INTRODUCTION OF MICHAEL REAGAN
JUNE 3, 2009
I am very, very excited to be here tonight. We have an awesome guest, a guest who is affecting our culture in such a positive way. We need him to keep on being bold and we’re counting on Michael Reagan to help educate America (Palin, 2009, Â¶1).
I want to welcome tonight our good Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, who I can’t see, but I know he’s here. Sean Parnell. My brother Chuck Heath is here and my husband, Alaska’s First Dude, Todd Palin, is here (Palin, 2009, Â¶2).
I have the honor to speak with you for a bit before I get to introduce you to Michael Reagan. And what I’m going to do in introducing Michael is to continue to encourage him, to continue to be bold and to call it like he sees it, and to screw the political correctness that some would expect him to have to adhere (Palin, 2009, Â¶3).
We want him to be bold, we need him to be bold. Mr. Reagan, we need your voice to be loud and strong. We appreciate him. He doesn’t shy away from the tough issues and that is so good. He never lets anyone tell him to “sit down and shut up.” And I would hope, Alaska, that our voice, too, will be heard across this nation. I look forward to hearing from Michael Reagan tonight. Because America must learn from him, from his remarkable father, and that remarkable presidency (Palin, 2009, Â¶4).
First, I think what we are going to learn tonight via Michael is that Ronald Reagan’s ideas were the right ideas. And all we have to do is look back at his record—his economic record and his national security record—to know that his ideas were right. It was called ‘common sense conservativism.’ It was right then, it’s right now. Recently, Newt Gingrich, has written a good article about Reagan (Palin, 2009, Â¶5):
He said, regarding your dad Michael, he said: we need to learn from his example that courage and persistence are keys to historic achievement. And with Reagan’s example, DC politicians calling the shots for our country, they had better rely on the good sense of the American people, and bag the reliance on the entrenched bureaucrats; and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals; and the smug lobbyists who dominate Washington; and the liberal media that is imposing its will on Washington; and embracing that status quo that business as usual it’s not good for our country (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶12).
But we have to remember first that Ronald Reagan never won any arguments in Washington. He won the arguments by resonating with the American people. Those of us so proud to be Americans and willing to acknowledge that, no we’re not a perfect nation, but never, never do we have to apologize for being proud of our country (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶12).
Ronald Reagan spoke to us then, and with us. Here in our hearts is where he reached us and that’s where he won the arguments. This is the good part: and then we the American people, through him, we imposed our will on Washington, and that is the way it is supposed to be. Our government is supposed to be working for us. We are not to be working for our government. It’s our will that is to be imposed on them. He captured our hearts so he could effect positive change by what he did. He focused on our kids—on our children—on their futures, on the future of America. When he fought socialism and any sort of tyranny that he knew would ruin us, we stood strong on his knowing that the framework through which he believed was positive change—and that framework for our kids was freedom. Today, the things that some in Washington would do to take away our freedom is absolutely astounding and we would do so well to look back at those Reagan years as he championed the cause for freedom and how he then he lived it out as President (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶12-14).
Cheerfully, persistently (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶11), and unapologetically, Reagan knew that real change—real change required shaking things up. Maybe taking on the entrenched interests who were thwarting the will of the people with their ignoring of our concerns about future perils caused by selfish, shortsighted advocacy for growing government. And digging more debt; and taking away individual and states’ rights; and hampering opportunities to responsibly develop our resources; and coddling those who seek to harm America and her allies (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶15).
This is what Newt had written in this article. He also wrote: Remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved, and craved, and deserved when Reagan dealt with—with then the troublesome Soviet Union. Remember this? His vision for the Cold War: We win, they lose. And with dÃ©tente. Speaking of dÃ©tente, he used two words: “Evil Empire.” (Gingrich & Shirley, 2005, Â¶7) He called it like he saw it. And now, why today, I have to ask, why today do we feel we have to kind of pussyfoot around our troublesome foes, say for example the terrorists, who still seek to kill Americans and destroy our allies. They haven’t changed their tune. Terrorists are still dead-set against us, and set on destroying Israel; against our freedoms, and against our security. I’ve got a kid over there fighting for our country and our country’s freedom right now. It is war over there, so it will not be war over here, and it had better still be our mission that “We win, they lose” (Palin, 2009, Â¶6).
Now, on the economy, remember Reagan used to remind us that America was built on freedom and free enterprise. Reward for a strong work ethic. Some in Washington have approached our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of the principles providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed—or to fail—on their own accord. Those principles that we teach our children, and that we employ in our own businesses and our own households to balance our budgets and live within our means and financially secure our futures. It makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are really trying to accomplish here (Palin, 2009, Â¶7).
Since when can you get out of a huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt? It really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this new economic policy is explained. How do you put more Americans to work if you disincentivize business with threats of taking them over—or bailing them out—for decisions that they’ve made? And increasing taxes? That’s the only way that the new administration is going to pay for the outrageous government growth that has been laid upon us—new taxes are the only way to pay for all this. All that shoos away jobs into foreign countries and it makes us more reliant on countries that lent us the money that we have to borrow to try to sustain this new government largesse that our kids . . . and their kids . . . and their kids, are going to have to pay for. We are a selfish bunch to allow this to happen to America’s future. Someone is going to have to ‘pay the piper.’ And we’re seeing our national trade balance get really so out of whack that we need to employ Reaganism or we’re going to be headed away from being the wealthiest, most industrious, healthiest and most generous nation on the earth to having the highest negative trade balance of any nation; then its erosion of free market opportunities to build and to create and to innovate. And the shift is really not only economically preposterous, but really, if you think about it, it’s immoral (Palin, 2009, Â¶8).
Does anybody remember ‘life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?’ Because socialism—any kind of hint towards socialism—takes away freedoms, and opportunity and hope. And then we do forget that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is an inherent right that God has provided us (Palin, 2009, Â¶9).
I want to hit on one thing specific that I’m suggesting here and that’s with the stimulus package. Alaskans have heard me talk a lot about this. You got to ask yourself “what is this all about?” The process, even of creating the stimulus package, with Congress expected to vote on it without even knowing what was in it. The conservatives and Republicans in Congress, they looked at this debt-ridden, gargantuan government growth plan and they voted against it. They didn’t like it. They warned states that there were fat, fat strings attached to these dollars (Palin, 2009, Â¶10).
And there were strings. There are strings. Because that’s inherent in federal spending. That’s the nature of the beast. Of course there are strings attached. So there were lots of warnings that were given to all the states that “hey unless your state is ready to chuck the 10th Amendment and you’re going to hand over willingly more power/control to big centralized government and to DC politicians who are going to tell you what to do in your state,” the warning was: legislatures be careful with the temptation with the stimulus package dollars. They didn’t like it then. But then a bunch of the local elected officials objected–we agreed with them–then we started seeing the press releases kind of bragging about the bacon that these hundreds of millions and billions of dollars—almost a trillion dollars total were going to bring into our states. Buckets of money—of borrowed money—that would pour into the state. So, the states started being more “Hey you’d better take the money. If you don’t take it, other states are going to spend it for you.” Then, what that did, it empowered those who hold state’s purse strings to resolve to take the money anyway. Even if the public and some governors had grave concerns over growing government—it’s going to grow government. Legislatures did this via resolution to take the money and then federal agency interpretations for rules of engagement—how to accept and then spend that money—those rules kept changing. And a lot of confusion ensued (Palin, 2009, Â¶11).
And let’s be honest, states were made to really look incompetent—almost unethical—if they were staying consistent and were still saying “no” to accepting some of those federal funds that don’t necessarily stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs—as it’s being fed to us. These are short-term, expectation building, new bureaucratic growth spurts. Legislatures ended up resolving to take the money which was contributing to more dizzying national debt. The mixed messages created the confusion, and now frustration and disenchantment—with—and from our own government. And look what happened when, here in Alaska, in my administration, I vetoed the stimulus package—some of the dollars— with obvious big government strings attached, and shoot, I just about got run out of town by some (Palin, 2009, Â¶12).
Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers being led to believe, that Big Government is the answer to bail out the private sector because then government gets to get in there and control it, and—mark my words—this is going to happen next I fear—bail out next debt ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people. And watch what happens there. Michael maybe you want to talk about your home state, California. We’ll see what happens there. You know, for the love of God you have to ask yourself, where did we get off track? (Palin, 2009, Â¶13)
Michael Reagan is going to talk about getting on the right track. He knows we know here in Alaska, that America is the greatest nation on earth because our foundation is freedom. It’s in God we trust, it’s not in Big Government that we trust (Palin, 2009, Â¶14).
So I encourage Michael to keep on speaking up. And for me; you know me … before my Franco Sarto red high heels even get off the stage and touch the floor, my critics are going to be loaded for bear—they’re going to start unloading—because I dared speak up. But you, you here tonight, I know that you understand. Some though, they’re empowered by national figures, and some of the press who want to put—not just me—but anybody who dares speak up right back down in their place, if one dares speak their mind nowadays. Here in Alaska it’s kind of like this ‘new normal,’ a little bit accepted it seems like. But so be it. I think things here that have so drastically changed these past months, some want to forbid others from speaking up. It’s been through lawsuits, through ethics violation charges, and media distortions. By the way, today, we won that 14th ethics charge (Palin, 2009, Â¶15).
Alaskans can appreciate this one. We won the one where I show up at the Iron Dog, which is freezing cold, and I’m wearing my warm Arctic Cat coat, and a charge is levied against me for wearing the logo on the coat. But we won so that’s cool. There are those who want to tell me, they want to tell you to “sit down and shut up.” We will not do so! I just can’t because I love my state, I love my country. And I need you, we need Michael Reagan to keep on fighting for our freedom for our country. And what we’re being fed today, it seems, is a steady diet of selective, misrepresented news. So we need the Reagans of the world today to remind us of truth (Palin, 2009, Â¶16).
Let me ask you, why is it, considering how fast the world is spinning, and world changing events that go on all over the globe that affect our lives, world changing events, thousands of them every day, why do you suppose that the same big three, supposedly competing networks, that have virtually the same news content every night, with virtually the same exact viewpoint being spewed night after night after night? We’ve got to ask those questions. So I join you in speaking up and asking the questions, taking action (Palin, 2009, Â¶17).
Here at home, in my beloved Alaska, I just say, politically speaking, if I die, I die. I’ll know that I have spoken up, and I will speak up. To thank people like Mr. Reagan, as we honor his dad. To encourage you too, Alaskans, to do the same, and don’t just hang in there and go along to get along, but stand up and speak up and be bold and demand that Washington be prudent with our public monies and prioritize for America’s security. And forget the political correctness that makes one guard our conversations and couch our words so cautiously that they lose meaning, and then we lose effectiveness, and then we lose hope because we start thinking that politicians are only worried about their poll numbers and attracting campaign contributions for their next bid so they can hold on to some title for some position. No, let’s remind them, those who we elect, that we expect them to be bold, and so they are to be representing the will of the people to defend our Constitution and to win our wars (Palin, 2009, Â¶18).
And obviously me not being, heck not many of us here tonight, are in that political, financial, academic, elite center of power. We’re not there. And it’s kind of refreshing to be outside of that, to tell you the truth. I am just a mom. I am a proud, Alaskan hockey mom. And I love my country, and I am concerned about my kids’ future, and your kids’ future. Since I was raised where it is rugged, and you kind of have to be tough, with dogged determination in order to survive sometimes. Well, not many of us in Alaska are inclined to just sit down and shut up, and I thank Michael Reagan for honoring Alaska by being here tonight, continuing to lead a cause for a better America (Palin, 2009, Â¶19).
Let’s hear it for Michael Reagan (Palin, 2009, Â¶20).
This speech was delivered on June 3, 2009 in Anchorage, Alaska, as documented and commented on by the original entry.
Governor Palin properly attributed Newt Gingrich’s words — several times. This is incontrovertible. The following statement from her lawyer should be instructive, as even public figures enjoy some rudimentary protection against libel and slander:
“Though there is considerable constitutional leeway for comment about public officials, statements made with malice are actionable. Actual malice is akin to deceit and misrepresentation. It is an intentional misrepresentation to assert, as fact, that Governor Palin failed to attribute her paraphrased commentary to Mr. Gingrich. It is also a statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way, it is defamatory.” (Van Flein, 2009, p. 2).
Gingrich, N.and Shirley, C. (2005, November 1). “Republicans need to relearn lessons of the Reagan revolution.” American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from: http://www.aei.org/article/23415
Palin, S.L.H. (2009, June 3). “Introduction of Michael Reagan” in (2009, June 7). Cease and desist letter to Anchorage Daily News. Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen, Thorsness, LLC. Retrieved June 9, 2009 from: http://conservatives4palin.googlegroups.com/web/ltr+Hulen+FINAL+compressed%5B1%5D.pdf?hl=en&gda=Kt7NL1cAAACPgrsFYYeNCJc2VCWrdAoAPMXlCGHy6_jg6ZM9fqBfGEiujO5XiP7kOSDy8LizerkCIqfSnSzCwoAoukLUxiSsYZqzEd7hr7z69NT6IftdMXleHbr-qQzBoYYWXY0JTQM&gsc=mdgOewsAAACLDnWp0EGd6z4PkKkb_zOj