagan, himself, tried to dispel the myth in his Farewell Address in 1989, when he said that he was not a great communicator because of how he spoke, but because of the ideas he tried to convey.  You see, Reagan had an understanding of himself and his purpose that few have ever comprehended.

The Democrats surely never have.  After the Dukakis debacle in 1988, they went looking for “great communicators” and found a young, Southern Governor, with a folksy charm and an Ivy League degree, who could talk for hours about anything and say nothing; and in 2008, found an urbane young man who effectively used a teleprompter and vague, overwrought rhetoric to make his leftist ideas seem mainstream.  Essentially, Democrats to this day believe Reagan simply fooled the American people into following Republicans, and they’ve chosen their leaders based on their ability to fool enough people to follow Democrats long enough to win an election.  In the meantime, we on the right continue to feed the legend by referring to Reagan as “the Great Communicator,” forgetting the derisive origin of that label, and thereby unwittingly continuing to marginalize the real strength of the man’s intellect.

Recently, through the publication of more of Reagan’s papers and of his diaries, the public is finally getting a glimpse—but still only a glimpse—of a man who may have had one of the greatest minds for political philosophy in the last half of the 20^th Century.  After receiving a liberal arts education fromEurekaCollege, and after becoming a leader in the labor movement inCalifornia after World War II, Reagan began re-thinking all of his political assumptions and absorbed historical and political writings like a sponge.  Due to his unique schedule as an actor and labor leader, Reagan had plenty of time to study and reflect during the 1940s and 1950s.  Then his chance to continue his study increased with a purpose, when he was engaged by General Electric to be its national spokesman.

By the early 1960s, Reagan had transformed himself intellectually into a force of nature.  In one of his last books, The Reagan I Knew, William F. Buckley, Jr., describes this Reagan whom the public never knew.  When Reagan burst into the country’s political consciousness with his famous televised speech for the Goldwater campaign in 1964, they saw not a man reading cue cards, but a formidable political intellectual, who wrote his own speech, and who spoke with a purpose using the skills honed over a decade of public speaking for General Electric.  It is that politician who won two landslide victories for Governor of California over the best candidates the Democratic Party had in that state; who nearly stole the 1968 Republican Convention from Nixon; who came within an eyelash of beating the incumbent for the 1976 Republican nomination; who, from 1977 to 1980, started to change the Republican Party with a new vision; who, then, changed the political and economic trajectory of this country; and who, with the help of Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, changed the world.

This Reagan believed that economic conservatives who had traditionally supported the Republican Party, and social conservatives who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party, could be molded into a “new” Republican Party, and he worked to create that new party after his loss in 1976.  Unfortunately, this new party has never fully formed.  Almost from the instant of his great landslide re-election victory in 1984, factions formed within his party, which continue to this day.  Although these factions have formed coalitions long enough to win three national elections since 1988, as well as to elect Republican Congresses through much of the last 20 years, they still have not formed the molded party of Reagan’s vision.  This failure is the primary reason why Democrats remain viable as a political party, which has led to such disastrous policies since 2006.

The primary reason these factions within the GOP remain divided is that we conservatives still don’t embrace the real vision Reagan had for this party, and our field of Presidential candidates reflects this fundamental problem.  Without going down the list of candidates and their misinterpretations of Reagan, let me just present a short list of examples of misunderstandings:

• Reagan’s whole view started with the individual, families and communities.  He believed the genius ofAmerica arose from individuals, engaging in work in a free market, and engaging in self-governance through families, private organizations, churches, and local governments.  Regulations, and government in general, should be focused on protecting those activities.

• Reagan did not believe in small and weak government.  Instead, he believed in strong governments at each level whose powers were limited to specific responsibilities, and that we had delegated too much responsibility to the federal government.  Responsibility and tax dollars needed to be returned to individuals, local governments and state governments (in that order) who were closer to the problems that needed to be addressed.

• Reagan did not view the reduction or elimination of taxes as a social and economic good in and of itself, but by the late 1970s reduction of taxes had become an economic and political imperative.  There is no question that Reagan believed that individuals had the right to keep the fruits of their labor—it was their money that they had earned, and the government had no entitlement to it.  He also relied on evidence from the Coolidge and Kennedy administrations that showed that lowering taxes often, if not always, had the effect of raising tax revenue because it increased economic activity.  However, he also believed that taxes were needed to fund the legitimate activities of government at each level.  The job of each level of government was to determine its legitimate needs based on its legitimate responsibilities and limits, and then raise enough revenue to pay for them.  Ultimately, you can not understand Reagan’s views about taxes without understanding his belief in the limitations of the federal government.  He often said during his race in 1976 that the tax base diverted to the federal government should be returned to the local and state governments, so that the dollars could be more effectively directed and spent where the local needs were.  Over time, if such dollars were raised and spent locally, government would be more efficient and would cost less, so fewer tax dollars would need to be raised from each individual.

• One of the powers legitimately delegated to the federal government was national defense, and he believed in maintaining peace by maintaining a strong military.

• Reagan believed that much of our inherent strength came from our commitment to liberty at home, and that our most important diplomatic duty was to keep America as a beacon of liberty—as an example to others—and to defeat the biggest threat to liberty at that time—communism.  He did not believe that every dispute in the world required American intervention; but most disputes at that time affected, or were affected by, the Cold War with theSoviet Union, so he believed in an active engagement in world affairs.  His invasion of Grenada and his aid to rebels in Central America were messages to the Soviets and the Cubans, and his aid to Afghan rebels was part of his effort to defeat Soviet expansion.  Even Reagan’s famed bombing of Ghadafi’s compound inLibyawas a defensive action in response to an attack on American troops in Germany, and sent a message to the Soviets that any attack on our troops would be met with an armed response.  However, he showed restraint and prudence when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner with American passengers, when the Soviets tried to thwart Polish independence, and when our Marines were killed in Lebanon.  He handled problems with our allies, including the peaceful transition of power in South Korea and the transition from apartheid in South Africathrough diplomacy rather than confrontation.  In the end, the accomplishments he set in motion were remarkable:  the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan; the Soviet Union collapsed, Eastern Europe was freed, and the Cold War ended; South Korea transitioned to a democratic government and a free-market powerhouse; South Africa ended apartheid; and Nicaragua and El Salvador elected democratic governments.

• Reagan believed that the desire of people to come here, even illegally, was a sign of the strength of our beacon of liberty, not something to be feared.  Although we can now see that the immigration law of the late 1980s and the grant of amnesty at the time, were wrong, they were part of a sensible approach to a problem from that vantage point, and recognized that it was our freedom—our ultimate strength—that attracted these people to become our neighbors, and that we should never abandon our strength out of fear.

• Reagan believed thatAmerica’s future would be strengthened through stronger ties with Mexico and Canada, and ultimately, with all of Central America.  I don’t know how long he had held this idea, but by the time he opposed the Panama Canal Treaty, he was advocating a strong economic and political alliance with Mexico and Canada.  His efforts ultimately were negotiated over his and G.H.W. Bush’s terms, and became the NAFTA treaty.

• Reagan was committed politically to the preservation ofIsrael, but also to building a balance of power in the Middle East in which Israel could live without fear and which would deter the Soviets from becoming re-involved in the region.  I do not recall Reagan ever promoting our relationship withIsraelpurely because of its biblical importance, though I am sure one can find a sentence here or there where Israel’s place in our Judeo-Christian heritage would have been noted.  In fact, such rhetoric would have inflamed tensions in that region and thwarted his goal of building a balance of power in the region.  Reagan would have never abandoned Israel, but, as evidenced by his removal of troops from Lebanon, he did not believe our military presence necessarily made Israel safer.

• Reagan was a man of deep faith, and his faith combined with his knowledge of history and his political philosophy provided the foundation for his vision for the Republican Party and the country.  Reagan spoke openly of his faith, the importance of faith to this nation, and the need for people of faith to be engaged in the “new” Republican Party.  But, frankly, I think Reagan would have been perplexed by the level of engagement in the organizational structure of the Republican Party by agents of certain congregations and faiths, and by the exclusivity they have sometimes employed as criteria for participating in the GOP.  Reagan always was clear that his was a political movement, not an ecclesiastical or ideological movement, and his blueprint for the new party he envisioned required inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

Reagan was, at heart, a reformer, and he had a vision for reforming the GOP and this country.  Although the times have changed (e.g., there is no Soviet Union or Cold War, and the level of taxation is nowhere near what it was in the 1970s), and we have learned from mistakes during the years Reagan was President (e.g., amnesty is an inappropriate policy for addressing illegal immigration), I still adhere to Reagan’s vision for our party and our country:

• an inclusive view of conservatism that is based on the fundamental strength of character of individuals who recognize that liberty is comprised of both freedom and responsibility;
• the centrality of those individuals, their families, and their neighborhoods to the economic, political and social sustenance of the nation;
• the need for most social services to be provided by private organizations, churches and local governments;
• the preservation of strong, but limited governments at each level of government, with the revenue needed to meet their respective responsibilities;
• the preservation of our active role in the world as a beacon for liberty;
• the creation of a strong and lasting relationship with our closest neighbors, and their citizens, based on the strength of our liberty, and not on our fears; and
• the maintenance of a strong military here and abroad to maintain peace.

I hope over the next few months that the spirit of this vision will finally bring the GOP together as the “new” Republican Party that Reagan envisioned.

Ed Hubbard is an appellate lawyer and a former candidate for office from Houston, TX.  Ed has a blog and you can follow Ed on twitter, @EdHubbard.

Advertisement