Colorado Memorandum Of Contract By Individual: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Did president Reagan have a successful presidency?The Achievements and Failures of the Reagan Presidencyachievements | failures | strengthening the presidency | weakening the presidencyGreatest Achievements of President ReaganThe tax cuts of 1981. Signed in August, these enactments were a major reduction in domestic expenditures and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, were designed to lower federal revenues over a five year period in the amount of $737 billion.Documents:• A letter to the Speaker of the House that proposed supplemental appropriations and amendments on March 10, 1981 from President Reagan. This document is significant because it was the first formal request sent to Congress seeking to reduce income taxes on the individual, a major component of ERTA.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43514)• Statement on action by the Senate Budget Committee on a fiscal year 1982 budget resolution given on April 28, 1981. The President congratulates a committee for completing the Budget resolution for 1982. This was important because this was the first completed step that put the ERTA “firmly on track”.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43755)• An address before a joint session of the congress on the Economic Recovery Tax Act given on April 28, 1981. This major address, which was broadcast on radio and television, was the first major rally for support of the program and urged viewers to pressure Congress to approve the ERTA of 1981.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43756)• A statement on action by the House of Representatives on federal budget legislation given on June 19, 1981. This document strives to raise support for the amendment to the Gramm- Latta Budget which would implement ERTA. Without this amendment, implementation of ERTA might not transpire.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43988)• A July 27, 1981 address to the nation on federal tax reduction legislation. This address, which was broadcast on radio and television, was the last appeal to the nation for support of ERTA before it went to vote in early August. This last plea showed Reagan’s seriousness and dedication toward this program and could have influenced many who were unsure just before voting commenced.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44120)The reduction of nuclear arms with the signing of the INF treaty together with Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1987. This treaty eliminated all cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers.Documents:• Remarks to reporters on intermediate-range nuclear force reduction on March 3, 1987 which state that Reagan has already begun the first step towards the reduction by having a draft written the following day. This began to lay the framework of the discussions and negotiations between the Soviets and Reagan.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33924)• Remarks given on September 18, 1987 regarding the Soviet -U.S. diplomatic talks which states that Secretary Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze have issued a joint statement that agrees to conclude an INF Treaty.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34808)• Remarks given on October 30, 1987 to reporters regarding the Soviet-U.S. summit meeting. Reagan announces that General Secretary Gorbachev has agreed to meet with Reagan in Washington in December and they are expected to finalize and sign the INF Treaty.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33625)• Address to the Nation on December 10, 1987. The official announcement was given that the INF Treaty has been signed, and the progress that has been made for U.S.- Soviet relations, not only in terms of arms, but a broad scope of issues.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33806)During his second term as President, significant progress had been made toward accomplishing a genuine détente between the United States and the U.S.S.R. and ending the Cold War. At the end of his term in 1989, Reagan was credited with making a strong contribution to the level of world peace at that time.Documents:• The President’s first news conference on January 29, 1981 exhibits Reagan feelings on the current state of détente with the Soviet Union. Reagan believes they have been treating it like a “one-way street” and only concerned with their state’s own interests. He makes it clear that to achieve a successful détente with the Soviets, there must be a “two-way street”.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44101)• In a debate with former Vice President Walter Mondale on October 21, 1984, Regan outlines his vision of détente with the Soviet Union. His theory is described as a peaceful coexistence between the two major powers which will better contribute to world peace and reduction of nuclear weapons.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39296)• Address to the Nation on December 10, 1987. The official announcement was given that the INF Treaty has been signed, as well as the progress that has been made for U.S. Soviet relations, not only in terms of arms but a broad scope of issues.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33806)Reagan achieved an agreement in April of 1988 with the Soviet Union over their withdrawal from their occupation in Afghanistan. Not only was the war was ended, but also this was the first time in 33 years that the Red Army withdrew from any conflict voluntarily.Documents:• An official statement released on December 27, 1981 clearly outlines the pressure being put on the Soviets for this war. Reagan backs his position by stating that the international community shares the same opposition to the Soviet invasion. (Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43388)• On March 10, 1982, Reagan announced that March 21, 1982 will be recognized as Afghanistan Day in the U.S. and other parliaments throughout the world. This was done to honor the courageous fighters of Afghanistan and to condemn the evil acts of oppression and aggression by the Soviets.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42248)• On March 21, 1983, Reagan again wishes to recognize the suffering and tremendous fighting the Afghans have had to endure under Soviet imperialism, as well as to further condemn the Soviet occupation. Therefore, a second Afghanistan Day is declared on March 21, 1983.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41077)• Regan declares a third Afghanistan Day on March 21, 1984.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39663)• Regan declares a fourth Afghanistan Day on March 21, 1985. This time he reminds the nation that the Soviets are in violation of UN resolutions which have passed by an overwhelming majority of the international community.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38371)• December 27, 1987, the eight year anniversary of the Soviet invasion, Reagan addresses the nation and continues his effort to appeal to public support for the withdrawal of the Soviets.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33870)• Regan declares three more Afghanistan days each year following the 1985 proclamation attempting to reverse the actions of the Soviet policy towards Afghanistan.(Links: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=37032 | http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33994 | http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35578)• On April 11, 1987 Regan announced that an agreement has been reached with the Soviets, and that in Geneva they will officially sign a contract solidifying the terms of their withdrawal.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35655)• Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, claims that the administration had covertly funded the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet invasion. However, no documentation online could be found. This significantly influenced the later Soviet withdrawal more so than public pressure from Reagan.(Link: — Not Available)• On December 27, 1988, Regan’s statement on the 9th anniversary of the Soviet invasion describes the steps of withdrawal that the Soviets have already met and their future completion of withdrawal timetable. This is the official declaration of the end of the Soviet invasion given by Reagan.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35296)The nomination and eventual appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, who became the first female Supreme Court Justice.Documents:• On October 14, 1980, seeking to renergize presidential campaign, Reagan promised to put a women in the first Supreme Court vacancy during his term in office. This was a strategy to boost his low ratings which proved to be successful.(Link: — http://womensissues.about.com/od/genderwarriors/a/HistoryWomenSCOTUS_2.htm)• Fulfilling his promise, on July 7, 1981, Reagan announces that Sandra Day O’Connor will be nominated for the vacant seat in the Supreme Court.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44042)• Regan officially thanks the Senate for the smooth and quick confirmation of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44281)The release of the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike with demands that would have cost taxpayers $700 million a year. Reagan released them from their positions and their jobs were filled with workers who found their disputed pay and circumstances acceptable and fair.Documents:• On August 3, 1981 Reagan announces the strike and their unfair demands which would be burdensome to taxpayers. He declared if they do not return to duty in 48 hours, their jobs would be forfeited.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44138)• According to Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, no one at the time took Regan seriously. However, after Regan showed his use of instinct and decisiveness, people in Washington began to take him seriously.(Link: — Not Available)The rescue mission of Grenada on October 25, 1983 that deposed of the communist leaders who gained control through a violent coup and rescued the 800 American medical students held captive there.Documents:• As early as February 24, 1982, Reagan shared his concern with the public over the communist influence over Grenada and their possible “dark future” of becoming a Communist beachhead. This influenced his position and decision making when chaos later erupted in Grenada and American lives were in jeopardy.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42202)• According to Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, the overwhelming majority of Americans approved the Grenada operation, as shown by Wirthlin’s polls. A jump in Reagan's approval ratings can be seen in the Gallup polls.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=40&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY)• At the conclusion of the invasion, Reagan gave a nationally televised speech on October 27, 1983 that beautifully wove together the core principles of these preceding few months — patriotism and anticommunism.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40696)President Reagan's Remarks on Signing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 in the East Room on October 27, 1986The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which budgeted $1.7 billion to fund the war on drugs in America and increase the severity of punishments for drug related offenses.Documents:• These remarks moments before signing the act on October 27, 1986 reflect the level of commitment and passion Regan, as well as his wife Nancy, had in combating the drug problem America faced in the 1980s.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36654)• The official statement on singing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act also contains several provisions reforming the Freedom of Information Act which enhanced the ability of law enforcement agencies to better fight the war on drugs. This was a very important aspect of Regan’s efforts to combat drugs.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36661)• On April 16, 1988, Regan gave a radio address to the nation that updated the public on the progress of the war against drugs. The successes were clearly mentioned, but warned America that it still has a long fight ahead of her to becoming a drug free country. The conclusion of the address was that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was the right choice to make and that it was delivering its promises.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35685)The Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 that focused on advance missile defense technologies to bring global stability and offset the the nuclear Soviet threat.Documents:• According to Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, Reagan began to seriously conceive this program on July 31, 1979 after taking a tour of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado. There he discovered that if another state were to launch a nuclear weapon at the U.S., there would be nothing to do except give a fifteen minute warning to that city. (Link: — Not Available)• Reagan strongly believed that American ingenuity could conquer technological obstacles. This belief is what drove his pursuit of SDI, despite the uncertainties. He related this principle during a speech on February 7, 1983 at a White House ceremony commemorating the bicentennial year of air and space flight.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40850)• According to Lou Cannon, Reagan recalled a meeting with the with Joint Chiefs of Staff where they told him that his idea could be implemented. After this meeting Reagan made the official push for the missile defense program.(Link: — Not Available)• On March 23, 1983, in an address to the nation on defense and national security, it was officially announced that SDI would begin to form, due to the Soviet threat and consultation with his advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who informed Reagan that the program was feasible.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41093)Greatest Failures of President ReaganThe Iran-Contra Affair in which arms were traded for hostages and the proceeds were given to the anti-communist rebels, the Contras in Nicaragua.Documents:• A Memorandum sent January 17, 1986 titled, Covert Action Finding Regarding Iran, from John Poindexter to Reagan recommends the sale of 4000 TOW weapons to Iran for the release of American hostages. The memo is authorized with Reagan’s signature. This document is significant because it provides undeniable proof that Reagan was clear that his administration trading arms for hostages and was doing so with his authorization.(Link: — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/15-Reagan%20Finding%201-17-86%20(IC%2002181).pdf)• Personal notes from Oliver North taken in 1986 in regards to his meeting Manuel Noriega. North proposed that in return for Noriega’s assassination of Sandinista leadership and helping the Contra’s, U.S. pressure would subside in regards to Panama’s drug smuggling and the U.S. would help “clean up” their image. There is also mention of establishing training camps in Panama for Contra operatives. These notes signify Noriega’s. involvement and what the U.S. would give in return for his assistance.(Links: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/9-North%20notes%208-24-86.pdf | http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/9a-North%20notes%209-22-86.pdf)• Personal notes from Caspar Weinberger that describe conversations which Reagan was determined to trade arms for hostages, quote “President sd. he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charges that 'big strong President Reagan passed up chance to free hostages.” Weinberg and Secretary of State Shultz objected to Reagan’s position vehemently. These notes represent the point in which leaders in his own administration disagreed with him and attempted to sway the President from his course.(Link: — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/14-Weinberger%20Diaries%20Dec%207%20handwritten.pdf)• Document written on April 4, 1986 by Oliver North which makes the clear connection between the arms for hostages deals and the backing of the Contras. Before the release of this document, it was unclear that a connection existed between the two events.(Link: — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/16-Diversion%20Memo%204-4-86%20(IC%2002614).pdf)• Excerpts from George H.W. Bush’s diary between November 4-5, 1986 which note his full understanding of the entire affair. This is significant because Bush failed to disclose his diary to investigators and then pardoned several players in the affair.(Link: — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/19-Bush%20Diary%2011-4-86.pdf)• Memorandum For Record by Caspar Weinberger on November 10, 1986 which describes an important meeting in the Oval Office with the President and other members of the administration. This is significant because it is the first of several attempts by the administration to produce a unified response to the scandal which was growing in popularity.(Link: — http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/20-Weinberger%20Memo%2011-10-86%20(IC%2003732).pdf)• November 13, 1986 Reagan addressed the nation, denying a variety of charges and stating: "We did not—repeat—did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."(Link: — href=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36728• Subsequently Reagan appointed the Tower Commission (Special Review Board for the National Security Council) which issued a report highly critical of his management.(Links: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33991 and http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files%20public/TOWER%20EXCERPTS.htmThe Robert Bork appointment to the Supreme Court and Reagan’s refusal to withdraw the nomination even after it was a clear and certain failure. This was not only an embarrassment to the Reagan administration, but hurt his relationship with the Senate and created tremendous amounts of ill will.Documents:• The first announcement to the public on July 1, 1987 that Robert Bork would be nominated to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. This announcement to reporters came before the radio address to the public on July 4, 1987.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34503)• Statements regarding Bork’s American Bar Association rating on September 9, 1987. Bork received the highest rating possible from the ABA. Reagan emphasized this and portrayed Bork as the most qualified person for the job. However, the Democrat opposition ignored this important fact.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34771)• This statement on the Senate floor by Senator Kennedy set the tone for the Bork opposition and had a deep negative impact on the Bork appointment. The accusations of racism, sexism, and strong prejudices impacted the American public, thus diminishing public support for Bork’s appointment.(Link: — http://home.att.net/~midnightflyer/teddyk.html)• Bork’s five day testimony before the Senate proved unimpressive. Bork answered questions in a strange manner and with awkward responses. The hearing also caused his public approval to diminish. This Washington Post-ABC news poll taken during and after the five day testimony shows the drop in public approval of the nominee.(Link: — http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1345074.html)• A radio address on October 3, 1987 given by Reagan that attempts to gain support and momentum for Bork despite the overwhelming evidence that his nomination will fail. This clearly shows Reagan’s mistake of not withdrawing the nomination in the face of certain defeat.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33500)• Statement on October 23, 1987 by Reagan in which he announces the failure of Robert Bork’s appointment and his sadness about the political attacks Bork received.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33597)• This radio address on October 31, 1987 signifies the end of the battle for Bork and the nomination of a new judge, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg. This time Reagan hopes the misery Bork had to endure will not be repeated to Ginsburg.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33627)The failure in Lebanon. Reagan encouraging the Israel invasion and sending in the Marines with insufficient forces for their mission proved to be two dreadful mistakes compounded upon one another.Documents:• In this address to the nation on October 3, 1983, Reagan states a position that would later change with the bombing of the Marine barracks and pressure from congress. Additionally, this position was not supported by any of his generals or secretary of defense. This was the position of U.S. holding its ground in Lebanon with a continued presence of the armed forces.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40612)• According to Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, Reagan ignored the counsel of his military advisers that our forces should be pulled out of Beirut and their vulnerability there.(Link: — Not Available)• On October 23, 1983 a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle inside the marine barracks killing hundreds of servicemen and women. Remarks given to reports indicate that at that time Reagan was still determined to stay the course in Lebanon. (Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40673)• After immense pressure from Congress and public opinion, the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Lebanon was ordered on January 3, 1984.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39694)Strengthened the Power of the PresidencyRemarks and Q & A with reporters on the Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) strikeExercised his removal power by firing the air traffic controllers who went on strike, forced his White House Chief of Staff to resign, and many other removals strengthened the presidential power and his commitment to the unitary executive.Documents:• On August 3, 1981 Reagan announces the strike and their unfair demands which would be burdensome to taxpayers. He declared if they do not return to duty in 48 hours, their jobs would be forfeited.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44138)• The removal of Secretary of State Alexander Haig who was forced out when it became clear that he was not doing a good job and his administration’s goals could be better served without him. This is the letter accepting Haig’s resignation and Haig’s announcement to Reagan.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42681)• Reagan also forced the removal of Donald Regan from Chief of Staff and picked Baker over Meese. This statement on February 27, 1987 reflects this event.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33911)• Members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights were thought to be insulated from Presidential power. However, Reagan strengthened the executive by exercising his removal power and removed three of the commissions members in 1983.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40818)• The removal of 12 Inspectors general in 1981 without informing Congress of his reasons for removal which is a statutory Requirement.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43592)Asserted the power to control the execution of laws directly. For example, the continuation and expansion of the regulatory review program.Documents:• Two executive orders, #s 12,291 and 12,498, expanded Reagan’s control over the agencies. They did so by allowing OMB to eradicate the publications of regulations that they disapproved, and also mandating the substantive criteria that agencies had to use when issuing regulations.(Links: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43424 | http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38024)• Reagan’s objection of the legislative veto that would involve congress in the daily implementation of the law which is a responsibility allocated only for the President under the constitution.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43400)Extensively controlled and carefully picked appointments under his administration. The appointees had deep loyalties to Reagan and his agenda, and no real loyalty to past programs or policies.Documents:• The appointment of Robert C. McFarlane as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on October 17, 1983.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40654)• The appointment of Donald Rumsfeld to the President’s personal representative to the Middle East on November 3, 1983.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40713)• The appointment of Philip C. Habib as Special Envoy to Central America.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36956)• The appointment of Kenneth M. Duberstein as Deputy Chief of Staff to the President on March 12, 1987.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33970)The Berlin Wall speech on June 12, 1987 where Reagan memorably demanded that Mr. Gorbachev "tear down this wall" came to crystalize for many the rhetorical power of the Reagan presidency.Document:• Regan’s remarks given on East-West relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin.(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34390)The pocket veto of the proposed Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1989. This would have amended the Civil Service Reform Act in such a manner that would have taken away from the unitary executive.Document:(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35314)Weakened the Office of the PresidencyPresident Reagan never vetoed a Bill because it infringed upon Presidential power.Documents: n/a©The American Presidency ProjectThe American Presidency Project expresses its gratitude to Robert Florkowski for assistance in compiling this report.Dedication of Reagan Presidential Library

Wow, no accurate premise here.Nothing to see here, folks, move along, just a DailyStormer fart, and a real stinky one at that.If you want to understand the Nazi-sympathiser-funded propaganda, read about [ John Tanton ] and his mask organizations of [ FAIR Federation for American Immigration Reform ] and [ CIS Center for Immigration Studies ] and investigate the members of T-Rump’s administration so indoctrinated and carrying out [ John Tanton ]’s philosophies to return the US to majority white within 100 years.The Anti-Immigration CrusaderBy JASON DePARLEWASHINGTON — Three decades ago, a middle-aged doctor sat outside his northern Michigan home and saw a patch of endangered paradise.A beekeeper and amateur naturalist of prodigious energy, John Tanton had spent two decades planting trees, cleaning creeks and suing developers, but population growth put ever more pressure on the land. Though fertility rates had fallen, he saw a new threat emerging: soaring rates of immigration.Time and again, Dr. Tanton urged liberal colleagues in groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club to seek immigration restraints, only to meet blank looks and awkward silences.“I finally concluded that if anything was going to happen, I would have to do it myself,” he said.Improbably, he did. From the resort town of Petoskey, Mich., Dr. Tanton helped start all three major national groups fighting to reduce immigration, legal and illegal, and molded one of the most powerful grass-roots forces in politics. The immigration-control movement surged to new influence in last fall’s elections and now holds near veto power over efforts to legalize any of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.One group that Dr. Tanton nurtured, Numbers USA, doomed President George W. Bush’s legalization plan four years ago by overwhelming Congress with protest calls. Another, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, helped draft the Arizona law last year to give the police new power to identify and detain illegal immigrants.A third organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, joined the others in December in defeating the Dream Act, which sought to legalize some people brought to the United States illegally as children.Rarely has one person done so much to structure a major cause, or done it so far from the public eye. Dr. Tanton has raised millions of dollars, groomed protégés and bequeathed institutions, all while running an ophthalmology practice nearly 800 miles from Capitol Hill.“He is the most influential unknown man in America,” said Linda Chavez, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan who once led a Tanton group that promoted English-only laws.While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens.Mindful that the early-20th-century fight to reduce immigration had been marred by bigotry, Dr. Tanton initially emphasized FAIR’s identity as a “centrist group” and made arguments aimed at liberals and minorities. He allowed few local FAIR chapters, warning that a stray demagogue might “go off half-cocked and spoil the whole effort.”When a member of FAIR wrote that Hispanic immigrants should be shot — because they “multiply like a bunch of rats” — a staff member offered to refund his dues. Early supporters included Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota and Warren E. Buffett.Now FAIR’s signature event is an annual gathering of talk radio hosts, where earnest policy pitches share time with the kind of battle cries Dr. Tanton once feared. This year’s event mixed discussion of job losses among minorities with calls to use Tomahawk missiles on Tijuana drug lords, while a doubter of President Obama’s birth certificate referred to “the undocumented worker” in the White House. Leading allies include Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, whose sweeps of Latino neighborhoods around Phoenix have prompted a federal investigation.While the whole movement grew more vehement as illegal immigration increased, Dr. Tanton seemed especially open to provocative allies and ideas. He set off a storm of protests two decades ago with a memorandum filled with dark warnings about the “Latin onslaught.” Word soon followed that FAIR was taking money from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that promoted theories of the genetic superiority of whites.Dr. Tanton, who remains on the FAIR board, denied charges of racial bias and donated his papers to the University of Michigan to show that he and colleagues “are not the unsavory types sometimes alleged.” They include hundreds of private letters, some outlining his interest in genetic differences between the races and concerns about the country’s changing ethnic mix.Reeling from their recent defeats, supporters of immigrant rights are mining those files as part of a fierce — critics say unfair — campaign to label him a racist and discredit his broader cause. Some have gone as far as calling FAIR a “hate group.”But accusations of bigotry could alienate moderates the immigrant rights groups need. Allies of Dr. Tanton say their accusers are discrediting themselves with a guilt-by-association campaign that twists his ideas and projects them onto groups where, they say, his influence long ago waned. Still, few of those allies are willing to defend all the views he expresses in his files.Dr. Tanton, 77, declined interview requests, citing problems from Parkinson’s disease. That leaves his files to speak for themselves. Is he an embodiment of his powerful movement or an embarrassment to it?A Pledge of CentrismPetoskey, population 6,000, hugs Lake Michigan in a forested area known for sailboats and summer homes. Dr. Tanton has spent most of his adult life there, chopping wood, keeping bees and growing kale. Even as late as 2000, the surrounding county was 94 percent white.Regretting what he saw as the limits of his rural education, Dr. Tanton compensated with autodidactic zest. He started a Great Books Club, read up on macroeconomics and polished his foreign language skills by subscribing to a German newspaper. The results included a wide-ranging mind and at times a tone deafness. He is a former farm boy who calls colleagues “chaps.”Dr. Tanton founded local chapters of Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club and became the national president of Zero Population Growth. Unable to interest colleagues in fighting immigration, he formed FAIR in 1979, pledging in his proposal to make it “centrist/liberal in political orientation.” The first director, Roger Conner, had made his mark as a liberal environmental advocate.Otis L. Graham Jr., a founding board member, wrote, “A leading concern for me is to bring into FAIR strong representation from people in groups of liberal, progressive disposition.”Then, as today, there were serious liberal arguments for lower immigration. FAIR hoped to enlist unions concerned about wage erosion, environmentalists concerned about pollution and sprawl, and blacks concerned about competition for housing, jobs and schools.A few prominent Democrats lent support, including Senator McCarthy. But most liberal groups saw immigrants, even illegal ones, as minorities to be protected, rather than economic rivals. Unions saw potential members; Democrats saw voters.“We didn’t convince anybody,” Mr. Graham said in an interview.Worried that it was losing the war of ideas, FAIR in 1985 spun off a free-standing research group, the Center for Immigration Studies, intended “to make the restriction of immigration a legitimate position for thinking people,” as Dr. Tanton put it.The next year FAIR faced a defining fight over the first major immigration bill in more than 20 years. It created penalties for employers who hired illegal workers but legalized several million people already here. With FAIR sharply split, Dr. Tanton pushed it to support the compromise, but the penalties proved ineffective and the amnesty was marred by fraud.No one at FAIR would think of compromising on legalization again.Challenging TaboosFAIR was founded on complaints about the immigrants’ numbers, not their culture. But Dr. Tanton feared that they were failing to assimilate. He formed a new group, U.S. English, to oppose bilingual education and demand that government agencies use English alone. By 1988, Dr. Tanton had a high-profile director in Ms. Chavez and ballot measures pending in three states.Then The Arizona Republic revealed the contents of a memorandum he had sent to friends before a brainstorming session. “Will Latin-American migrants bring with them the tradition of the mordida (bribe)?” he asked. “As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”Latino fertility rates caused him special alarm: “those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!”Soon followed the news that FAIR had received grants from the Pioneer Fund, whose most famous grantee was William B. Shockley, the Nobel-winning physicist who argued that for genetic reasons, blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.Ms. Chavez resigned, Mr. Buffett stopped supporting FAIR, and any hope of significant liberal support vanished.Some colleagues never forgave him.“The fear was that one ugly person could tar the larger movement, and sadly, ironically, it turned out that person was John Tanton,” said Patrick Burns, who was then FAIR’s deputy director.But if anything, Dr. Tanton grew more emboldened to challenge taboos. He increasingly made his case against immigration in racial terms.“One of my prime concerns,” he wrote to a large donor, “is about the decline of folks who look like you and me.” He warned a friend that “for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”Dr. Tanton acknowledged the shift from his earlier, colorblind arguments, but the “uncomfortable truth,” he wrote, was that those arguments had failed. With a million or more immigrants coming each year — perhaps a third illegally — he warned, “The end may be nearer than we think.”He corresponded with Sam G. Dickson, a Georgia lawyer for the Ku Klux Klan, who sits on the board of The Barnes Review, a magazine that, among other things, questions “the so-called Holocaust.” Dr. Tanton promoted the work of Jared Taylor, whose magazine, American Renaissance, warned: “America is an increasingly dangerous and disagreeable place because of growing numbers of blacks and Hispanics.” (To Mr. Taylor, Dr. Tanton wrote, “You are saying a lot of things that need to be said.”)Beyond immigration, he revived an old interest in eugenics, another field trailed by a history of racial and class prejudice.“Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids?” he wrote. “And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less. Who is going to break the bad news to them?”Still, few friends confronted him.“My biggest regret is I looked at what he was doing, rolled my eyes and said, ‘That’s John,’ ” said Mr. Conner, the first FAIR director, who praised Dr. Tanton’s great “decency and his generosity on a personal level” and his selfless devotion to his cause. Those qualities are “so profound that the people around him disregarded things that we should have called him on,” he added.Power in the BallotDr. Tanton argued that the public was incensed by illegal immigration, but that elites ignored “hoi polloi,” who bore such costs as rising crime and overcrowded schools.FAIR first glimpsed the power of populist action with the passage of Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot initiative in California barring illegal residents from virtually all social services. But victories came slower on Capitol Hill, where immigrant groups stood with business lobbies eager for foreign labor. The anger that shook California was slow to make the Capitol switchboard buzz.The man who most changed that was Roy Beck, who spent several years as Washington editor of The Social Contract, Dr. Tanton’s journal. Mr. Beck formed Numbers USA in 1997 to help pipe the growing populist anger into Congressional offices. Dr. Tanton helped him raise money and housed the group for four years under his umbrella organization, U.S. Inc.Mr. Beck mobilized a database of supporters with what was then a novel technology, the Internet fax. Prompted by a well-timed alert, his followers could register outrage with a few mouse clicks — or call. They did, in attention-grabbing numbers.A folksy entrant to a fiery debate, Mr. Beck appeared to share little with the white nationalist element in Dr. Tanton’s broad circle. He calls himself a racial liberal and argues that lower immigration would raise the wages of native-born blacks. He put a picture of Barbara Jordan, a black civil rights leader and politician he considered an ally, on the Numbers USA Web site.Yet at The Social Contract, he was part of a journal that often criticized immigration on racial grounds, and Dr. Tanton once dubbed Mr. Beck his “heir apparent.”“He’s just like any friend — there are lots of issues I don’t agree with him on,” Mr. Beck said.Numbers USA showed its force in 2002 when Republican leaders of the House backed a bill that would have allowed some illegal immigrants to remain in the United States while seeking legal status. Numbers USA set the phones on fire, and a majority of Republicans opposed it.“I had people come up to me on the floor of the House saying, ‘O.K., O.K., call off the dogs’ — meaning Numbers USA,” said former Representative Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican who fought the bill.The big war broke out in 2007, after Mr. Bush proposed a systemic overhaul including a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants. Supporters said it would free millions of people from fear and exploitation; opponents argued that it would reward lawbreakers and encourage more illegal immigration.FAIR rallied talk show hosts. The Center for Immigration Studies churned out studies of the bill’s perceived flaws. Numbers USA jammed the Capitol’s phones.Their success became the stuff of lore. They “lit up the switchboard for weeks,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, explaining his decision to oppose the bill. “And to every one of them, I say today: ‘Your voice was heard.’ ”Becoming a TargetFor supporters of granting legal status, the vote was a total rout. “Let’s face it, they kicked our butt,” said Frank Sharry, who led a business-immigrant group for the bill. A new network formed of loosely affiliated liberal groups with a more confrontational bent. It seized on two words: John Tanton.In December 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center dubbed FAIR a “hate group.” In Chicago, the Center for New Community tracked “Tanton’s empire of fear and prejudice.”Mr. Sharry’s new group, America’s Voice, placed newspaper advertisements warning Congress not to meet “with extremist groups like FAIR.” Its online video combines pictures of Dr. Tanton and Mr. Beck with images of Klan members and Nazis.Mr. Sharry acknowledges that he used to warn colleagues that charges of racism would backfire. But he said the 2007 debate convinced him of his opponents’ ill will. “I’ve gone from saying they’re part of the process to seeing them as extremists who want to expel millions of people,” he said. While they started with a liberal gloss, “their juice became culturally conservative Republicans who don’t like brown people.”Despite such attacks, the groups remain influential. Georgia legislators passed a bill last week much like the Arizona measure that FAIR helped draft. Its main sponsor, State Representative Matt Ramsey, a Republican, asked FAIR to review an early draft and credited Numbers USA with helping to mobilize local supporters.“That grass-roots program they have is incredibly effective,” he said.Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, said opponents were suddenly focusing on Dr. Tanton — now in his 32nd year on the board — to silence a policy debate they had lost.“Is FAIR responsible for everything he said in his private correspondence? No,” he said. “I love John, but he’s had no significant control over FAIR for years.” Citing antidiscrimination language on FAIR’s Web site, he added, “We’ve always said you should not discriminate on the basis of race.”Mr. Beck said the charges of bigotry were especially unfair and let a reporter hear a tape of his 1970 wedding ceremony, which included a song he wrote pledging to fight “race hate.” He deliberately lives in integrated neighborhoods, he said, and sent his children to integrated schools, including one in a mostly black housing project.“What kind of racist does that?” he said. “They’ve never accused us of doing anything that’s racist or white nationalist. It’s only that Numbers U.S.A. ‘has ties’ ” to Dr. Tanton.He added: “Even if there were some mild strain of white nationalism in John, the fact is that the results of everything he is pushing in immigration policy would disproportionately help black and Hispanic Americans.”The Center for Immigration Studies, where Dr. Tanton played a lesser role, has come closest to criticizing him, writing last year that he had a “tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration.” (A blogger then attacked the center as undermining “the patriotic struggle.”)Mr. Sharry said the groups’ reluctance to criticize Dr. Tanton showed tacit agreement. But Mr. Conner, the former FAIR director, called it politeness toward a beleaguered friend. “It’s been perfectly clear that people have not been willing to defend John,” he said.Mr. Burns, his former FAIR colleague, said the groups’ silence was harming an honorable cause. “The immigration reform movement has to say what it is and what it’s not, and it has to say it’s not John Tanton,” he said.Kitty Bennett contributed research.This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:Correction: May 1, 2011A picture caption on April 17 with the continuation of an article about John Tanton, who helped start all three major national groups that are fighting to reduce immigration to the United States, misstated the mission of Numbers USA, a group founded by Roy Beck. It seeks to reduce legal and illegal immigration alike, not “to give voice to anger about illegal immigration.”.