Adult Stem Cells Help Conquer Lupus

by David Prentice

March 20, 2014

Post Image

Jackie Stollfus is a very caring and happy person.  But systemic lupus threatened her health, happiness, and even her life.  Lupus is an autoimmune disease affecting more than 5 million people worldwide.  “Lupus is my body attacking my body,” explains Jackie.  “If you have a cold, your body attacks the cold.  My body attacks my kidneys.  It doesn’t know the difference between a cold or my kidneys or my skin or my blood, it’s attacking it.”  There is no known cure, only treatment of symptoms with medication.  And none of the medications worked for Jackie.

When all seemed lost, Jackie’s doctor suggested she look into the work being done by Dr. Richard Burt at the Northwestern University School of Medicine in Chicago.  Jackie’s treatment involved using her own adult stem cells, which as Jackie puts it gave her “a brand new immune system.”  Five years later, she’s better than ever, enjoying the outdoors with her husband Brian while looking ahead to a long, happy life—and a family.

Adult stem cells have given Lupus survivor Jackie Stollfus a better life, better health, and a chance to be a mom.

Watch Jackie’s story at Stemcellresearchfacts.org!

Why you should care about Elane Photography

by Travis Weber

March 19, 2014

Sometime in the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will hear the case of Elane Photography v. Willock. The owners of Elane Photography are Christians, and their views and beliefs are reflected in how they run their business. Yet the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Elane Photography violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law provisions regarding sexual orientation when its owners refused to agree to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Elane Photography’s owners are merely asking the government to not compel them to participate in actions which violate their religious beliefs. Consequently, when the government forces them to participate in the same-sex ceremony by photographing it (with the threat of a fine if they refuse), the government is forcing and compelling Elane’s owners to speak a certain message in violation of the First Amendment.

Even supporters of same-sex marriage see the danger of the government’s position and its use of anti-discrimination law in this case. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Eugene Volokh (professor at UCLA law school) and Ilya Shapiro (with the Cato Institute) point out that a ruling against Elane Photography here sets a dangerous precedent that allows the government to compel speech in the cause of furthering equality through powerful and broad anti-discrimination laws. The next victim may be someone quite unlike Elane’s owners. It could be “a freelance writer who declines to write a press release for a religious organization with which he disagrees.” According to the New Mexico Supreme Court’s reasoning in Elane Photography, this writer has violated anti-discrimination law because his refusal to write such a press release is discrimination based on religion, just like Elane Photography’s refusal to photograph the commitment ceremony is being viewed by the government as discrimination. Yet a photographer, writer, speaker, publisher, or other artist “must have the First Amendment right to choose which speech he creates, notwithstanding any state law to the contrary.”

As Volokh and Shapiro state, “a couple that is told by a photographer that she does not want to photograph their commitment ceremony may understandably be offended. But avoiding offense is not a valid reason for restricting or compelling speech… . The First Amendment secures an important right to which all speakers are entitled — whether religious or secular, liberal or conservative, pro- or anti-gay-marriage. A commitment to legal equality can’t justify the restriction of that right.”

Elane Photography highlights an important point — individuals with different views regarding the definition of marriage can still agree that free speech must trump “forced equality.” Indeed, the freedom from such “compelled speech” is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When speech motivated by religious beliefs is forced to pass muster with the government’s censors and Americans are forced to speak a certain message under the threat of fines and force of law, all who love individual liberty and free speech (regardless of personal views) must stand up and pay attention.

Be Wary of Uniform Education Measurements

by Nathan Oppman

March 18, 2014

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal cited the challenge of measuring college success. As college debt increases, it will likely become more important to acquire tangible measure of collegiate success. Some members of Congress and the Department of Education have weighed in with new ways to measure college outcomes.

The problem with establishing uniform measurements is that education is multi-faceted. Getting a job is not necessarily an indication of academic success. College is not designed to be a job training center, but to give students a greater understanding of the world. Education is valuable beyond the workforce in such areas as voting, training children, and morality. If a degree does not directly lead to a job, then it is not necessarily wasted. If going to college leads to a job, it does not mean the education was exceptional.

It is important to accurately assess the many benefits that college education can provide. But we should be assessing those benefits at the local level and should seek to discourage any government imposed national measurements. From No Child Left Behind to Common Core, we have learned that we must be wary of our government’s involvement in education. Keep an eye open for national collegiate success measurements and tell the federal government to keep out of the classroom.

Wahlburgers — An Appetizing New Show about a Devoted Family

by Chris Gacek

March 17, 2014

I have been pleasantly surprised by a cable show on A&E that celebrates family and follows the activities of a large American family that runs a business. I am not talking about Duck Dynasty. Rather, it is the show that follows DD: Wahlburgers about which I write. Wahlburgers tells about the efforts of Mark, Donnie, Paul, and Alma (their mother) Wahlberg to start a restaurant franchise (Wahlburgers) that specializes in hamburgers and sandwiches. The first restaurant is located near Boston in Hingham, Mass.

Of course, Mark and Donnie Wahlberg are the actor/singer/entertainers of various art forms. Paul is the chef who produces the recipes and food. Paul also manages the restaurant(s) and lives near Boston — as does his mother. Mark lives in Los Angeles; Donnie is a New Yorker these days. All of the family members are hard-working and entrepreneurial.

It turns out that the Alma Wahlberg raised something like nine children in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Apparently, the family grew up living around or below the poverty line. That may be due to the divorce of the parents in 1982, but Alma did raise the family on a shoestring. Alma is the peacemaker and mediator who keeps the brothers working together. As one would expect from someone who raised so many children, she is practical and she knows their personalities. Her kids mind her when she tells them to get in line. Alma is definitely the Alpha Wahlberg. That said, her sons absolutely adore her and the childhood she gave them.

A&E was insightful when it placed Wahlburgers after Duck Dynasty each Wednesday evening. While the families themselves and the programs are quite different, the centrality of family lies at the core of each series. Fewer than ten Wahlburgers have been produced, so the show could go completely off the rails. I hope future episodes focus more on Alma, Paul, and the business’s development with less time on the oddball family friends. We shall see, but it is worth a look via DVR sans commercials.

In Patrick’s Footsteps

by Robert Morrison

March 17, 2014

I was just going along for the ride. My good wife had always wanted to go to Ireland. Since I didn’t speak Irish, and since I didn’t have any known Irish ancestors, I wasn’t sure why I should go. Still, since it meant so much to my beloved spouse and since it was our thirtieth wedding anniversary, I thought I should go along with her.

We flew into Shannon. Immediately, we had a wrinkle. Lots of wrinkles, actually, since our airline lost our bags. Happily, my missus had planned an extra day in the little town of Ennis prior to the start of our scheduled tour.

We rushed to the local department store to buy some extra clothing for what we expected would be a 10-day stay. Everywhere, the people were amazingly friendly. So we decided to take a walking tour of Ennis. It was not known as a tourist spot, but tour guide Jane O’Brian could make any stop interesting.

With her freckles and long red hair, she seemed my idea of Irishness. She started by asking each of us for our Irish roots, our connections. Most in our group of ten listed relatives who had come from Ireland to America in the 19th century. My wife named her grandfather, Jim Daugherty, a good Irish name. When Jane got to me, I said I had no Irish roots. “Well, where are your people from,” she pressed. “Denmark,” I said, thinking it might be more diplomatic to avoid all those Germans in the family tree. “Ah, sir,” she smiled, “the Danes founded Waterford, Wexford, and Dublin. You’re home!” Well, from that moment, I felt at home.

Throughout our Irish vacation, we traveled the West and saw the sights. It was the greenest and cleanest place I’d ever been. They actually have “Tidy Village” contests in Ireland, so proud they are of their neat whitewashed cottages with their thatched roofs.

Everywhere we went, we saw large cemeteries from the Nineteenth Century Potato Famine. These there were for those who never survived to immigrate to America. The Celtic crosses speak to the deep Christian roots of this ancient people. Our guides put special emphasis on the term potato of the famine. That was because, they told us, there were plenty of other grains produced by Ireland in those years of the 1840s. But absentee English landlords required that those grains be shipped to England in fulfillment of prior contracts.

Thousands of Irish immigrants booked passage aboard ships to America. Many of these were so unhealthy that they were called “Coffin Ships.” Many an Irish village celebrated their departing sons and daughters in parties that differed little from the famous Irish wake. They doubted they would ever see one another again.

The soil of the West is so thin that it can barely support vegetation. English conqueror Oliver Cromwell complained in the 1650s that these counties contained “not enough soil to feed a man or to grow a tree to hang him on.” Cromwell is not, needless to say, a local hero.

Our guide tells us that Ireland was historically too poor to afford “modern” agricultural techniques. Thus, their beef cattle were grazed only on mineral-rich grass. Now, Irish beef is the most prized in Europe. (I can attest that Ireland had the best beef I have ever tasted. And the best fish, lamb, and pork, too. As well, the best potatoes, bread, and butter. I have the numbers on my scale to prove it!)

The best part of our Irish trip was to stand in a sixth century church in Glendalough.

Ireland gives you this sense of the Church Eternal. They have survived invasions by Danes, by Vikings, by English, and other barbarous raiders bent on destruction. Just to see these ruins, these ancient walls, is to realize what Jesus meant when he said “the gates of hell” will not prevail over His Church.

When we got to Dublin, the only big city on our route, we ran to O’Connell Street, the major thoroughfare. I wanted to see the General Post Office, the scene of the famous, failed Easter Rebellion of 1916. Entering the impressive classic facade, we saw postal clerks dispensing stamps and taking in packages. Could this be the place where the British fired artillery point blank? We asked an aged guard — a squat fellow who looked for all the world like Archie Bunker — if this was the scene of “the Rising.”

Ah, sure,” said Joe, as he pointed to a bullet hole still visible in the high window. We asked Joe what he thought of the idea of a Royal Visit to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth II. It was a question raised by some of our fellow American tourists. Joe answered with a fierce look. “The French had the right idea about monarchs,” he said, drawing his finger across his throat.

Then, Joe pointed outside to the bustling commercial street named for Irish patriot, Daniel O’Connell. “Look up and down the street,” he gestured, “you’ll see German flags and Swiss flags, American flags and Chinese flags, but you’ll never see that Butcher’s Apron anywhere in Dublin,” he said. He meant Britain’s Union Jack. (Shudder)

Actually, the Queen did visit Ireland, in 2011. And in general, the visit came off without any untoward incidents. But Irish national feeling is still strong.

They say the Irish are “drunk on history.” With my love of history, it was like discovering a new planet. I went on a history bender. I gained a much deeper appreciation of my own beloved America by understanding the struggle of millions of Irish who came to join us in the Great Republic.

Visiting Ireland, I finally understood my late friends, Joe Barrett and Mike Schwartz. They had actually led demonstrations against Queen Elizabeth II when she came to the White House in 1992. I was inside the gate, holding my little Union Jack of welcome. Joe and Mike were protesting outside. They were two of the strongest pro-lifers whose ancestors hailed from Eire. They gave me the strength to carry on, even when all looked grimmest.

When my wife and I saw the Book of Kells at Dublin’s Trinity College, our guide was Dervla, She is a highly educated Irishwoman of decidedly liberal views. She made that clear from the start. “We’re not so much interested in what the monks were writing, but in the marvelous artistry of their illuminations,” She was literally praising the letters while ignoring the spirit that lives through those brilliantly illustrated Gospel pages that date from 800 AD.

My wife looked at me as if to say: Don’t make a scene, please. I didn’t. But I did marvel that Dervla could lead tours of this ancient treasure and miss the testimony of Christian faith and fidelity that they represent. I was reminded of a quote from Martin Luther about scholarly unbelievers: “They behold these wonders like a cow staring at a new door.” The Book of Kells is alone worth a trip to the Emerald Isle. Everything else is pure joy.

The Social Conservative Review: March 13, 2014

by Krystle Gabele

March 13, 2014

Click here to subscribe to The Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends:

The director of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity, Arina Grossu, was in New York this week for the U.N.’s Conference on Women. At event in a packed room, co-sponsored by our friends at the Catholic Family Association and REAL Women of Canada, Arina gave a convincing presentation on lowering maternal mortality around the world and how the UN should not focus on abortion legalization or “reproductive rights” but on real medical solutions to lower the risk of maternal mortality.

Abortion remains one of our great national shames, and is extending well beyond surgical procedures. As Arina wrote earlier this week in The Daily Caller, “Early medical abortions are on the rise … Using gestational data from the CDC, Guttmacher estimated that 36 percent of abortions up to nine weeks’ gestation in 2011 were early medication procedures compared to 26 percent in 2008.”

But there’s good news, too: Last week, the Alabama state legislature passed four bills designed to curtail abortion, including “a fetal heartbeat bill, which would ban abortion when the fetal heartbeat is detected at about six weeks.”

The fight for life continues. The unborn deserve the protection of law. Their mothers deserve better than the exploitation of the abortion industry. Whether at the U.N. or in the states, FRC is working with our pro-life allies to achieve those great goals. Thanks for standing with us as we stand with the most vulnerable of us all.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice President
Family Research Council

P.S. Download (at no charge) Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg’s new study, “Understanding Windsor: What the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act Did - and Did Not - Say” here.


Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
Abortion

Euthanasia/End of Life Issues

Stem Cells and Biotechnology

Marriage & Family
Common Core

Family Life

Human Sexuality

Homosexuality and Same-Sex “Marriage”

Pornography

Human trafficking

Religious Liberty

Religion in Public Life

International Religious Liberty

Other important articles

Book Reviews

Perfect Together: Social and Defense Conservatives”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 12, 2014

My friend Bob Patterson has written a perceptive piece in National Review Online on what should be recognized as the natural alliance between national security conservatives and socially conservative Christians.

As he notes, “(President Obama) anticipates spending $844 billion on federal welfare programs in 2015, a whopping 4.6 percent of projected GDP. In comparison, President Reagan whittled federal welfare spending to 2.2 percent of GDP in his second term. To put it another way, in 1985 we spent nearly two and a half times as many dollars on defense as on welfare, but if Obama gets his way, next year we’ll be spending 35 percent more on welfare than on defense. And that doesn’t count state-level welfare spending, which accounts for the highest single line-item of state budgets.”

Read Bob’s piece in its entirety here.

On the Free Exercise of Government…

by Travis Weber

March 10, 2014

Legal scholar and novelist Garrett Epps opens his recent piece in The Atlantic with the following statement: “If the conservative justices uses [sic] the same logic they have in the past, Hobby Lobby’s case against the contraceptive mandate doesn’t stand a chance.”

Mr. Epps conveniently finds praise for Supreme Court precedent, a position often either used or discarded as best serves the cultural assault on Christian ethics. Indeed, one can scarcely find lamentations about discarded precedent as district courts currently invent a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. Here, however, Mr. Epps simply distracts from the free exercise issues in the Hobby Lobby case.

Hobby Lobby’s case centers on a free exercise claim brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). But Mr. Epps relies almost entirely on Establishment Clause cases as he attempts to argue that Hobby Lobby has no right to refuse to pay for certain contraceptives.

After laying out his arguments, he appears to receive the following special revelation: “But that’s the rub… When government directly funds religion, the Establishment Clause is violated; but when government gives benefits to individuals, and the individuals pass on the benefit to religion, no dissenter is injured, so there’s no violation.” After discussing how taxpayers should not be forced to provide money directly to churches, he asks: “Why is Hobby Lobby injured if the taxpayers in the Establishment Clause cases are not?”

I would have thought the answer is rather clear: the taxpayers are not seeking to exercise any right based on a religious objection to action compelled by the government. Exactly what “rub” Mr. Epps is talking about remains unclear. Hobby Lobby’s case is about whether the “exercise of religion” is substantially burdened under RFRA. It is not about the Establishment Clause or individuals being forced to support religion at the direction of the government.

Nevertheless, Mr. Epps continues: “[T]o assert a right to control employees’ private choice will be to hold that religious people — or, even more ominously, some favored religious people — are more easily injured than others, that their free-exercise rights trump those of their employees.” Mr. Epps does not explain what he means by “favored” religious people, but he falsely asserts that Hobby Lobby is seeking to control its employees’ choices. The Greens are not preventing their employees from obtaining the contraceptives at issue; they are merely saying: “Don’t make us violate our consciences by forcing us to use our company as the conduit for their delivery.” The Greens, like many Americans, simply want to remain free to live and work according to their beliefs. They don’t want to be forced to choose between paying crippling fines, shutting down their business, or dropping healthcare for their employees in order to avoid violating their consciences.

It remains unclear what “free exercise rights … of … employees” Mr. Epps is talking about. The reader hopes he is not suggesting that an individual’s religion requires their employer to pay for their contraception — indeed, such an idea is nonsensical. In any event, such musings are merely a distraction from reality, as Hobby Lobby’s employees have suffered no violation of their constitutional rights — they retain full access to all the contraceptives available under the employer mandate.

Furthermore, Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for 16 of the 20 contraceptives required by the mandate. The Green family only objects to 4 drugs that destroy human embryos, and does not want to be compelled to pay for the destruction of human life. In addition, Hobby Lobby is not objecting to employee access to these 4 life-destroying drugs, but merely saying it should not be compelled to cover them.

Mr. Epps’ claim that “[a]ll consciences are equal; but some are thus more equal than others” might sound catchy, but it twists the truth and clouds a proper understanding of the issue at hand. There is no conscience right to demand that others subsidize one’s birth control methods. And contrary to his assertions, RFRA does “elevate” religious claims when it forces the government to justify itself under strict scrutiny in free exercise matters. It does not merely “balance” free exercise claims against whatever law the government puts in place.

In an odd conclusion to his piece, Mr. Epps attempts to cite the Gospel of Luke for support of his anti-religious position. The parable he cites is actually in the Gospel of Matthew. But more importantly, the passage does not even support his argument. Examining the story in its full context, the laborers were actually complaining to their master about the size of their respective paychecks. The generous master (God) says he has the right to do what he wants with his own resources. This parable hardly supports the notion that Hobby Lobby’s employees should coerce it to subsidize their wages (which for beginning employees starts at 90% above the federal minimum wage) with birth control.

Hobby Lobby is not seeking to “dictate” anything to its employees. Hobby Lobby is not preventing its employees from using birth control methods. Hobby Lobby is merely saying: “Don’t force me to cover them!” The Greens are not trying to control employee choices; they simply object to being forced to subsidize acts that go against their religion.

In the end, the members of the Green family are merely seeking to exercise their religion as they run their company. Such a demand is not beyond the bounds of reasonable free exercise interpretation. RFRA makes that secure. The Court has supported even bolder free exercise claims in the past. It should support the Greens’ rather modest claim in this case.

Last month, FRC filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case that can be read here.

Friendship, Feelings, and Homosexuality: Thoughts on Truth and Love

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 7, 2014

In an arresting piece about his denomination’s struggles in dealing with homosexuality, United Methodist Pastor Talbot Davis writes:

When therapy turns into theology … our experience and our empathy determine our doctrine. I’ve been in those counseling sessions. Asked to officiate a same-gender wedding. Invited to bless a same-gender union. And the pastor in me longs to tell folks what they want to hear, yearns to affirm the narrative I’m privileged to be part of. And yet over against that personal, pastoral desire, I hear another question: have we become so good at empathetic listening that we have lost the capacity for critical thinking?

Because it seems to me that the role of the Scripture has been precisely to guard against what so many of us now do in elevating personal experience to the level of revealed truth. Theologically, then, Scripture protects us from ourselves. Which is why Paul tells Timothy: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (and) why Jeremiah declares: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”

Personal experience and individual feelings — even when others share those experiences and feel those feelings — are among the weakest of rationales for shifting theology and changing doctrine. The reason the church does theology and arrives at doctrine is to protect us from our natural tendency to turn what we feel into what we believe.

Feelings of warmth and acceptance are natural with respect to people we love, like, and respect. To lack them is virtual sociopathy. Yet the Bible calls Christians to stand for truth - not with rancor or anger, but with the right balance of kindness and firmness.

Not to uphold the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality is to show a lack of love. Sexual intimacy as God intended it - within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman - is beautiful, life-affirming, and life-giving. Sexual intimacy outside these parameters, however enjoyable transiently, leads to the withering of the soul and the erosion of society.

Pastor Davis is right: We cannot derive our theology from our emotions. Theological doctrine stems from another source, the unchanging Word of God, and is as it is because a loving Designer enables us to realize our sexuality best in the context of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

Churchill’s March 5, 1946 Iron Curtain Speech: A Lesson for Today?

by Robert Morrison

March 5, 2014

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill spoke at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, on this day in 1946. His phrase — “an iron curtain has descended across Europe” — was seen by some as the beginning of the Cold War. But Churchill wanted nothing more than to rally the democracies to take a strong stand, a united stand for their own freedom.

Churchill understood Russia’s great suffering during World War II. More than twenty million Russians, Ukrainians, and other peoples of the then-USSR had perished in what they called “the Great Patriotic War.” Churchill certainly wanted no new world war.

His message was essentially the same that wise American presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan had spoken of — peace through strength. With President Harry Truman on the same stage, the honored world statesman said:

From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. If however [the Western democracies] become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.

Last time I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again.

Because President Truman and the Western European allies heeded Churchill’s timely warning then, we were spared a Third World War. With American leadership from both political parties, programs like the Marshall Plan and military and political institutions like NATO brought us together in time to save freedom and peace.

What we have seen in recent years is the very opposite of what Churchill counseled. President Obama ceremoniously tossed Churchill’s bust out of the Oval Office. With it, into the snow, went much of Churchill’s wisdom, too.

In his first week in office, Mr. Obama flourished his pen and affixed his left-handed signature to an Executive Order closing the U.S. Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This was so ordered within one year. “So let it be written! So let it be done!” [Sound the trumpets.]

And nothing happened. I have never thought it was a good idea to close Gitmo. But if the President of the United States so commits his administration to a policy — and then so clearly fails to follow through, he invites contempt. He broadcasts weakness. Five years later, Gitmo is still open.

Former Sec. of State George Schulz was once asked what was the most important foreign policy decision made by his chief, President Reagan. Without hesitation, he said: “The firing of the air traffic controllers.” Reagan hated firing those hard-working government employees, but he knew that federal law forbade such strikes. He appealed to the controllers to return to work. They refused. He fired them.

Even the secret police of the Soviet Union took notice. With Reagan, said the KGB, “words are deeds.” With President Obama, the world has learned, words are words.

Russian President Putin has not brought down the Iron Curtain across Eastern Europe. But every move Mr. Obama has made in five years toward Russia has telegraphed American weakness.

From the adolescent stunt of Hillary Clinton’s red “reset” button in early 2009, to Mr. Obama’s behind-the-hand comment to Dmitri Medvedev “Tell Vladimir I can be more flexible after the election [of 2012],” the message has been one of irresolution and confusion.

Reagan built up the U.S. military in order to deal with the Soviets from a position of strength. He was able in 1987 to sign the biggest arms reduction treaty with Gorbachev in world history.

It’s worth saying again: Ronald Reagan signed the biggest arms reduction treaty – INF — in world history.

Did that get Reagan the Nobel Peace Prize? Of course not. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for oratory. For words.

Everything that Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Lech Walesa, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others achieved in the 1980s is at risk today.

Churchill had words for that, too. Noting the failure to back their words with strong actions, Churchill warned the democracies not to “resume the follies which had nearly cost them their lives.”

Churchill’s “Iron Curtain Speech,” delivered this day in 1946. It’s well worth reading.

Archives