Connect with us


Senior Reagan Officials Denounce American Security Council Foundation for Trademarking Reagan Slogan



Clark and Meese lead effort to keep ‘Peace through Strength’ free for all to use;
Admiral says ASCF has been ‘AWOL’ for years;
American Security Council Foundation is accused of ‘a scheme of fraudulent misrepresentation’

WASHINGTON – Top national security aides to former President Ronald Reagan denounced the attempt by a Florida-based group to trademark “Peace through Strength,” the slogan that America’s 40th president made as a hallmark of his successful strategy to end the Cold War.

Two of President Reagan’s closest friends and confidantes, former National Security Advisor William P. Clark and former Counselor to the President Edwin Meese, led a host of top Reagan national security aides criticizing the American Security Council Foundation (ASCF) for its efforts to prevent others from using the Reagan slogan.

Signatories include members of Reagan’s National Security Council staff, White House, State Department and Pentagon officials, and a subsequent director of the CIA. Read the letter to the American Security Council Foundation (PDF)


Last year, ASCF trademarked “Peace through Strength,” a slogan that President Reagan popularized and that the U.S. Navy designated as the official motto of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that bears The Gipper’s name. ASCF announced its intention to sue anyone using it without their expressed permission.

In October, ASCF filed a federal lawsuit against the Center for Security Policy, a group headed by a former Reagan defense official that, like many groups, has used the slogan for years. On learning of the lawsuit, Clark, Meese and others wrote to ASCF Chairman Henry Fischer, notifying him of their opposition. Fischer is a dentist in Sebastian, Florida, who has headed ASCF since 2002. Excerpts from the bipartisan letter to the ASCF Chairman:

  • “We are writing as members of Ronald Reagan’s administration to express our strong opposition to any effort to trademark or otherwise restrict the use of the term ‘Peace through Strength.”
  • “For those of us who proudly served with President Reagan, it is unimaginable that anyone would seek to own a phrase immortalized by him – and, as a result, made not only an enduring feature of our country’s political lexicon, but a touchstone for all those who love freedom, and understand what is required to safeguard it.”
  • “We agree with our colleague, former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. ‘Ace’ Lyons, that our purpose should be to encourage the widest possible and unrestricted application of the phrase ‘Peace through Strength’ and the principle it invokes. We call on you to do no less.”


Admiral Lyons wrote to Fischer in October, saying that “peace through strength” long ago “entered the national psyche as a term no one can properly ‘own.’” He added, “It behooves everyone who truly embraces the principle of peace through strength to be working to expand its application, not restrict it in any way.”

Admiral Lyons told Fischer that he would “strenuously resist any effort to expropriate the term ‘peace through strength’ for the purpose of disallowing its use by others – particularly those who have steadfastly adhered to and exemplified it when your organization has been basically AWOL from this fight.”

‘A scheme of fraudulent misrepresentation’

The Center for Security Policy has responded to ASCF’s lawsuit by declaring that ASCF made a “sworn statement” to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that was “materially false,” that ASCF acted in “bad faith” and “recklessly disregarded the facts,” and was “purposefully misrepresenting material facts to the USPTO” when it applied for the trademark.

The Center’s Answer and Counterclaims in federal district court accused ASCF of “a scheme of fraudulent misrepresentation.”  The Center is represented by David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, both of the American Freedom Law Center.  Yerushalmi also serves as the Center’s general counsel. Read the Center for Security’s response to ASCF’s lawsuit (PDF).   

When asked to comment after filing the counterclaims against ASCF, Yerushalmi noted, “According to ASCF’s absurd claim to a trademark, apparently even the Republican Party will have to seek ASCF’s permission to include the call for ‘Peace through Strength’ in its political platform going forward.  That is how absurd this trademark claim is.”

Signers of the letter

The letter to ASCF, dated December 10, 2012, was signed by the following members of the Reagan national security team. The individuals, with their Reagan-era titles, are as follows:

William P. Clark, National Security Advisor
Edwin Meese, Counselor to the President
Norman A. Bailey, Special Assistant to the President
Diana Denman, Co-Chairman, Peace Corps Advisory Board
Kenneth E. DeGraffenreid, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director, Intelligence Programs, National Security Council
William R. Graham, Science Advisor
Sven Kraemer, Director of Arms Control, National Security Council
Charles M. Kupperman, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for White House Administration
Ronald F. Lehman, Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Advisor
Tidal W. McCoy, Secretary of the Air Force (Acting)
Richard N. Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense
Roger W. Robinson, Jr., Senior Director, International Economic Affairs, National Security Council
William Schneider, Jr., Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology
Major General John Singlaub (USA Ret.), Advisor on Central America
Michelle Van Cleave, Assistant Director for National Security Affairs, Office of Science and Technology Policy
R. James Woolsey, Chief Negotiator, Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (and future Director of the CIA)

Continue Reading


Wealth is not Created at the Top: It is Only Devoured There



The UK has left the EU and we can argue about the minutiae of Wealth until we’re blue in the face. But the overriding factors are apparent and in one of the richest countries in the world it is shocking that so many people can’t even be sure if they are going to be able to eat enough today or provide for their loved ones.

These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have “made it”. By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurial-ism that are helping to advance the whole world – Opinion by 


… across the spectrum virtually all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top and so entrenched is this assumption that it’s even embedded in our language. When economists talk about “productivity”, what they really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like “welfare state”, “redistribution” and “solidarity”, we’re implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.

Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook … a new breed of  rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they’re sucking the rest of us dry


In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we hail as “successful” and “innovative” are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about it. Even for politicians on the left, it’s a non-issue.

To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.


But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.

But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking…


The problems we face are that the politicians are firmly in the hands (pockets) of the uber wealthy. We live in a corporate plutocracy and those holding all the wealth and therefore power have no intention of changing the status quo, even if it isn’t sustainable. They remind me of bacteria (or cancer) devouring the host body more and more even though eventually it will kill them too.

Continue Reading


Donald Trump Forgets Important Lesson From Grandad:




Harper’s Magazine reprints an interesting letter from US President Donald J. Trump’s own grandfather that may get you thinking. Here is it then:

The Emigrants – By Friedrich Trump – From a letter written in 1905 by Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump’s grandfather, to Luitpold, prince regent of Bavaria. Trump had been ordered to leave Bavaria for failing to complete mandatory military service and to register his initial emigration to the United States twenty years earlier.


Prince Luitpold rejected Trump’s request for repatriation; the family later settled in New York. Translated from the German by Austen Hinkley.

Most Serene, Most Powerful Prince Regent! Most Gracious Regent and Lord!

I was born in Kallstadt on March 14, 1869. My parents were honest, plain, pious vineyard workers. They strictly held me to everything good — to diligence and piety, to regular attendance in school and church, to absolute obedience toward the high authority.

After my confirmation, in 1882, I apprenticed to become a barber. I emigrated in 1885, in my sixteenth year. In America I carried on my business with diligence, discretion, and prudence. God’s blessing was with me, and I became rich. I obtained American citizenship in 1892. In 1902 I met my current wife. Sadly, she could not tolerate the climate in New York, and I went with my dear family back to Kallstadt.

The town was glad to have received a capable and productive citizen. My old mother was happy to see her son, her dear daughter-in-law, and her granddaughter around her; she knows now that I will take care of her in her old age.

But we were confronted all at once, as if by a lightning strike from fair skies, with the news that the High Royal State Ministry had decided that we must leave our residence in the Kingdom of Bavaria. We were paralyzed with fright; our happy family life was tarnished. My wife has been overcome by anxiety, and my lovely child has become sick.

Why should we be deported? This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree — not to mention the great material losses it would incur. I would like to become a Bavarian citizen again.

In this urgent situation I have no other recourse than to turn to our adored, noble, wise, and just sovereign lord, our exalted ruler His Royal Highness, highest of all, who has already dried so many tears, who has ruled so beneficially and justly and wisely and softly and is warmly and deeply loved, with the most humble request that the highest of all will himself in mercy deign to allow the applicant to stay in the most gracious Kingdom of Bavaria.

Your most humble and obedient,

Friedrich Trump

… Well then. Long ago, yes.. Still applies? You tell me.

Continue Reading