On this 65th D-Day anniversary, we honor the Greatest Generation for their heroic and successful efforts to free Europe from Nazi rule. Since we conservatives are forced to endure an Obama presidency, let’s go back a few decades to another D-Day anniversary that was celebrated by an American president who truly loved his country and believed in its freedoms, Ronald Reagan: the greatest president of the 20th century.
Read from Joshua Pundit:

Loyalty And Love: D-Day, 65 Years Later
“Today is the 65th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, which began the process of freeing Europe from Fascism. Given the times we live in, it has particular relevance today, as the members of the WWII generation fade into the sunset.
…..
In 1984, President Reagan traveled to Point Du Hoc, which is now a military cemetery dedicated to those who fell at Normandy. He spoke to a group of veterans and others who had traveled to be there on the 40th anniversary of the battle, and he had a few things to say to them:
‘.... This place, Pointe du Hoc, in itself was moving and majestic. I stood there on that windswept point with the ocean behind me. Before me were the boys who forty years before had fought their way up from the ocean. Some rested under the white crosses and Stars of David that stretched out across the landscape. Others sat right in front of me. They looked like elderly businessmen, yet these were the kids who climbed the cliffs.
We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.
We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.
Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.
The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only ninety could still bear arms.
And behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. And these are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor." {...}
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought -- or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4:00 am. In Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying. And in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.
Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: "Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do." Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."
These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies. {...}
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. {...}
We will pray forever that someday that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.
We're bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we're with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.
Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."
Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.
Thank you very much, and God bless you all.’
To me, it was one of President Reagan's finest speeches, and his words are as true today as they were in 1984.
We have another president now, one who speaks the language of appeasement and nuance, who pointedly refuses to confront evil when it approaches. Not only has he divided the country by attacking America's core values, but he has deliberately done exactly the opposite he promised to do during his campaign, alienating our allies in Europe and elsewhere and emboldening our enemies. In spite of the soothing rhetoric pulsing through his stereo teleprompters, he is a man who's values are ultimately opposed to the heroism and values symbolized by the Pont Du Hoc, an accident of history that may cost America dearly.
There is this, however. When I look at the faces of the men in our military today, I see the same qualities I noticed in the faces in the photographs from 60 years ago, the faces of the men who saved us from Hitler. I see the same determination, the same courage and faith, and the same loyalty and love.
It is living proof etched in their faces that, deep down at the core, we are the same country we were then.
If you look at our country's history, you see that we have never failed to find leadership in the darkest of times, or to prevail. We have done so in the past and we will do so again in the future.
And knowing that, I am more convinced than ever that the West will indeed stand, and freedom will triumph, just as it did 65 years ago.”
5 comments:
Very nice speech. Inspiring. But it's amazing that, with the disdain you show Obama as one who can give a good speech now and then, you'd annoint Ronald Reagan as the greatest President of the 20th Century. Ronald Reagan was a nice old guy who could hit his marks and read a script after a long career as a B movie and TV actor. But greatest President of the 20th Century? That's just silly. Just off the top of my head, you've got plenty of more worthy candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman. Heck, if you're willing to overlook Watergate (which I'm not) you could even argue Richard Nixon for his foreign relations coups. But Reagan? Sorry.
He was hailed a the Great Tax Cutter, but he only cut taxes his first year in office. After that, he realized that the deficits his government was going to rack up (because, despite his rhetoric, he never really reined in the growth of government) were going to cripple the economy, so he raised taxes continually during his last seven years in office. And he had little to do with ending Communism, which pretty much collapsed from its own dead weight. Yeah, he gave a nice speech about Mr. Gorbachev tearing down the Berlin Wall, and it did get torn down a year and change later, but it's a fairy tale to think it was a cause-effect deal.
I respect President Reagan and his Normandy speech, but let's not overdo the hyperbole.
"And he had little to do with ending Communism, which pretty much collapsed from its own dead weight."
Diogenes, what are you smoking?
Very intelligent response, Ms. Moore. But it doesn't change the fact that Reagan didn't bring down Commmunism. At best, he helped hasten Communism's downfall by being in the right place at the right time. But most honest analysts will concede that it collapsed of its own weight, while he was President.
What do you think he did to bring down Communism? His vaunted "Star Wars" defense system? Oh, wait: that never happened outside the movies, did it?
No, it's part of the Reagan myth.
Check out "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future" by Will Bunch. I'm reading it right now, actually.
But if a "book" is too much for you, perhaps some of the following online sources might help:
"Ronald Reagan's Presidency Did Not Cause the Collapse of the Soviet Union"
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS308US308&q=Reagan+collapse+communism
"AMERICA'S FAVORITE MYTHS: RONALD REAGAN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE EVIL EMPIRE"
http://www.theamericans.us/reagan-American%20Myths.html
hmmmm... i heard something on espn radio today saying that given enough time and effort, one could make an arguement babe ruth was the worst baseball player of the early 1920's. with his strikeouts and alcohol abuse, lack of fielding abilities... but thats just ridiculous to say babe ruth isnt in the top 20 baseball players ever. the point of this was that in sports you can pretty much skew any statistic to fit an arguement to either promote or demote a player.
i feel the same can be done with presidents. statistics will only go as far as people are willing to care about them. what goes up must come down, cause and effect, etc... with tax cuts (yay!!) comes less things the government can pay for (boo!!) with local funding for low income areas and bailout plans (yay!!) comes less money for say military, foreign policies, you get the idea.
with that being said, its what you're wiling to put up with and whats in your best interest that will decide which side you fall on. are you for military spending? if so then you're willing to put up with less money locally or from some other area. then that statistic is good. so ultimately thats your opinion to which president you end up favoring.
as for ronald reagan, i believe he was an inspiring and remarkable president (arguably the most of the 20th century). he was polarizing, he could speak to the media without winking, he appealed to a lot of people, he made people believe in what he was doing was right. as long as the people follow the president, generally, his policies will work, and he's a hero. but the basic morals america was founded under (which people say is turning to shit now) allowed reagan to be successful.
contrary to diogenes, i would say i do believe reagan was a huge factor in stopping communism. Russia was a wealthy nation after world war 2. massive amounts of spending on both america and russia's parts to be a world power was really sealing russia's doom. reagan worked america's money just right so that the american economy was on the up, the military was stronger than it had ever been, we were in and out of conflicts in the middle east but, i've come to accept that the middle east will never be peaceful, we really helped send them in the tubes when they tried to keep up with us in the space race as well, along with the weapons race. that kind of competition proved that communism doesn't work, and while democracy isnt the perfect government, it is more superior to any right now. and reagan knew that. so i give him the credentials he deserves, go reagan.
Diogenes, you're not. Not even close. From your rhetoric, I surmise that you believe the tripe you write. You're wrong about Reagan, and you're wrong about Obama.
Sure, we all know Reagan was an actor; what politician, to some degree, is not? (Reference Obama - speaking of teleprompters and scripts) But Reagan carried the convictions of his words; Obama's words ring hollow.
By your choices for the best of the 20th Century (with the exception of Harry) you reveal yourself to be a progressive. Big Government, and more of it, quickly. You must have listened closely to your progressive teachers in school, as you spout the drivel that they have infected the American school system with over the last 30 or so years. If you had been blessed to attend a school that was not intent on brainwashing you, you would realize that American exceptionalism is a fact and something to be proud of, not as you seem to indicate, something to abhor.
Was Reagan the best of the 2oth Century? Maybe not, but he was right up there. Why did the Soviet system "collapse under it's own weight"? For one thing, because Reagan helped immensely to push it to the brink. His speech at the Berlin Wall with his ad-libbed line "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was a U.S. public relations coup. (I can still remember, with pride, when the wall came down.)
We are all free to believe what we wish, no matter how nutty or off the mark. You are proof of that.
Mr. Not-so-egotistical-as-to-call-myself-Dogenes
Post a Comment