This morning I severed communications with one of New Zealands most vocal opponents to Waitangi Apartheid.
John Ansell.
This is not a move I take lightly.
I have spend thousands of my own dollars that could have gone towards my family, my taxes, etc supporting John and his quest to expose the revisionist history which is corrupting the minds of our fellow New Zealanders, and to rally support for the cause of the establishment of One Law for all.
I even missed out on going to see my favorite band in the whole world, choosing to put those funds behind John Ansell.
I do not regret any of this.
I believe it was the right thing to do.
Nor do I reverse my position on the righteousness of the cause to establish Race-free government.

John has many character faults that make working with him difficult, yet I am dis-associating myself from him primarily because I find his attitude towards Muslims to be extremely bigoted…. John Ansell is an incurable Islamaphobe, and because his underlying Political philosophy is bereft of Principle,exposing much of his argument against Watangi apartheid as mere rhetoric.
I believe on these scores, he is not an asset to the cause of ‘One Law for all’, but a liability, and wonder if John would be so vocal against racist laws…in times and places where white folk like himself had the legal advantages?

I have no intention of doing dirty laundry in public, yet I find it essential that I publicly distance myself from him, and I cannot do so without a minimum of explanation.
Nor did I make this decision without having first trying to break through to my friend, by exposing the willful ignorance his xenophobia is founded upon, or the evils of his political philosophy… unchecked mandate of majority… which is purely arbitrary Law… purely Mob rule….. ie the delusions of absolute democracy.

Early on… like so many Islamiphobes John… in the throws of Terrorist paranoia… would spout ‘Where are the voices of the so-called moderates?’, yet even after I presented countless examples, one which evidenced 1.5 million Muslims signing a petition that they opposed Isis, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, John was not moved… but said “When they condemn the violence of Mohammed then he might reconsider ”

This proves John is a Bigot… incapable of distinguishing peaceful and tolerant Muslims, from terrorist extremists.
He is beyond reason.
Out of reach.
Isis/ Daesh smiles.

Syrian children take shelter from Russian Bombs.

John is not moved at Innocent Syrian children washing up on the beaches of Europe… and that is not a person I wish to associate with or support.
He cannot protest my assertion because of his ‘Closed boarders’ attitude towards Muslim Refugees, and support for the Mad man Donald Trump.

One of the hardest things for Libertarians like myself to do is to give our support and political wisdom to single interest Lobby groups such as ‘One Law for all’, or ‘Ending cannabis prohibition’ type groups even though in principle we believe their causes to be just.
The reason being virtually all of them…. their motives are not pure… but absolutely self centered, causing them to reject the righteous Libertarian solutions to their problems.
This is because in *every other sphere of politics*, they side with tyranny… they desire the perpetuation of other injustices which would fall if they embraced *Principles*.
So for example this means the many activists against cannabis prohibition, are also activists for Tobacco prohibition and balk at constitutional restraints that though they would end cannabis prohibition, would also protect cigarette smokers from their bigotry.
Everyone wants freedom for themselves, but oppression for others they don’t like or fear.
They want free speech for themselves, yet Prohibitions on other opinions, etc.

John is like this.
As White victim of prejudice he wants liberation, yet on most other counts he loves tyranny, and actually works against me in my quest for *The Rule of Law* above arbitrary whim.
And so over the years I have noticed just how one-sided the relationship has been for me with just about every single issue lobby group I have tried to help.
While I am busy furnishing them with arms… they are busy marginalising my influence… virtually never giving me a help up when the media gives them opportunity… because deep down… they dont want my ideas to triumph.
This is most noticeable with Act party Supporters who love to claim they are classical liberals yet always take care never to promote Libertarians… they in reality prefer the company of socialists!
An example of this is Act man Garry Mallet’s new group running for Hamilton city council, claiming to represent many of the policies he knows I have tirelessly work for over the last 15 years… yet he has not called me to join him.
He probably thinks ‘I’m too radical. ‘Too unelectable’, etc… these are the sorts of excuses the compromisers love to salve their own consciences with when they know they are betraying the virtuous idealists who bravely proclaim their Libertarianism.
Even writing this ‘is evidence’ in their minds that Libertarians are incapable of diplomacy.

Most of these un-principled types have a common political hash-up which makes both left and right virtually indistinguishable at heart… they all claim to be Democrats that oppose constitution restraints on parliament. (for reasons enunciated above)

Years ago I wrote this in support of Frank Bainimarama… “Democracy is simply a counting of heads regardless of content. True liberty exists only when the inalienable rights of all individuals, regardless of race or colour, are put beyond the vote.
Belief in the ‘democracy fallacy’ [as being synonymous with the rule of law] is so prevalent however that when a democracy is overthrown, even a racist democracy such as Fiji’s undeniably was, many immediately say that the perpetrators are dangerous criminals!

The reality is that democracy can be as unjust as an absolute monarchy, and it is just as immoral for a parliament to grant legal favouritism upon the grounds of race as it is for a king to do so, no matter how many people might vote for it!

The rule of law means the rule of principles of justice especially of the principle of equality before the law – equality for all, regardless of race! The democratic “mandate of the majority” is a valid way of choosing who should be in government, but not a valid way of justifying how they govern, or what laws they pass, nor an automatic justification of any law proposed by a democratic Parliament! Democracy is not synonymous with freedom…”

The Rule of law is not getting a majority in parliament… which can be orchestrated by any popular phobia monger at election time, or crisis (like terrorism), but an Iron clad constitution which keeps parliament from arbitrarily passing laws that violate the rights of unpopular minorities, and enshrines other safeguards such as the right to free speech and to bear arms.
I know saying that last thing just spooked the sheeple who only see guns as tools for criminals… never as tools for Good people to defend themselves from criminals, and Evil governments.

And so here we are looking at the absolutely misguided faith in Government… the absolutely ridiculous desire to leave parliament free to enact any law whatsoever it can convince the country it has a mandate ‘from the people’.
This exposes us all to the whiles and evils of Party politics… Fashions… and the fears of the present moment.
And peoples lives get trodden underfoot every day.

John says “I like binding referenda… I believe in the wisdom of the crowd, as long as the crowd is INFORMED. So along with the referenda, you’d need to have higher standards of communication and debate”… which is convenient for his proposes being a member of the Majority race, and being a political conservative… with all the popular phobias and prejudices that go along with it.
Yet what if Maori were the greater number?
Would John accept his fate as a second class citizen simply because a Binding referenda mandated Treaty separatism? (which is basically what already have)

People like John. Like so many others are not *real* defenders of justice, but whiney bitches who dont like their own medicine.
They dont have the answers to the world political problems because deep down the dont love the principles of justice… just their own opinions.

Whereas Libertarians like myself will go out on a limb even for people who we believe hold very foolish and Bad Ideas… for the sake of Liberty and equality before the law.
I’m a Christian, not a Muslim. I think Islam is a dangerous false religion, yet I also know that it is possible to peacefully co-exist with Muslims who simply reciprocate the good will, and tolerance I seek to accord them.
This is where hope is found and the way forward for peace that Libertarianism holds forth, yet because Libertarianism threatens to destroy the powers and vested interests of the status quo the light of Libertarianism is marginalised and shaded by those who would rather the world burn… and children continue to be blown pieces than surrender any of their power and prejudice.

It was with sadness that have Facebook un-friended John, and blocked him for now, yet I sincerely hope that John grows and changes his mind, and that some day we can fight again together for a race free government in New Zealand.
I hope my words above do not provoke greater hardness of heart, but the reverse…. that if indeed there is still any reason left in him, that he may become conscious of his errors, and thereby be self-empowered to forsake them for the higher path.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

More from Tim…

Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

What can we do? Socialism’s Tungsten shell, and the refugee crisis

TREATYGATE Hamilton…introducing John Ansell

John Ansell’s Challange To End Racist Government In New Zealand.

John in the Lions Den.

Together New Zealand’ presents ‘TREATYGATE’. Hamilton. 16-5-13.

Post Script: In Discussions of my post one atheist asserted:
” Johns question re Mohammed is correct and the one every Muslim should be fronted with.”

And because of the nature of this assertion, I believe it is worth me giving a reply….

“Simple minds will insist this valid.
Simple minds are what keep the wars of the world hot and fresh.

There are however some *principles* we can apply…. principles Atheists claim to be the champions of… yet by their deeds and follies they show they have no clue as to how to apply them.

The Chief one being that a free society *Separates Religion from the state*.

This being so if we desire to live in peace and freedom, we must form *a peace treaty* with those who believe different things to ourselves.

Thus the Libertarians social compact does not put *any conditions* other that the agreement to form a society of equal liberty and rights before the law.

This cuts off all the disagreement about other peoples perversions… as long as they consent to these minimum conditions. so opinions about Muhammad, Joshua, Jesus, Transubstantiation. Aliens, Gay sex, etc have no place in this discussion.

Once the compact is agreed upon, by all sides… this sets the terms and conditions for future peaceful dialogue, debate… all the while *having equality and freedom* protected. so that evenif agreement about such things as the goodness of Muhammad are never settled…. we still have peace, and liberty, and safeguards protecting *the unpopular* from the popular.

So Of course *I* being a christian reserve the right to critisisze Islam, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, etc… yet I don’t mix this into my political tenets…. *because I’m a real Libertarian*
And I First desire peaceful co-existence.
I reserve that for the sphere of religious liberty.

*Yet Fools like John Ansell* basically *impose* their religious opinions on everyone*

Do I make myself clear?

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Postscript 2:

I find it necessary to add further comment directly to my post to address another important caveat.
I do not deny that many ideologies contain elements dangerous to Liberty, Justice, and Humanity.
I spend a lot of my life pointing out these evils and tendencies that corrode the mind.
So I do sympathise with John regarding his concerns about Islam.
Obviously from the actions of The Taliban, Isis, and other Islamic powers, there definitely are Muslims who are zealous of enshrining Brutal Islamic Theocracies, yet again those of us with a better understanding of History also know that at certain times Islamic States have been very tolerant and enlightened, more so that their Barbarous and backward western counterparts which usurped the name of Christendom.

I am a Protestant Christian, and interpret the Reformation as a great reforming process bringing Christianity back to it’s original Liberal and Non-official roots as a voluntary society of believers…. from the tyrannies of the Holy Roman Empire.
And it was a return to the Doctrines of Grace that Libertarianism was born.

I also think it pretty rich for John to point the finger at Islam when he himself is a Atheist.
I have my own view of Atheism as being very detrimental to the value of the human life, objective morality, and the fundamentals of Libertarianism… ie it’s corrosion of the Ideals of God given Inalienable rights and Equality of human Individuals.
Social Darwinism was the primary ideology behind the Nazi Holocaust and Eugenics program.

Yet I do not suggest these dangerous nihilisms make it impossible for Atheists to endorse a Libertarian social compact… though atheism tends towards the abandonment of moral principles in favour of pragmatic Utilitarianism/ Mob rule.

And this is similar the grave mistake people like John make when they Quote Theocratic verses from the Koran that sanction the killing of infidels, and imposition of sharia law.
They say this is black and white evidence that Muslims *cannot* endorse a Libertarian social compact/ or peacefully co-exist with Non-Muslims under a secular society which separates Religion from the Laws of the land.

Yet Reality itself refutes these assertions.
While I agree these assertions identify a definite tendency towards the undesirable, they are in no way an inevitable conclusion, as is empirically proven by the Millions of Muslims who live peacefully in western societies, many of whom love Freedom… understand what that means… because they fled Islamic States and Sharia Law because of experiencing it’s brutality first hand.

Again I point John and co towards the safeguards that every democracy needs to prevent sectarian dominance and violations of Liberty and Justice ie *A Libertarian constitution* that cannot be violated by shyster politicians who seek elections by promising vest interests to make their bigotries the law of the land.

The American constitution and it’s amendments were very close to this yet as Satan works, and fire his darts, and managed to tempt Americans to abandon the principles of the constitution… so too has tyranny, debt, and injustice taken root and multiplied.
As Generations have come and gone… the great truths that founded America have slowly been forsaken and abandoned so that only sheepish ignorance remains.

This is why there can be no compromise at any point of the principles of libertarianism… even in times of Crisis.
The price of Liberty is always, and for ever Eternal vigilance.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

more from Tim on these aspects.

Protestant Christianity had a Baby… Libertarianism.

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

Atheism has no basis for Rights… or Morals.

Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less

The late, Great Christian President of The USA. Republican Ronald Reagan.
If you are a freedom lover, If you are A Christian, yet have never herd his famous ‘Tear Down This Wall’…. you are ripping yourself off!
Sit here now and listen for less than 30 minutes …. You are in for a rousing treat!
Ronald Reagan surely must rank as America’s greatest Orator of modern times… and undoubtible one of the greatest presidents of American History.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian

Speech Transcript.

Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same–still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State–as you’ve been told–George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: “The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world.” A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium–virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty–that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany–busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city’s culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there’s abundance–food, clothing, automobiles–the wonderful goods of the Ku’damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn’t count on–Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent– and I pledge to you my country’s efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days–days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city–and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then– I invite those who protest today–to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.

While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative–research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place–a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.

Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.

And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.

To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.

With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation.

There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I’m certain, will do the same. And it’s my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.

One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea–South Korea–has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You’ve done so in spite of threats–the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there’s a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there’s something deeper, something that involves Berlin’s whole look and feel and way of life–not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love–love both profound and abiding.

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.

President Ronald Reagan – June 12, 1987

More Reagan gems follow…