Shortly before the 1980 presidential election, Ronald Reagan and his advisors asked themselves what they were willing to do to win. The polls were even, and the election could go either way between President Carter and him.
The campaign ultimately interfered with President Carter's foreign policy by offering weapons to Iran in exchange for a delay in the release of United States hostages held there. He further compromised us by making a similar deal in the mid-1980s, which became known as the Iran-Contra affair. It has become apparent that these two transactions were connected by the same people and the same pathetic judgment.
The Reagan campaign probably justified the interference because they thought we needed a new president. Many historians have glossed over this event or even suggested that it did not happen, despite evidence brought forward by author Robert Parry, National Security Council member Gary Sick, Reagan campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger and others.
What we ultimately received for Reagan's victory was a sell-out of what we need the most in our nation: free and fair elections, one foreign policy at a time, and the integrity of those who lead us. More trickery in other elections has followed, including in the two George W. Bush "elections" in 2000 and 2004.
By accepting these unethical decisions, we have bought into an analogy called "a kingdom for a castle." We have given up our values and who we truly are (the kingdom) in order to save our selfish desires and wants (the castle).
Since the Reagan debacle, we have not done any better. Consider these recent decisions by our leaders:
We have allowed drilling for oil in our oceans because we want profit.
But we allowed the risk of polluting the waters, the fish and the beaches in exchange.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).