Ronald Reagan: How the Berlin Wall fell

Mikhail Gorbechev is often credited with the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989.  However, if that were the case, you would have heard chants that day of "Gorby! Gorby! Gorby!"  And that did not happen. True credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall should go to Ronald Reagan.

In fact, Gorbechev did not want the wall to fall, and made gallant efforts to keep it up.  Instead, it was Ronald Reagan who was the first visionary who saw the writing on the wall (no pun intended) that it was time for the wall to come down.  He saw this as a great opportunity for democracy.

At the Brandenburg Gate in 1987, Reagan said:

"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!"

So, when the wall eventually did fall, it was a victory for democracy, and a failure for Communism. However, since the media is a champion of liberalism, a sister of Communism, they failed to see Reagan as being responsible; or at least failed to accept it.  So it's for this reason most history books won't give credit to Reagan.

Instead, Gorbachev was seen as a hero for pushing for reform in Russia. It is for this reason that he, and not Reagan, won the Noble Peace Prize in 1990.  He received the award "for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community."

The truth is that Gorbachev did not push for reform by slight of his own desires, he did so because the Russian economy could not keep up with the United States.

The U.S. was able to accomplish this because Reagan created an economic environment whereby every person had an equal opportunity to improve his lot in life.  In the U.S. there was the incentive of making profits for those who took risks.  So Reagan was able to get the most out of the American people, and the economy thrived.

Gorbachev, on the other hand, was unable to accomplish this goal.  Because all people made the same amount of money regardless of effort made, there was no motivation to do more than the minimum needed to survive; there was no monetary incentive.

So while the American capitalistic democracy thrived, Soviet Communism failed.  This is what lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall. It had nothing to do with Gorbachev, and every thing to do with Reagan.

The truth is, as Margarette Thatcher said, the Wall collapsed because the Soviet Union could not keep up.

But the truth doesn't matter to those with a political agenda. Most of our historians, journalists, and teachers tend to be liberal, and it is they who report the news, write the history books, and teach history.  So they have a great opportunity to spin events to advance their liberal agenda.

Their version of the falling of the Berlin wall is that it was a symbol of strength of Communism and Socialism.  Since liberalism is the antithesis of capitalism and a sister of Communism and Socialism, the fall of the wall was reported not as a success of capitalism, but a failure of Communism.

Wall Street Journal's Anthony R. Dolen, on November 8, 2009, explained it best in his commentary, "Four Little Words."

Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind's abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others.

Accordingly, Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth about their moral absurdity, their ontological weakness. This was the sort of moral confrontation, as countless dissidents and resisters have noted, that makes these regimes conciliatory, precisely because it heartens those whom they fear most—their own oppressed people. Reagan's understanding that rhetorical confrontation causes geopolitical conciliation led in no small part to the wall's collapse 20 years ago today.

The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had waged since about 1947.  It did not end until 1991, and the brilliant campaign by Ronald Reagan that went against normal thinking is what caused the Collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.  It's a shame he is not given rightful credit for this success.

Further Reading:

• “Evil Empire” Speech (March 8, 1983) by Ronald Reagan
• "Tear Down This Wall' (June 12, 1987) by Ronald Reagan
• Wall Street Journal, Four Little Words, by Anthony R. Dolen

Myth Buster: Evil Christians Started the Holy Wars

People of all classes joined the crusades for various reasons:

some to take Jerusalem back, some to be freed from landlords,

some to make money, and some to be freed from sin.

Photo from religionwiki.mvcsnow.org

On February 2, 2015, at a National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama compared the current Islamic state to the Christian Crusades that occurred over a thousand years ago.  He used this as justification for his reluctance to identify the threat of radical Islam.

He said:

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,”

This sound all fine and dandy until you realize that the assumption by Obama is that the Christian crusades were an effort by Christians to force their religion on non-Christians.  But this is not what happened at all.

Most people don't realize this, and apparently Obama doesn't either, but the Christian crusades that took place during much of the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries were peaceful. Christians believed the trek would absolve them from their sins, and the Muslims welcomed the Christians. (1, page 106)

This all went fine and dandy until the 10th century when the caliphs of Palestine imposed a tax on those seeking to visit the Holy Land.  It was this tax that ultimately lead to war between the Christians of Europe and the Muslims of Palestine. This was fine for Pilgrims with money, although the poor pilgrims often had to wait at the gates of Jerusalem for some rich person to pay their tax.  (1, page 106)

Historian Thomas Bradford explained what happened next: 

The sum from this tax was a mine of wealth to the Moslem governors of Palestine. At the close of the 10th century it was thought that the end of the world was at hand, the thousand years of the Apocalypse was near completion, and Jesus Christ would descend upon Jerusalem and judge mankind. Panic seized the weak, the credulous, and the guilty; forsaking their homes, kindred and occupation, they hastened to Jerusalem to await the coming of the Lord, imagining that their pious pilgrimage would free them from sin. The road from the West of Europe and Constantinople became a great highway of pilgrims and beggars; the monks, the almsgivers of the times, were obliged to refuse aid to the hordes; many lived upon berries that ripened on the roadways. Swarms besieged the Holy Land; the Turks were annoyed by the number that overran their country . . . they plundered them, beat them with stripes, and kept them for months at the Holy Gates in lieu of the golden bezant for admission. The day of judgment did not come, and so pilgrims a few at a time returned to Europe and told of their sufferings. These cruelities became the wrongs of Christendom. Fresh hordes now hastened on the difficult journey, sure of gaining the favor of heaven by visiting the holy sepulchre. (1, pages 106-107)

So you can see that the crusades were not an attempt by Christians to force their religion on the Muslim people.  It was merely an attempt to continue visiting the Holy land, something that the Muslims had no problem with for over 300 years.

It was these events that incited the wars.  Bradford said:

In 1095 there appeared one Peter the Hermit, a man enthusiastic, chivalrous, bigoted, and probably crazy. He had been a monk of Amiens, and previous to this a soldier. He had visited Jerusalem and was filled with indignation at the cruel persecutions inflicted on the Christian pilgrims. He returned to his home and began a crusade of wild preaching against the abominations of the infidels and their defilement of the Holy Places of Jerusalem and Palestine. He called upon the people to arm against the infidels, incited the clergy, and aroused the enthusiasm of the people and nobles. Musing in Palestine he planned to rouse the powers of all Christendom to rescue the Christians of the East from the thraldom of the Mussulmen, and the sepulchre from the infidel. Peter told his views to Simeon, Patriarch of the Greek church at Jerusalem, and this good prelate sent letters to the pope and to the monarchs of Christendom telling of the sorrows of the Christians of Jerusalem and urging that arms be taken up in their rescue. Peter now hastened to Italy. Pope Urban II. sat on St. Peter's throne. He listened to the sad story and read the letters and appeals. At the Council of Clermont Urban gave Peter full powers to go forth and preach his holy war to the Christian nations of the world. (1, page 107-108)

The crusade had now become an effort to help the Christians who feared that they would not be saved if they did not reach the Holy Land.  Bradford continued: (1, pages 108-109)

The nations were aroused; eternal rewards were promised to all who assumed the red cross; halt and lame, women and children, the pious, the fanatic, the needy, the dissolute, all enrolled themselves in this remarkable army. Walter the Penniless set out with the first army in the spring of 1096; each one was his own leader. Soon other bands were formed. It is said that 300,000 men, women and children of the lowest of Europe spread themselves over Hungary and Germany. (1, page 108)

They robbed and murdered, and in self defense the Hungarians were obliged to fight with them. Walter straggled on to Constantinople with his horde. Peter the Hermit was not far behind him. He led another rabble, and riot and rapine went with him. It was everywhere; all Europe was mad. This rabble did not conquer the Holy City, but a more orderly and soldierly expedition was organized under certain noble knights, among whom was Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, and count Raymond of Toulouse. Several armies were raised and marching by different routes united at Constantinople. He besieged several cities, among which was Antioch; at this place, when the Christian host were worn and tired, Peter had a vision in which he saw the lance that pierced the side of Christ, and telling where to dig they found it. He had another vision and was directed to carry the spear at the head of the army. Dreaming became contagious; other monks had dreams. So time passed; Antioch was taken, battles were fought, disruptions were prevalent. At last Godfrey set fire to his camp at Archas and set forward in the night. After a march of several hours the sun rose, and before our army lay the sun kissed towers of the holy city. The soldiers knelt upon the ground exclaiming, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem," in pious joy. After a long and bitter siege, on July the 15th, 1099, the city was taken, the Christians were free. (1, pages 108-109)

When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1493, this is credited by many as the beginning of the Renaissance, a time when a dark ages of medicine occurred in the east, and the light started to shine again in the west. When this occurred, many other Greek classics made their way from Byzantine to Europe, thus opening the minds of Europeans. (2, page xxi)

So the Christian Crusades were peaceful until the Muslims decided to tax them.  The chaos the ensued due to Muslim actions is what lead to the Crusades, not an attempt by the Christians to force their religion on others.  So Obama was wrong to compare the current persecution of Christians by radical Muslims with what happened over a thousand years ago.

References:

1. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey
2. Brock, John, "Galen on the natural faculties," 1916, London, New York, William Heinemann, G.P. Putnam's Sons
3. Watch how Obama just compared Christianity with Islam
4. Glenn Beck: Obama lectures Americans on Islamic State... because Christians did something wrong a long time ago