President Obama and Family at Robben Island, South Africa, 2013

This past June, the Obama Family visited the prison that housed former South African President Nelson Mandela as apartheid reigned in South Africa.  The 1986 Apartheid Act was opposed by President Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney,  Strom Thurmond,  Jesse Helms and others.  President Reagan went so far as to veto the bill.  Guess many of us should not be shocked today at what we are seeing out of the Republican Party when you realize that in 1986,  Reagan opposed the end of Apartheid.
President Obama's Remarks on Death of Nelson Mandela, 5 December 2013 Background on the Reagan and Republican Opposition to the Apartheid Act:

1985:  Democrats in the Senate initially tried to pass the Anti-Apartheid Act in September 1985 -- could not overcome a Republican filibuster. Reagan viewed the act as an intrusion on his authority to conduct foreign policy and issued his own set of sanctions. 

1986:  Bill was re-introduced in 1986 and brought up for a vote despite Republican efforts to block it in order to give President Reagan's sanctions time to work. Passed unexpectedly in the House in June 1986 after Republicans agreed to a voice vote in the hopes that the bill would die later on in the process.  President Reagan publicly opposed the bill.  Viewed too extreme to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate.  In August 1986, Senate passed a version of the Anti-Apartheid Act with weaker sanctions by a margin of 84- 14.  

Democratic leaders in the House agreed to accept the weaker Senate version of the bill in order for it to have sufficient bipartisan support to avert a possible veto which didn't work.
Reagan vetoed the compromised bill on September 26, calling it "economic warfare" and alleging that it would mostly hurt the impoverished black majority and lead to more civil strife.  He again offered to impose sanctions via executive order, while also working with Senate Republicans on concessions to avoid them overriding his veto. Reagan's veto was attacked harshly by anti-Apartheid leaders like Desmond Tutu who said Reagan would be "judged harshly by history".  In the week leading up to the subsequent vote, President Reagan enlisted South African foreign minister Pik Botha to call Republicans on the fence, though this was seen to backfire.

Reagan's veto was overridden by Congress (by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83) on October 2. This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden. Apartheid opponents in America and South Africa applauded the vote, while critics argued that it would be either ineffectual or lead to more violence. 

President Reagan made the following statement after the override:

"Today's Senate vote should not be viewed as the final chapter in America's efforts, along with our allies, to address the plight of the people of South Africa. Instead, it underscores that America—and that means all of us—opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate, which culminated in today's vote, was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country. 

I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action; they hurt the very people they are intended to help. My hope is that these punitive sanctions do not lead to more violence and more repression. Our administration will, nevertheless, implement the law. It must be recognized, however, that this will not solve the serious problems that plague that country. The United States must also move forward with positive measures to encourage peaceful change and advance the cause of democracy in South Africa. 

Now is the time for South Africa's Government to act with courage and good sense to avert a crisis. Moderate black leaders who are committed to democracy and oppose revolutionary violence are ready to work for peaceful change. They should not be kept waiting. It would be tragic to lose this opportunity to create a truly free society which respects the rights of the majority, the minority, and the individual. There is still time for orderly change and peaceful reform. South Africans of good will, black and white, should seize the moment."

The override was seen as a major defeat for Reagan, coming at the hands of his fellow Republicans in Congress. It was subsequently revealed that there was significant debate within the White House between Reagan's political advisors advocating more compromise and those like Pat Buchanan and Donald Regan who supported Reagan's hard line against sanctions.

After 2 years of sanctions under President Reagan, the sanctions were seen as having little effect in hurting South Africa or moving them away from apartheid. In 1989, the General Accounting Office said in a report that the sanctions against South Africa had been only partially enforced by the Reagan administration.  In 1989, the newly elected President George H.W. Bush committed to "full enforcement" of the Anti-Apartheid Act, a departure from the Reagan administration`s policy.

When I was reading this from Wikipedia and following the sources, it was like I was reading it for the first time and then I remembered during this time our family made two moves in less than 10 months with two young children being in three different schools and a toddler at home.  Moving from the west coast to New England and nine months later to Ohio didn't leave a lot of time to know what was  going on in the world especially since we lived in Groton, MA, after moving from NH with NO cable and poor reception.  We could get the news out of NH where one guy reported everything or out of CT. We had one Boston station we could get a night yet we kept hearing how progressive Massachusetts was -- not where we lived.

Tomorrow President and Mrs. Obama accompanied by former President and Mrs. Bush will be attending the funeral of a man who never gave up and who will be remembered for the ages -- Nelson Mandela who with others ended apartheid in South Africa and started a movement heard round the world.

God speed President Mandela and thank you for opening the eyes of the world.  

"Where's the rest of me?"

There may be some gnashing of teeth because this article by Frank Gaffney is posted here as it goes after CPAC Leadership, but we agree with Gaffney 100%. Without a strong national security in place, everything else is secondary including the economy.

As for Beck's speech, words fail us that could be used on this site. We already knew that Beck was more Libertarian then anything but his attack on Republicans was out of line especially the since the Republicans in Congress at such a huge disadvantage in numbers have done a remarkable job in slowing down the Obama agenda. Republicans have never quit fighting for the American people. For Beck to call the Democrats and Republicans the same was WRONG. How can you compare an Inhofe and a Schumer -- you cannot as Inhofe is 100% Conservative and Schumer is 100% Progressive. Then we discovered last night the reason Mark Levin did not attend CPAC was because CPAC allowed the John Birch Society to have a booth. That was one of those WHAT?

Is CPAC all about money today and as a result, has dropped the #1 priority of Ronald Reagan's Conservative principles -- National Security? We hope not, but we are not so sure when they ignore National Security and allow John Birch and the Libertarians a prominent place at CPAC.

Read this article from Frank Gaffney, a renowned foreign policy expert, who heads the Center for Security Policy and ask yourself if he is not correct. If you disagree with our comments or those of Gaffney, please feel free to submit an op-ed to truesoft.474@gmail.com.

"Where's the rest of me?"
Center for Security Policy Feb 22, 2010
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Ronald Reagan the actor once famously screamed on screen "Where's the rest of me?!" after waking in a hospital to discover that a sadistic surgeon had amputated both of his legs. My guess is that Ronald Reagan the national leader would express similar horror at what is happening to his beloved conservative movement as some in its ranks seek to sever from its agenda the priority "the Gipper" consistently gave to the national security.

One need look no further than the various functions held in the Washington area last week to see why Mr. Reagan would be so alarmed. On Wednesday, I joined a group of prominent conservatives assembled for the purpose of unveiling a document dubbed "the Mount Vernon Statement." It was intended to emulate an earlier articulation of the principles that unite the Right, issued fifty years ago at the Sharon, Connecticut home of William F. Buckley, Jr.

It was noteworthy that, during the press event where the new statement was released, Colin Hanna of the remarkable organization Let Freedom Ring read passages from the previous one. The latter spoke of "eternal truths" to be affirmed, including: "That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; that the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; that the United States should stress victory over, rather than co-existance with, this menace; and that American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: Does it serve the just interests of the United States?"

By contrast, the Mt. Vernon document made no mention at all of today's totalitarian ideology - what authoritative Islam calls Shariah - or the threat it poses to America, let alone declare that victory should be our purpose in dealing with this menace. To be sure, there were passing references to the Founders' "secur[ing] national independence," "warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere" and the proposition that "energetic but responsible government is the key to America's safety and leadership role in the world." Thin gruel by comparison with Sharon's statement, and woefully short of the sort of express commitment to "peace through strength" Mr. Reagan exemplified and practiced.

Still, the Mount Vernon Statement is a paragon of robust national security- mindedness in contrast to what took place in the succeeding three days at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). With a few notable exceptions - including powerful addresses by former UN Ambassador John Bolton and former Senator Rick Santorum - the program was bereft of the focus one would think 10,000 people who cherish the memory of Ronald Reagan would have demanded, especially in the midst of a global war with two active combat fronts.

Incredibly, there was but one panel held in the plenary hall that had as its principal subject the question of national defense. Entitled "What is a Conservative Foreign Policy?," it featured remarks by: a junior (but promising) Member of Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah; an old Reaganaut, Don Devine, who urged America to emulate President Reagan's abandoning of Lebanon and the use of force only in tiny Grenada; and Joanne Herring, the colorful Texas patriot/philanthropist best known for her persona played by Julia Roberts in "Charlie Wilson's War."

With all due respect to the participants, it is inconceivable that CPAC's organizers could not have arranged a more formidable program to address this and related topics. We are entitled to know why they did not do so. Watch this space for the answer.

Whatever the reason, the intended take-away from most of the other major speakers-- including Glenn Beck, who closed the conference with an extraordinary, hour-plus-long "pox on both your houses" call-to-action that never once mentioned national security-- and the featured panels was unmistakable: It's the economy, stupid. Or at least, it's the deficit, or excessive government spending or just excessive government.

As a result, it came as little surprise to this attendee that libertarian Rep. Ron Paul won 31% of the vote in the CPAC straw poll. In the absence of the sort of serious attention to national security that was emblematic of the conservatism of Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan, why shouldn't those present feel free blithely to endorse a man who is committed to small, cheap government even if his positions on foreign and defense policy are so extreme and so critical of America as to make Barack Obama's look responsible, if not hardline.

And there's the rub. Even if a robust security policy platform were not, on the merits, the right stance for the Right, it has proven repeatedly to be the winning-est stance politically, especially in times when our countrymen properly feel insecure. Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts was wildly acclaimed by the CPAC masses, yet he would be the first to acknowledge that some 64% of his voters supported him because of his rejection of Obama's fecklessness on terrorism.

In time of war, the American people deserve at least one party/movement/team that is unabashedly Reaganesque in its commitment to the national security of the United States. If conservatives and Republicans fail to articulate and demonstrate such a commitment, it is a safe bet that - even in an election season seemingly so promising - they will wake up on November 3rd screaming, "Where's the rest of me?"

Source: Center for Security Policy