Statue Of Ronald Reagan Unveiled In London

In celebration of America's independence day a statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled in London today. The unveiling coincides with the celebration of what would have been "The Gipper's" 100th birthday. His statue joins those of Dwight D Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt, both for their instrumental roles in WWII as well as being former presidents.

Ron Reagan Jr.: Oh Yeah, My Father Had Alzheimers While President

Gee, thanks, Ron. You father would be proud of you. Of course this gives credence to all the loons on the left who cracked funny about President Reagan being senile while in office.

Nancy must be thrilled. Oh and how's this odious little twit telling us this? In a book "honoring" his father.

Stay classy.

2011 is a big year for Ronald Reagan fans, being the centennial of his February 6 birth in Tampico, Ill. But youngest son Ron Reagan is spoiling the good cheer with a new book that suggests the Gipper suffered from Alzheimer's disease while in the White House, a claim dismissed by Reagan's doctors and outside experts. "Had the diagnosis been made in, say, 1987, would he have stepped down?" Ron asks, regarding the disease confirmed in 1994. "I believe he would have," he writes in My Father At 100: A Memoir, due in bookstores Tuesday.

In addition to challenging the former president's doctors, Ron also reports for the first time that Reagan, right after falling off a horse six months out of the White House, underwent brain surgery, denied by Reagan associates.

Let's start with the Alzheimer's diagnosis. It was announced in 1994. While it prompted some to suggest they knew Reagan had the disease as president, his four White House doctors said they saw no evidence of it. But Ron, who became a liberal and atheist, disappointing his dad, suggests he saw hints of confusion and "an out-of-touch president" during the 1984 campaign and again in 1986, when his father couldn't recall the names of California canyons he was flying over. Arguing his case in the book, Ron adds that doctors today know that the disease can be in evidence before being recognized. "The question, then, of whether my father suffered from the beginning stages of Alzheimer's while in office more or less answers itself," he writes.

Besides playing amateur doctor, Ron Reagan reveals, if true, brain surgery on his dad never before reported. He accurately reports that Reagan, after leaving the presidency, was bucked from a horse on July 4, 1989, while in Mexico. Ron tells of how his dad, after initially refusing medical help, was transported to a San Diego hospital. "Surgeons opening his skull to relieve pressure on the brain emerged from the operating room with the news that they had detected what they took to be probable signs of Alzheimer's disease." Several Reagan associates, however, say there was no surgery in San Diego.

What's more there is no reporting about any San Diego operation on Reagan. News reports at the time of his fall say Reagan was flown to a hospital in Arizona, where he was treated for scrapes and bruises and released after five hours.

There were no reports of Reagan with a shaved head or skull stitches later that month when he served as a guest TV announcer at the July 11 baseball All-Star Game in Anaheim, Calif., or when he was inducted into the Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City on July 21.

It's no wonder this punk is frequently seen on MSNBC. He apparently enjoys making up "news" like much of the media, especially this past week.

You can predict a couple of things with this book: Nobody on the right is going to waste a nickel on anything this sniveling puke wrote and nobody on the left will buy it either since they still hate Reagan.

Jumping the Fark

I normally find the headline writers at Fark to be amusing, but this is way over the top, when referencing this story.

McCain says Sarah Palin similar to Reagan. Presumably Nancy since they both spent a significant portion of their lives wiping the drool from an incoherent invalid in diapers.

Reagan and Palin certainly have one thing in commong: Getting some to hit rock bottom every chance they get.

Good News: Not All Young Celebrities Are Braindead Twits

Nice to see some of the younger generation appreciate the great Ronald Reagan, even if they weren't alive during his presidency. Of course coming out of the closet, so to speak, brings the typical reaction from the angry left.

Nick Jonas of the Jonas Brothers and Jordin Sparks of "American Idol" fame are among the co-chairs of a "National Youth Leadership Committee" honoring Ronald Reagan in conjunction with the former president's 100th birthday.

"Ronald Reagan is a personal hero of mine, I admire the way he stood up for causes he believed were right, no matter what," Jonas said in a quote posted to the website of the Ronald Reagan presidential foundation and library.

Jonas and Sparks are among the 35 young people who are on the committee, many of whom had not been born before Mr. Reagan left office in 1989. Also on the committee are athletes, beauty queens and students, all of whom are under 25 years old.

"Each of these young athletes, entertainers, and student leaders is inspired in a personal way by President Reagan's vision of freedom and the example of his leadership," according to the website. "Together they have earned 18 Olympic medals, 11 NCAA All-American selections, five NCAA Championships, two certified Platinum Records, and numerous other awards."

Jonas and Sparks told the Associated Press they became fans of Reagan by virtue of their parents' dinner conversations.

Obviously, their parents raised them well.

As expected, this news didn't go over well with some of the commenters.

Who are these brainless punks, and, more important, what thickheaded right-wing radical got to them? Reagan was such a horrible joke as President that his irresponsible spending killed not only his budget but Bush I's, resulting in Clinton being elected. Somebody take these worthless little twits out behind the barn with a strop.

Classy. Admiring a former Republican president means they should be beaten.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

Click to enlargeFebruary 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004



Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

The man who opened the Berlin Wall
On November 9th 1989, Harald Jäger wanted his night shift at the East Berlin border crossing at Bornholmer Strasse to go quietly. Instead, Jäger opened the first crack in the Berlin Wall and helped make history.

“But then things happened, that I would have never imagined even in my worst dreams,” remembered the former state security officer in a conversation with the DPA new service. His border crossing was the first to open - without an order from above. The hours leading up to the opening were the most dramatic in his life.

“I’m happy that only thing that flowed was fear-induced sweat and not blood,” Jäger said.

In the canteen around 7 pm that evening, he had followed the press conference with the East German official Günter Schabowski, which outlined new travel rules for the country's citizens. Almost offhandedly, Schabowski announced the immediate opening of the border. The impact of the announcement was almost immediately visible, said Jäger.

“At first there were just a handful of East German citizens there, but by the minute there were more. It went from hundreds to thousands, who chanted, ‘Open the gate!,’” explained Jäger, who was in charge of 30 guards and three border posts that night.

“We stood just an arms-length away from the masses, who were separated from us by just a closed crossing gate,” he said, explaining how he was scared of a mass panic. “We no longer had the situation under control,” said Jäger, now 66 years old. He kept trying to phone his superiors for orders. “But higher up, chaos reigned just as it did for us.”

Around 9:40 pm, the order came to allow especially “provocative citizens” through the border, but not to let them back in. But this “ventilation” tactic didn’t help.

“At 11:20 pm, I then ordered the crossing gate to be opened and to allow everyone to leave without inspecting their papers,” said Jäger. About 25,000 people used their new freedom on that evening to cross into West Berlin.


“In the first moment, something was really empty inside me. I didn’t understand the world anymore,” said Jäger. Today, he’s “a bit proud” that he prevented the situation from escalating. He believes that because of his cool-headed handling of the situation, he made some amends for his 28 years of service with the East German border troops.

It was good that “the East Germans didn’t exclude us, instead they embraced us,” said Jäger. The reaction from his then-superiors was also mild. “My knees were shaking when I called up my colonel to report on what was happening. He said only, ‘it’s good, my boy.’”

After Germany reunited, Jäger had to “start from zero.” He was unemployed for two years and then trained to become a taxi driver. He also sold ice cream and newspapers and worked as a security guard. Coming to terms with his past took many years, Jäger said. A series of interviews with Gerhard Hasse-Hindenberg, who wrote a biography of Jäger that was published in 2007, helped considerably.

Today, Jäger lives in the town of Weneuchen in Brandenburg and spends a lot of time in his garden tending cacti. After 20 years, he wants to go back to his former border crossing on the 9th of November and mix with the others there.

But he can’t fully savour the freedom to travel that came with the fall of the Wall: he doesn’t have enough money for the dream trip to Mexico that he’d like to take.

Via The Local

Meanwhile, as Berliners and dignitaries celebrate the Fall of the Wall and remember those who died during their attempt to flee the communist paradise, BarryO won't be there.

In his first year in office, Barack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He's touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (eleven). It's an itinerary befitting a "citizen of the world."

But there's one stop Obama won't make. He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded. John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, "Ich bin ein Berliner." On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, "Ich bin beschäftigt" - i.e., I'm busy.

It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama - with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world - would spurn German president Angela Merkel's invitation to attend.

Obama famously made a speech in Berlin during last year's campaign, but at an event devoted to celebrating himself as the apotheosis of world hopefulness. He said of 1989, "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

The line was typical Obama verbal soufflé, soaring but vulnerable to collapse upon the slightest jostling from logic or historical fact. The wall came down only after the free world resolutely stood against the Communist bloc. Rather than a warm-and-fuzzy exercise in global understanding, the Cold War was another iteration of the 20th century's long war between totalitarianism and Western liberalism. The West prevailed on the back of American strength.

But Obama doesn't think in such antiquated, triumphalist terms. Given to apologizing for his nation abroad, he resolutely downplays American leadership. "President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he used as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side," the Washington Post notes, approaching "the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest." To the extent that the Cold War doesn't fit this unbelievably naïve worldview, it's an intellectual inconvenience.

Wouldn't Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights - those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world. During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression. In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their "offense against humanity." Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.

Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents - even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we'd remain a beacon of liberty in the world.

Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won't even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?

So Obama huddles with Merkel during her visit to Washington and leaves it at that. An American president will skip events marking the end of a struggle to which we, as a nation - under presidents of both parties - devoted blood and treasure for 50 years. For Barack Obama, 1989 is just another far-away year - and the Democratic party of such men as Harry S. Truman and JFK has never seemed more distant.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.

Via RCP

Dems Look to Remove Reagan's Name From Airport?

As we rush headlong toward the Socialist Utopia, it appears Democrats will not only be rewriting history but trying to remove any reference to it.

At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.

It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.

Oh, give them another day. They'll find something even more petty.

Change!

Hey, maybe they can just bypass the formalities now and name it after King Obama.

Gallup Survey As Greatest President Ever: Ronald Reagan

I figure in another month the Obamatons will have this rigged, so let's enjoy the results while we can.

Less than a month into Barack Obama's presidency, Obama's desire to emulate Abraham Lincoln can be found in his speeches, his bipartisan gestures, and his "team of rivals" approach to picking a cabinet. But Lincoln is not matchless as Americans' pick for the nation's greatest president. Given a list of five presidents to choose from, Americans are as likely to name John Kennedy as Lincoln (22% each), while 24% choose Ronald Reagan.

Honestly, I can't figure what JFK did to merit being equal with Lincoln. And what's this nonsense about Obama's bipartisan gestures? What, like telling the GOP "I won"?

At least it will be enjoyable to see heads popping over Ronald Reagan getting the largest percentage of votes.

H/T Hot Air headlines.

'Obama is the Biggest Story of the Century So Far'

He's bigger than 9/11, bigger than the war on terrorism, heck, he's the biggest thing evah!.

Of course, that's sheer fantasy and solipsism, but why interrupt a good orgasm?

I really didn't think it would get this bad.

President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.

The Texas-based Global Language Monitor said there had also been 6 million new Obama-related mentions on the Internet since December 31.

By comparison, the last U.S. presidential inauguration, of George W. Bush in January 2005, resulted in about 1,000 stories in major media worldwide, Paul JJ Payack, president of Global Language Monitor said.

"The Obama numbers are unprecedented and speak volumes to the global fascination with the new American president, his wife and young family," Payack told Reuters. "Obama is the biggest story of the century so far."

U.S. television audience ratings for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, which was shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels, are expected to show record numbers tuning in when they are released later on Wednesday.

Ah, but just one little problem.

Ronald Reagan's inauguration outdrew Obama.

How can this be?

Poll Shows More Americans Want Obama to Be the Next Reagan

Good luck finding this reported anywhere.

When American voters were asked which past President of the United States they believe Barack Obama should model his new presidency after, they did not pick Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy, or even George Washington as their top choice. They picked Ronald Reagan.

According to a nationwide survey conducted by Clarus Research Group this past week, Reagan was the top choice among all voters with 26 percent, followed by Franklin Roosevelt with 18%, Kennedy with 17% and Lincoln with 13%."Reagan was the overwhelming favorite among Republican voters," said Dr. Ron Faucheux, President of Clarus. "He received 59 percent as the President GOP voters want Obama to emulate. Nobody else came close."

"Democrats scattered their choices more," Faucheux noted. "FDR was their top pick at 27 percent and was closely followed by Kennedy, with 26 percent. Lincoln, a Republican, ranked third among Democrats."

Good luck getting Obama to be anywhere near as great a president as Reagan.

On This Day In 1980, Carter Led Reagan By Eight Points

Cheer up, all you poll watchers.

This isn't over yet.

There have been only 2 instances in the past 14 elections, from 1952 to 2004, when the presidential candidate ahead in Gallup polling a week or so before the election did not win the national popular vote: in 2000 (George W. Bush) and 1980 (Jimmy Carter). And in only one of these, in 1980, did the candidate who was behind (Ronald Reagan) pull ahead in both the popular vote and the Electoral College and thus win the election.

Scroll down at the link for results dating back to 1952. While Reagan trailed Carter by eight points among registered voters in the Gallup survey on October 26, 1980, he won going away by 10 points.

Is the same likely to occur this year? Probably not, but keep in mind things are very volatile right now and plenty of embarrassing revelations are making people take notice of what's going on. Granted, while the media was also biased in 1980, it wasn't nearly as bad as the pro-Obama media has been this year. Plus, as inept as Carter was, he didn't have nearly as much baggage as Obama does.

McCain has plenty of work to do, as he trails in a number of battleground states, but despite the efforts of the media to declare the race over, there are still eight days to go.

Is John McCain the next Ronald Reagan? Far from it. But Barack Obama shapes up as being far more to the left than Jimmy Carter, truly a frightening scenario.

For what it's worth, the IBD/TIPP poll has Obama up 46.5-43.3% with 10.1% still undecided. The RCP average has Obama up 7.3 average, but that's skewed by dubious NY Times and Newsweek polls. Today's Rasmussen poll has Obama up by five. Not insurmountable, but very little time to work with.

Maybe if Obama's friends at the Los Angeles Times release that potentially explosive video they're sitting on, things could shift.

Rarefied Air

Czech President Klaus to pay working visit to United States


Czech President Vaclav Klaus leaves on Monday for a working visit to the United States during which he will be presented with two decorations for freedom promotion and meet some local politicians and businessmen, according to his web page.

He will visit the cities of Portland, Seattle and Phoenix during the visit from which he will return to Prague on October 4.

In Portland, Oregon, Klaus will attend the presentation of his book Blue, not Green Planet, in which he criticises the alleged provoking of panic over global warming that will be issued in a second edition in the United States.

In Seattle, Klaus will be presented with Columbia Award that has been bestowed on him by the Washington Policy Centre (WPC).

Its winners include former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, current president's brother Jeb Bush and former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani.

In Seattle, Klaus will also meet managers of Microsoft company.

On Thursday, Klaus will be presented with Barry Goldwater Award for Liberty in Phoenix.

Its winners include Reagan, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and economist Milton Friedman.

The award, called after former Republican senator Barry Goldwater, is awarded by Goldwater Institute for an exceptional contribution to the development of human freedom.

Not bad, not bad at all.

Klaus has visited the United States many times since he became Czech president for the first time in 2003, but has never been there on an official state visit.

Three years ago President Bush, however, received him in the White House.

Last year Klaus welcomed Bush in Prague where Bush promoted the U.S. plans for the stationing of elements of the anti-missile shield in Central Europe.

And the words community organizer are nowhere to be found in his curriculum vitae.

Via ČeskéNoviny

Ronald Reagan, Agent of Change: Obama Praises Reagan, Hilarity Ensues

Ronald Reagan once said Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.

Fast forward to 2008, and the new slogan should be Do not dare praise Ronald Reagan, especially if you're an angry Democrat.

Rivals blast Obama's praise for Reagan

RENO, Nev. - John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama's praise of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan — an anathema for many Democrats, particularly union members considered crucial to winning Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday.

Obama responded by suggesting Clinton would be a "president whose plans change with the politics of the moment" — one of his most direct critiques of the New York senator yet.

The intensity reflects what polls suggest could be a tight contest Saturday as Nevada plays its most prominent role ever in a presidential nominating campaign. Nevada was granted a coveted spot right after Iowa and New Hampshire in an attempt to bring more racial and geographic diversity into the selection.

The novelty means there isn't a reliable way to determine who is likely to turn out at caucuses across the state. In addition, nine caucuses are to be held in casinos for the first time to allow shift workers to participate on a busy holiday weekend — making the result even more unpredictable.

Obama got a boost when he won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union that represents 60,000 housekeepers, bartenders, waiters and other employees on the Las Vegas Strip. Then a judge dismissed an attempt to eliminate the casino caucus sites. But Clinton still holds an edge in most polls.

Edwards, his chances for the presidency diminished by losses to Obama in Iowa and Clinton in New Hampshire, did not run television ads in the state and did not plan to stay in Nevada to wait for results. His schedule Friday had him leaving to campaign in Oklahoma, Missouri and Georgia, among the more than 20 states that vote on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Edwards questioned Obama's commitment to labor in his final appeal to Nevada voters — a rally with about 100 of his precinct captains in Las Vegas.

"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party," Edwards said.

Reagan also "was destructive to the environment by removing a lot of the regulation that existed," Edwards added in a later telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change."

Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said.

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper.

On Friday in Las Vegas, Clinton, responded, "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years." She said she didn't consider it a better idea to privatize Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, undercut health benefits, shut down the government or drive the country into debt. "I think we know what needs to be done in America. And I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one."

Yes, we remember the last 10 to 15 years, Mrs. Clinton.

All too well.

Props to Obama for at least being coherent enough to realize Ronald Reagan was a great president.

The hapless Edwards, babbling about union-busting, couldn't shine Reagan's shoes.

As for Mrs. Clinton, when exactly did Ronald Reagan try to "privatize Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, undercut health benefits, shut down the government"?

More amusement here.

Oddly enough, upon his death, Mrs. Clinton and her husband sang a different tune about President Reagan.

Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere," their statement said.

UPDATE: The latest roundup from Michelle Malkin.

How the Democrats Won the Cold War

Remarkably, after the epic bombs Redacted and Lions for Lambs, now Hollywood will soon release a film explaining--get this--how the Democrats won the Cold War!

You can't make this stuff up.

TURNS OUT THE DEMOCRATS WON THE COLD WAR. WHO KNEW?

At last, Hollywood has (sort of) made a pro-CIA, pro-war, anti-Soviet movie: "Charlie Wilson's War." It's all about how Democrats defeated the Soviet Empire.

A better title for the movie would be “The Invisible Man," because the man who doesn't appear in it, and is barely mentioned in the background, is Ronald Reagan. Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer and even Rudy Giuliani - back when he was still “Rudolph" - are much more prominently name-checked than Reagan in the movie, which was directed by Sawyer's husband Mike Nichols.

The Dec. 21 release stars Tom Hanks as a 1980s Texas Congressman named Charlie Wilson, a coke-snorting, skirt-chasing, boozing liberal. Who better to write the script than Aaron Sorkin?

Wilson, backed by a Commie-hating right-wing Christian millionaire fundraiser played by Julia Roberts, helped funnel CIA assistance to the Muslim rebels in Afghanistan who originally tried to repel the Soviet invasion using weapons George Custer would have called obsolete. They needed Stinger missiles and eventually got them.

The film is going to flop, unless Christmas finds millions of Americans saying, “Hey, kids, now that everyone's unwrapped their presents, let's go see a movie about fighting in Afghanistan!"

The movie has something for everyone - to dislike. Some liberals will say it isn't tough enough on Republicans (though at the end, it all but blames the U.S. for the rise of the Taliban, a notion I don't have space to get into here), possibly because it is being released by Universal, a division of Defense Department contractors G.E. (Color me skeptical that G.E. sends an Alec-Baldwin-on-“30 Rock"-figure to spy on Tom Hanks movies and polish the dishwashers on the set.)

George Crile, who wrote the book upon which the movie is based, didn't attempt to hide its provenance. Crile was basically a mouthpiece for a tale spun by the two guys who painted themselves as the heroes of the story: “The extensive recollections of Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakotos [the CIA man played by Philip Seymour Hoffman on screen] form the backbone of the greater part of this narrative," Crile wrote in his source notes.

Read the rest.

This might be a shoo-in for the best comedy of the year.

McClatchy Nitwit: 'Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan'

Mind-numbing stupidity from McClatchy's Steven Thomma.

Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan

WASHINGTON — They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.

Abortion? He was for abortion rights before he was against them.

Taxes? He raised them as governor, and raised them several times as president after his big 1981 tax cuts.

Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.

Foreign policy? He negotiated with the head of the "Evil Empire."

In fact, they'd find him wrong on almost every hot-button issue of the 2008 campaign.

Most of those stands are overlooked in the Republicans' idealized rear-view idolization of Reagan as an unwavering conservative icon. But they serve as a reminder that even the revered Reagan was a pragmatic politician whose stands often changed and might not fit in today's politics.

Read the rest.

Along with completely misreading history, and who knows if this guy was even alive in 1980, Thomma completely ignores the main reason why Reagan was elected: Jimmy Carter.

I don't recall abortion being a huge issue in 1980 (in the end it never is, except with the media). Yes, Reagan "negotiated" with the Evil Empire, as Thomma puts it. We know what the end result was: No more Evil Empire.

And tell me this: If ideological purity is such a primary concern, why is it a relatively liberal Republican like Rudy Giuliani is leading the pack? If the Republicans demanded such ideological purity, we wouldn't give Giuliani the time of day.

Thomma and the rest of the media spend no time whatsoever fretting about the ideological purity of the far-left Democrats, yet seem quite consumed with how Republicans consider their own candidates. Worry about your people, and let us decide who our candidate is. We sure don't need your advice, thank you very much.

In the end, Reagan was the far superior candidate to Jimmy Carter, while Giuliani and all but one current Republican candidate (guess who that might be?) is far preferable to any Democrats.

What Amnesty?

Author, talkshow host and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, Mark Levin, has been no shrinking violet during the entirety of whatever the RINO administration is calling the amnesty bill this week.

Tuesday, Mark discussed this sham with Laura Ingraham.

A list of Mark's archived shows provides for some interesting listening. I highly recommend Mark's D-Day tribute.

I also recommend Free Speech & Amnesty along with his wig-spinning discussion about Trent Lott.

Levin's webstream, heard live from 6-8PM EDT daily, is broadcast from the 77 WABC mothership in NYC.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Tuesday is the 20th anniversary of one of President Reagan's most famous speeches and Robert Stacy McCain at the Washington Times recounts how the epic line was nearly excised from the speech. Thank God he ignored them.

Top administration officials said the speech was all wrong. Too provocative, said the National Security Council. Too tough, said the State Department.

The president overruled his advisers and, as he rode through the streets of West Berlin on June 12, 1987, he told an aide that his speech at the Brandenburg Gate was simply "the right thing to do."

Addressing a crowd of thousands as he stood before the Berlin Wall -- the world's most notorious symbol of Soviet tyranny -- President Reagan declared: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Tomorrow, former White House speechwriter Peter Robinson will recount the story behind those famous words during a special event at the Reagan Ranch Center here.

Read the rest.

Defense Shield Long In Coming

In September 1944, German forces launched the first-ever successful missile attack against London.

In July of the following year, a delegation of U.S. officers traveled to Europe to investigate. Their conclusion: The United States needed to develop anti-ballistic missile defenses.

Within a year, the missile age had begun and so had the United States’ quest to build a shield. Neither has stopped since. Although ever-present, this issue has at times risen to the surface of public consciousness and debate.

In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s notorious Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or “Star Wars”) program marked the highest-profile phase of the ongoing push toward a missile shield.

Notorious as in being a contributing factor in the collapse of the Evil Empire because they went bankrupt trying to compete.

Research, development and testing of new technologies, including space-based chemical weapons and ground-based laser weapons, continued through the 1980s with mixed results.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, criticism of the need for such a program mounted. In his 1991 State of the Union address, President George H. W. Bush announced that SDI’s mission would change from defense against a large-scale attack to “protection against limited ballistic missile strikes — whatever their source.”

Don't tell the neocoMs, but when was the last time you read this?

By the late 1990s, U.S. President Bill Clinton had authorized the development of a missile-defense shield; the decision was influenced by North Korean missile tests in 1998. The United States continued pouring billions of dollars into missile defense development and testing.

Read it all, you'll appreciate the clarity.

War Erupts in Old Europe

It can only be described as a mad dash to embrace socialism's greatest heresy - tax cuts.

A tax-cut war is spreading across Europe as leaders of the Continent's biggest economies give up criticizing smaller neighbors for cutting business-tax rates and decide to join them instead.

The move toward lower levies on corporate profits in Spain, Germany, France and Britain is aimed at attracting companies and reinforcing the strongest economic expansion in six years. It comes after Ireland and new European Union members from Eastern Europe succeeded in attracting investment, and irking their larger rivals, with tax rates of less than 20 percent, among the world's lowest.

It's "tax cuts for the rich" and

Supporters of lower corporate taxes point to the success of Ireland, whose 12.5 percent rate, the lowest in the developed world, is down from 47 percent in 1988. That proved a magnet for such U.S.-based technology companies as Microsoft, Intel and Dell and helped Ireland's economy grow more than three times the rate of the euro area in the past decade, while still running a budget surplus in nine of the 10 years.

[Chief European economist Erik] Nielsen at Goldman Sachs [London] is betting that lower corporate taxes, by making businesses more competitive, will help euro-zone economies grow at a faster rate without heating up inflation. An improved business climate has helped raise that rate, the so-called speed limit, to as much as 2.5 percent for the bloc's economies, from 2 percent, he said.

That's consistent with the findings in a study of 86 countries last year by KPMG International, which showed corporate tax cuts allowed countries to attract and retain business investment with little loss of revenue. While governments collect less from companies, the difference is offset by new revenue stimulated by expanded hiring and spending, the study found.

But apparatchiks within the European Union are nervous.

Stefano Scarpetta, an economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, "Evidence on the links between taxes and investment is not fully conclusive." The OECD, based in Paris, plans to finish a research project on the question by March.

Old Europe adopting the principles of Reaganomics.

Priceless.

Ted Kennedy, Traitor

I had noticed several stories recently about Ted Kenendy and his shady dealings with the former Soviet Union during the Reagan Administration, but the story never gets any traction due to the overwhelming liberal media bias in this country.

Well, I heard Roger Hedgecock, sitting in behind the Golden EIB Microphone today, mention Cold War contacts, a piece by a former CIA analyst in today's Washington Times, so hopefully the story will be picked up by more outlets.

Hedgecock made a point to note how the current behavior of the Democrats undermining the Bush Administration in the Iraq war isn't so much news as it's a pattern of behavior going back much further, and this story is more than ample evidence of the perfidy committed by the drunken sot from Massachusetts.

In 1983, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy offered to help the Soviets mount a public-relations offensive in the United States. This propaganda attack would target President Reagan and his policies. These are the same policies that eventually ended the Cold War and reduced the possibility of nuclear annihilation. This charge was made by Paul Kengor in his book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

This new book adds to research done by Herb Romerstein, Yevgenia Albats, Vladimir Bukovsky, Pavel Stroilov and others. They all indicate that Mr. Kennedy felt that any bad relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were the sole fault of Mr. Reagan and that talk of a Soviet military threat was nonsense. These articles seem to validate reports that were first published by Vasili Mitrokhin — the former KGB historian who secretly copied sensitive KGB files and released them after the fall of the Soviet Union.

According to this research and released KGB papers, Mr. Kennedy felt that the booming economy during Mr. Reagan's presidency made him popular — and thus a difficult target for Democratic criticism. Because of this, Mr. Kennedy reportedly felt that Mr. Reagan's only weakness was in foreign policy. Here, the articles say Mr. Kennedy felt the Soviets might be of assistance, if Mr. Kennedy and the Democrats could get the ear of the general-secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Guarantee this: Should the story get picked up by a wider audience, the left will simply circle the wagons around their bloated icon, and question whether the author really exists, since he penned the piece under a pseudonym.

They won't have any problem "outing" a CIA analyst in this case.