Watch: Reagan’s Son Makes Stunning Announcement About His Father And Trump- Not What Many Wanted To Hear

Many people are comparing Donald Trump to late president Ronald Reagan, but according to his son Michael Reagan, these comparisons are unfounded.

The son of the late president talked about his distaste for the Trump campaign and the American people’s enthralled reaction to the billionaire in a series of regular interviews with Newsmax over the summer. Reagan said his father really believed in what he called the “11th Commandment,” which is “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Reagan said Trump does nothing but attacks and his father would be shocked.

“My father would be appalled,” Reagan said. “On behalf of my father and the Reagan family to see someone like this who just personally attacks people time and time and time again is absolutely appalling to me and I hope all the voters start to see through Donald Trump and the kind of candidate that he his and the kind of president he may end up being.”

He said the constant attacks is doing nothing for the political system because it isn’t allowing people to be informed on issues that matter. Reagan said that includes himself.

“I don’t like and I don’t appreciate the things he says about Jeb Bush, or what he says about Gov. Perry or anybody else. I want to hear what he’s going to do and when he tells us what he’s going to do, I can be for or against it,” Reagan said.

Reagan said in a similar interview with NewsMax TV in August that he is growing weary of Trump, and other Republican candidates, invoking his father’s name in their campaigns. He said he much rather hear their ideas and policies.

“These people looking to wrap themselves in the mantle of Ronald Reagan are doing a disservice to themselves and a disservice to my father,” he said. “Wrap yourself in your own mantle, tell us who you are.”

He is also critical of the Republican businessman, who still remains at the top of the polls, because Reagan said Trump isn’t talking a lot about his policies. So far, he doesn’t like what he is hearing Trump saying on immigration. Reagan said birthright citizenship is here to stay.

“There’s not a court in the land that’s going to overturn and step on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution with having to do with birthright in this country,” he said.

Reagan said deporting all illegals won’t really solve this country’s problems and American citizens may be their own worst enemy.

“I know there’s people who say ‘oh, if we just get the illegals out, if we just get that birthright away, that somehow things are going to be better in America.’ That’s not true. The problem in America is basically Americans,” Reagan said.

Resting Place Of A Humble Man … Remembering Bill Clark, Reagan’s Right-Hand Man

William P. Clark died two years ago this month. When he passed, I wrote a tribute here at The American Spectator, aptly titled “Bill Clark’s Divine Plan.”

For those unfamiliar with Judge Clark, he was, simply put, Ronald Reagan’s architect for the take-down of the Soviet empire during a crucial stint (1982-83) as national security adviser. He had been Reagan’s trusted aide dating back to the Sacramento years, where he was Governor Reagan’s chief of staff. It is hard to understate Clark’s kinship with Reagan and his role, though no one sought to understate the role more than Clark himself. It took me a long time to convince Bill Clark to let me tell his story, to let me write his biography, and even then I never really convinced him. Unfailingly the most humble man that I (and many others) ever met, he tried to talk me out of the project right ’til the moment it was copy-edited, bound, packaged, put on delivery trucks, and sitting in Barnes & Noble. Someone had to relate the story of Clark’s fascinating life, given that he himself refused. He was the only major Reagan figure who would not write a memoir, passing up a slam-dunk big book deal in the 1980s. He left the Reagan administration at the height of its (and his) power, quite literally riding off into the sunset to his beloved ranch in central California. The ranch was all he ever wanted.

Bill Clark’s remarkable life ended on August 10, 2013, twelve years after I first met him inside the gorgeous little chapel that he built high on a hill outside Paso Robles, California. It was there, in August 2001, that I interviewed him on the faith of Ronald Reagan, which became a book (God and Ronald Reagan) that he really appreciated, knowing that Reagan biographers had ignored or dismissed this core aspect that Clark knew was the heart and soul of Ronald Reagan. That had started something that led to, among other things, a discussion of Clark’s own faith story. Really, Clark’s biography is inescapably just that—a faith story.

Clark passed away at 6:00 AM California time that August 10, 2013, just as the sun was rising at the ranch so dear to his heart. The 81-year-old had been ailing for a long time—a protracted battle with Parkinson’s disease. He suffered terribly in those final months. He used to quip, “the good Lord gave Parkinson’s to saints like John Paul II and my father, and now he has gotten around to giving it to sinners like myself.”

Michael Reagan emailed me immediately after receiving news of Clark’s death: “I have lost my father for the second time… Good bye friend.”

The funeral Mass was all so fitting. Held at Clark’s chapel, it was packed with loyal former Reaganites, Cabinet members, Clark staffers from the National Security Council, and leaders from the pro-life movement that Clark supported so earnestly. There were more priests and nuns than you could count. During Communion, they sang “Be Not Afraid.” Those are words not only of Christ in Scripture but that Pope John Paul II exhorted to the people of Poland in June 1979. Clark loved that moment. He and Reagan met with John Paul II in June 1982, where they discussed their mutual goal of taking down the Soviet empire. At the end of the Mass, Clark’s body was carried out of his chapel for the final time, sealed in a plain pine coffin.

That was the last time I was near Bill Clark’s remains—until two weeks ago, which brings me to why I’m writing today.

Clark and I had talked a number of times about where his earthly remains would one day find their final resting place. He and his family had considered burying him just outside the chapel, which would have been appropriate, or maybe even inside the chapel, or at the very least on the ranch property. But all of these options Clark must have considered too immodest. So, instead, Clark’s body was taken to a very tiny, very remote cemetery a few miles down the road near the almost-nonexistent little desert town of Shandon, California.

And so, I visited the burial site for the first time two weeks ago. And what’s there—or, really, what’s not there—seems worthy of some closing thoughts on Clark’s death.

There can’t be more than a hundred non-descript little tombstones in the cemetery. The front of the place looks like a picture out of the Old West, a mere wire-fencing gate with a red sign that in white lettering says “SHANDON CEMETERY.” It’s just off Cemetery Road. In the distance is California’s Highway 46.

The cemetery is situated on a mere acre of land. It was not even indexed until the year 2000. In September 2006 a group of 15 students from Liberty High School in nearby Paso Robles (roughly 20 miles west), where Clark’s law office was located, did a survey of the grave sites, took photographs, and sought to document its GPS coordinates. They were directed by two history teachers from the school. If Bill Clark was looking one last time to remove himself from the limelight and any attention at all, he pulled it off with great success.

Indeed, I had to search to find his headstone. It was brutally hot, easily 100 degrees, with the yellowish-brown grass as dry as the heat and air. Watching out for rattlesnakes, as Clark had always warned me to do when walking around this area of the world, I finally found the grave.

At Clark’s headstone—aside that of his beloved wife, Joan, who preceded him in death—was a fallen over vase with some dried up flowers. A few inches from that was a Gatorade bottle with some water in it. I stood up the vase and futilely filled it with what water was left inside. That was about all there was to do. There was not another person in the cemetery.

I momentarily thought to myself that Bill deserved more recognition than this, but I just as quickly realized that this was not only what he wanted, but a perfect symbol of who he was and how he wanted to be remembered.

I left Clark’s gravesite and began making my way west and then south down California’s Highway 101. I was in California for, among other things, research at the Reagan Library, where I eventually landed a few days later. There at the Reagan Library, outside the research room, and just a few yards from a giant chunk of the Berlin Wall, is Ronald Reagan’s burial site. It isn’t majestic either. It isn’t ornate. It’s simple and unostentatious. And that’s likewise fitting, because Reagan, too, was extremely humble. It is, however, very nice, polished, prominent, and certainly much more majestic than Clark’s final resting place. It is, after all, a president’s burial site at a federal presidential library. It is not inappropriate.

But when I saw Reagan’s headstone this time, which was not the first time, it immediately prompted a mental comparison to Clark’s. The much-less-resplendent resting place of Clark is absolutely how Clark would have wanted things, playing a remote second to the man he loyally served in their mutual effort to defeat the evil that was Soviet communism.

And on Reagan’s headstone are these words: “There is purpose and worth to each and every life.” That aptly fits Reagan’s highly positive outlook of humanity. It’s a good statement for remembering Reagan. But it’s also good for remembering Bill Clark. Clark ultimately had a grand purpose in his life, and had a grand worth to his life as well. Yet, amid all of that, Bill Clark always felt himself grandly unworthy.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trump, Trumpies, And RINOs Trouble The GOP

Donald Trump did wonders for Fox News’ ratings and Megyn Kelly’s star power last week.

But “The Donald” didn’t do himself, the Republican Party or the conservative cause any favors.

Millions of viewers saw clear evidence that Trump is not a serious Republican candidate or really a conservative.

He espoused no conservative principles or policies. He offered no ideas or specific conservative solutions to any domestic or foreign problem.

All he proved — as if the whole TV audience didn’t already know — was that he’s an egomaniacal billionaire who’s certain he’d make a good Republican president.

During the debate, he repeated his shallow generalities about building a high wall to stop illegal immigration, making better trade deals with China and the serial incompetence of our leaders in Washington.

And he boasted that “I’m rich. I buy candidates. Government is broken. I can fix it.”

Because he appeals mostly to people who listen to conservative talk radio 24/7, Trump has won over a large number of Republicans and conservatives who mistakenly think he is one of them.

Trump’s poll numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere have gone up since last week. They remain embarrassingly high for the Republican Party, but they’ll start falling to Earth soon.

It’ll happen when his Don Rickles routine wears thin, his liberal tendencies are exposed and the GOP’s bloated preseason roster gets cut down to Jeb, Scott, John, Rand, Ted and probably Carly.

Meanwhile, Trump has issued a threat to the Republican Party.

He said that if it does not treat him “fairly” or with “respect,” whatever that means, he might run next fall as an independent or a third party candidate.

Trump calls his threat “leverage,” but I think others would call it “extortion” or “blackmail.”

If he doesn’t get his way, he’d be willing to sabotage the GOP in 2016 and almost certainly give Hillary, Joe Biden or even Bernie the Socialist the keys to the White House.

Meanwhile, as if Trump was not causing enough trouble for the GOP, the party has to deal with a chronic problem within its own conservative ranks that cost it the last presidential election.

For some reason, many Republicans and conservatives have become their own worst enemies.

If they don’t agree with 100 percent of everything a primary candidate says or does, they call him or her a “Republican in name only” and they’re against them.

It’s gotten totally nuts and self-defeating. As a party, we laud Jeb for his many successes as a conservative governor of Florida.

But because he’s in favor of Common Core or immigration reform, some conservatives declare him a RINO unfit to be president.

It’s the same with John Kasich.

Conservatives love him because he brought us a balanced budget in Washington as a congressman and then went on to turn Ohio around as governor.

But because recently he accepted federal Medicaid money for Ohio, some conservatives don’t think he should be president. He’s a RINO.

To make matters worse, if their favorite in the primary doesn’t win, many conservative Republicans won’t show up in the general election to vote for president. Ask Mitt Romney how that works out.

Conservatives love to drop my father’s name and try to find candidates that act and think like he did. But they forget that Ronald Reagan was an 80-20 guy.

He was happy to agree with 80 percent of a Republican candidate’s views because he knew that he’d never find someone with whom he agreed 100 percent.

He didn’t make the perfect conservative the enemy of the good conservative. And he always, always, always supported the final choice of the Republican Party — even after they beat him in the primary.

Finally, may I remind everyone that as governor, Ronald Reagan, the great conservative, raised taxes and signed an abortion bill?

That would disqualify him as a RINO by today’s standards. Yet he was the best president in our lifetime.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Jeb Bush Has To Provide Government Reform Details

Congratulations to Jeb Bush for promising as president to take on the Washington bureaucracy. But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

He has credibility. As Florida governor, Bush cut the state bureaucracy by 11 percent over his eight years. If he becomes president, he now proposes to freeze federal employment and then reduce it by 10 percent over the four year presidential term through attrition.

Bush qualifies this with a “three-out, one in” proviso allowing one new employee for every three slots cut.

This sounds good in today’s rapid news cycle, but the details reveal important qualifications. He relies primarily on retirements to meet his goal. What happens if they are not sufficient?

Attrition alone also allows the better employees to leave, creating imbalances.

Yes, most of the reduction should be by attrition; but some must be fired to target program functions that need to be cut or eliminated. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency when he reduced non-defense civilian employment by 100,000, 90 percent of separations were by attrition; but the other ten percent were aimed at bad programs to show he was serious about the whole effort.

Bush did say that program reform is critical and promised tax, regulatory and entitlement reforms — but will only detail them sometime in the future. He did specifically propose a line item veto, a balanced budget amendment, procurement reform, and baseline budgeting — all of which would be positive but have been languishing for years.

His proposal not to pay Congressmen who do not vote is simply silly and impossible to become law. And his plans to limit lobbying sound as good as they did from Barack Obama until someone reminds folks of the Constitutional right to petition the government.

The heart of his proposal is to reform the civil service, which he correctly recognizes is dysfunctional. But he misrepresents the source of the problem, saying that much of today’s bureaucracy “is a relic from the 1970s and the Carter administration,” which “didn’t have the taxpayers’ interest foremost in mind.”

Actually, Jimmy Carter’s one real accomplishment as president was the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which was implemented by the Ronald Reagan administration in 1981, and actually rationalized the performance appraisal system and introduced pay-for-performance for senior executives and managers.

Unfortunately, it was President George H.W. Bush who presided over the elimination of merit pay for managers and the downgrading of performance management. In the wake of 9/11, President George W. Bush attempted to reintroduce performance management at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security; but these were stalled by the unions and their friends in Congress and were finally abandoned.

Gov. Bush promises to do better. He recognizes the feds are paid more than the private sector, they have much richer benefits, and the bad ones are rarely disciplined or removed.

He proposes “no more doling out raises across the board,” to reintroduce merit pay and financial rewards for good performance, and to remove nonproductive employees in “weeks rather than years.”

What is missing but essential is a focus on contractors who make up the great majority of those who do national government work but are not formal employees. As the public has lost confidence in bureaucratic expertise, it has proved impossible to increase the size even under Democratic presidents and Congresses.

As political scientist John J. Dilulio, Jr. shows in his book “Bring Back the Bureaucrats,” to run the present government even marginally well it would be necessary to add a million or more bureaucrats.

The federal government has increased its programs exponentially on the domestic side since Reagan, but it has roughly the same number of employees. How can that be?

The answer is private or lower-level government contractors do the work, about 8 to 1 for every national government employee.

In Florida, Bush did cut some 13,000 state jobs but mostly converted them into government contractors and increased the total overall. He cut taxes by $20 billion, but his budget authority increased from $49 to $71 billion–an incredible two-thirds growth. Debt increased from $15 to $23 billion and the debt service from $928 million to $1.7 billion per year.

State government actually increased dramatically during the Bush years.

It is refreshing to hear government management reform given such emphasis. It has not been front and center in a presidential election since President Jimmy Carter. But Carter used it as an alternative to reducing governmental functions. Hopefully, Gov. Bush will not

As an excellent new study by the CATO Institute’s Chris Edwards, “Why the Government Fails,” documents, the real problem is over-centralization; and the only real solution is to cut programs and send functions back to state, local and private institutions.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The 5-Word Question Candidates Won’t Be Asked In The Debate, But Should All Answer

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter shared on Fox News’ The Kelly File Wednesday night the one question she would like every presidential candidate asked.

The bestselling author has been very clear in recent years about the subject that has driven her train in recent years: immigration.

In her newly released book, Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America Into a Third World Hellholeshe takes an in depth look at the topic.

Megyn Kelly cited a newly released CBS poll to Coulter, which found that 55 percent of Republican voters believe immigrants who are in the country illegally should be allowed to stay, while 41 percent indicated they should be required to leave.

Coulter responded by saying a lot depends on how questions are asked regarding immigration. Nobody wants to be seen as mean or uncaring towards the people who are here.

“A lot [of immigrants] are admirable. A lot of them are good people,” said Coulter. “That shouldn’t be the question for someone running for the president of the United States. The question should be does this help America? I would like to ask them, ‘How many immigrants are enough?’”

She said the United States currently has 42 million immigrants. She wondered: do we cut off immigration at 100 million? 200 million? “How many are enough?”

For those who point to Ronald Reagan as a model for how to handle immigration today, Coulter says the times are different. It is true Reagan signed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens. But when he was in the White House, 1 in 16 people in the country was foreign-born; today, it is approximately 1 in 7, Coulter pointed out.

Census foreign born

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth