That was a very moving tribute indeed - from a man who at the time of their encounter regarded Reagan as just a politician for the other party. It gives a terrific insight into the gracious nature of Reagan’s persona.

Thank you Mr. Auster for the link to the NRO article. I only wish “Mr. Dunphy” didn’t have a cyber moniker, as I would have liked to have looked him up and thanked him for that warm remembrance.

Oliver North spoke recently on a tv news program of similar occurances during RR’s 8 years, where Mr. Reagan would always thank the soldiers individually and personally that he came in contact with. No one was like RR—he was an American original. That’s why it is so hard imagining anyone else coming along that will inspire and lead us the way he did.

I know you despise him and he thinks you’re an evilcon, but I think Ben Domenech had the most eloquent statement about honoring Reagan that I read anywhere.

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001587.html

I’m not aware of having said anything that suggests I “despise” Domenich. He attacked me with name-calling, and I defended myself. He’s the one who expressed contempt toward me, not I toward him.

My recollection is that it was a lot more than name calling but I will have to go back through the posts. I’m not sure what you were expecting, though, after writing stuff like this - kind of denigrates his race, dontcha think?

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001132.html

Why is citing scientific evidence about racial differences denigrating someone’s race?

There seems to be some incomprehension here. First, what indicated that I was “expecting” anything? As far as I can remember, I don’t think I complained or acted aggrieved about Domenech’s low level name-calling. He called me evil because of my views on race, and I posted a long comment at his site explaining my position on the importance of race to our civilization and why I think my positon is not evil. Second, the article of mine that Kev is referencing is on racial differences in intelligence between blacks and whites. If Kev wants to consider that “denigrating” to blacks, that’s his opinion; but since when is Ben Domenich black?

“I’m not sure what you were expecting, though, after writing stuff like this - kind of denigrates his race, dontcha think?”

I have never previously heard of Ben Domenech, but I can assure you from looking at his pictures that he is white. I don’t see how white people were insulted by the reflections on race that you linked to.

As has been noted many times, especially in the columns of Steve Sailer on Mexico published at VDare.com, there is an official fiction in Latin America that everyone there is of one mestizo race and color. This is obviously false. The purpose of the fiction is to disguise the fact that whites (descendants of the original Spanish and Portuguese colonizers) rule Latin America and use nepotism and cronyism to keep a tight rein on the perks of corruption.

The only indication I got that Ben Domenech would not be considered white was his award from the Hispanic journalists group. If he wants to pretend that he belongs to the same ethnicity as the Indians and mestizos of Latin America, and then gets offended when someone points out the lower IQs of those groups, then his offense is caused by his own pretense. He is not a mestizo. He is obviously predominantly European. He will take less offense in the future if he drops his own false pretenses.

Here’s the discussion thread where Domenech (whom I keep wanting to spell Demonich) attacked me, and I replied in two long comments explaining my views. There is not the slightest personal tone in my responses.

http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001069.html

Ben Domenech can call me evil at his own website if he wants to. But now he wants to do it at my website as well. No such luck. I’m deleting his comment.

Okay… I did not intend to spark the return of a year-old fight with my post. But I have now gone back and read some of the posts and comments in question and I would like to respond to some of the things I’ve read here.

Some quick background… I have worked in politics for some time and got out a few years ago to help found a lobbying firm. I have met Ben only once, but I was familiar with his accomplishments well before that.

In my experience, out of the many young rising stars who come to Washington, the vast majority have some common negative traits. They tend to be egotistical, intellectually stilted, self-absorbed young people; they tend to be socially libertarian or liberal; and they tend to only fight battles they believe they can win, and achieve a feather in their cap or a name for themselves that they believe will help them down the road when they run for whatever office they desire.

Ben is none of these things. He is one of the most honorable and principled young men I have ever known. He is an eloquent intellectual who is passionately pro-family and pro-life, and has made sacrifices for his career in order to fight for what’s right. He has a strong faith, and is amazingly humble – I have never seen him boast on his site or elsewhere about the many things he has done for the conservative movement. People outside of Washington have no idea what a significant role he has played despite his young age. The Partial Birth ban would still be sitting on Capitol Hill without Ben. The Medicare bill would not have included the handful of free market victories it did without his work. And most impressive of all, his eloquent arguments have almost single-handedly provided the staff-level momentum for the Federal Marriage Amendment. While we are not personal friends, Ben would be near the tops on any list I made of who I want in my foxhole.

Lawrence… My conclusion after reading some of your past writings is that you advocate a re-ordering of American policy on a basis that I personally find misguided and offensive. I just don’t know what’s in your heart.

But I do know that, Ben’s natural abilities and intelligence give him all the tools he needs to be successful at whatever he does, and I hope that is politics. Despite some of the comments I have read on this site, he is unquestonably a principled conservative.

To me and many others, Ben Domenech represents the future of the conservative movement in America. And after reading your arguments, I am forced to conclude that you only represent the past.

Who could possibly care about the career and personality of Domenech? How is that an issue here? Don’t waste any more of our time on this.

Several of your commenters have cared enough to bash him for personality traits and positions he is not guilty of… A response is surely fair and I don’t see why you’re irritated by it.

I just read over this thread and I didn’t see anyone discussing Domenich’s personality. First, Kev was the one who inappropriately brought up Domenech’s old attack on me, even though the subject of this thread was President Reagan. Then he both falsified and personalized the issue by referring to my supposed contempt for Domenich, something I had never expressed because I had dealt with the substance of the issue and had never responded to Domenech’s vulgar insults at all. Then Kev said that I was “denigrating” Domenech’s race, and people on this this thread were a little nonplussed by that since from his name he sounds Jewish, not black, so they tried to figure out Domenech’s ethnicity. Then Kev comes back with a long apology for the wonderful personality traits and excellent career contributions of Domenech, and when I tell him there’s no call for that, he says he has the right to do so, because, after all, Domenech’s personality has been attacked.

Kev is as annoying and as incapable of engaging in rational discussion as his hero Domenech, and they are both closed out of this site.

The Domenech and Kev incident is, I think, illustrative of a phenomenom that seems to have infected even the conservative brach of Christianity in the US: The embrace of the leftist dogma of anti-Racism as the authoritative expression of Christianity’s universalist aspect. I view it as an example of substiting a leftist ideolgy - at least partially - for the traditional, apolstolic interpretation of how Christian universalism is applied in the real world, which was more-or-less parcticed in both Catholic and Protestant churches until the last generation or so.

Thus, folk like Domenech and Kev typically refuse to face the consequence of the Mexican invasion and colonization of the US, and often repond with fairy tales of what devout pro-life Catholics the invaders are (a myth that has been blown to bits by Allan Wall and others who refuse to view them with rose-colored glasses). They fail to understand that nationalism and loyalty to one’s own people can, in fact exist (and is indeed constrained) within a Christian framework. So, when Mr. Auster questions the desirability of destroying America’s tradtional white majority and its culture, he is - in classic Marxist fashion - denounced as an evil person, a racist. Likewise, when he points out that there is a real agenda behind the open-borders jihadis and the globalists to destroy every single majority-white nation, he’s denounced as a tin-foil hat man.

The anti-racists above don’t address the issue because they don’t want to begin asking the question why is taking race into account evil or offensive and continue asking why to the answers. Often this behavior indicates the person is afraid of the ultimate answer.

For example, some Catholics might not want to question some Church leaders’ beliefs in anti-racism because they don’t want to discover a reason to question their faith and the Church’s leaders. Ignoring the issue is harmful to themselves if they are going to attack other people based on the belief and then look foolish when they can’t explain themselves. Moreover, mindless attacking is an attempt at bullying. Finally, it is uncharitable if they can’t explain to the sinner why he should give up his sinning.