Obama: Economy in the Ditch

Obama is Jimmy Carter. No doubt about it.

We need to find our Ronald Reagan.

D-Day: 67 Years Ago Today

It's been 67 years since the D-Day invasion.

On its 40th anniversary, President Ronald Reagan eloquently praised the forces of freedom that stormed the beaches of France on June 6, 1944.

At Pointe de Hoc, Normandy, June 6, 1984, President Reagan delivered an address that is as poignant and as relevant today as it was 27 years ago.

We should never take for granted the extraordinary sacrifice that was made by those extraordinary young men.

Thousands of men took their last breaths on the beaches, so that millions and millions would be free when they took their first.

Their legacy is freedom.

It's appropriate to pause today, in prayer and gratitude, to remember them.

Ronald Reagan: Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.

Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only ninety could still bear arms.

And behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. And these are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor."

I think I know what you may be thinking right now -- thinking "we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day." Well everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him -- Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry, I'm a few minutes late," as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles, who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold; and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a roll call of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots' Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet," and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought -- or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4:00 am. In Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying. And in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: "Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do." Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together. There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance -- a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. The Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II. Twenty million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

We will pray forever that someday that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

We're bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we're with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

Krugman: Republicans and Race

Paul Krugman has an idiotic column in today's New York Times, "Republicans and Race."

He talks about Republicans, the Southern white vote, and racial polarization.

Krugman lays out the case that Ronald Reagan used race to divide and conquer. He did it in a stealthy manner, but he did it.

[Reagan] never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”

Thus, Reagan repeatedly told the bogus story of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud. He never mentioned the woman’s race, but he didn’t have to.

There are many other examples of Reagan’s tacit race-baiting in the historical record. My colleague Bob Herbert described some of these examples in a recent column. Here’s one he didn’t mention: During the 1976 campaign Reagan often talked about how upset workers must be to see an able-bodied man using food stamps at the grocery store. In the South — but not in the North — the food-stamp user became a “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks.

Now, about the Philadelphia story: in December 1979 the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party’s nominee speak at the Neshoba Country Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964. It would, he wrote, help win over “George Wallace inclined voters.”

Sure enough, Reagan appeared, and declared his support for states’ rights — which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments.

By gleefully slamming Reagan, Krugman's intends to expose the ugly underbelly of Republicans' exploitation of racism to gain power, specifically by winning over the Southern white vote.

Krugman implies that Southern whites are racists and Republicans take advantage of their socially and morally unacceptable attitudes.

He says that Reagan may not have been personally bigoted but that didn't stop him from using race to his advantage as a political strategy.

I don't agree with his assessment, but that's not what annoys me most about Krugman's column.

What's missing from Krugman's analysis?

He completely ignores the fact that Democrats are just as likely as Republicans, or more likely, to exploit race to win over voters.

It's the Democrats who visit black churches, pander to black voters, and then fail to deliver on campaign promises.

As Al Sharpton said, "We must not be in a relationship with a Democratic Party that takes us for granted. We must no longer be the political mistresses of the Democratic Party. A mistress is where they take you out to have fun but they can't take you home to mama and daddy."

For years, Democrats have taken black voters for granted. Dems are shameless race-baiters.

And like Krugman, they consistently and unfairly paint Republicans as the enemies of minorities.

Krugman asks:

Why does this history matter now? Because it tells why the vision of a permanent conservative majority, so widely accepted a few years ago, is wrong.

The point is that we have become a more diverse and less racist country over time. The “macaca” incident, in which Senator George Allen’s use of a racial insult led to his election defeat, epitomized the way in which America has changed for the better.

And because conservative ascendancy has depended so crucially on the racial backlash — a close look at voting data shows that religion and “values” issues have been far less important — I believe that the declining power of that backlash changes everything.

This is such a crock.

I believe we have become a more diverse and less racist country.

That's what made the lib media Washington Post's hit job on George Allen so despicable. It was character assassination, pure and simple.

Democrats use racial and ethnic slurs, but they get a pass. A former Ku Klux Klan member and Dem is a U.S. senator. Ex-klansman Robert Byrd used the term "white nigger" in an interview as recently as March 2001, on FOX News Sunday.

It's disingenuous for Krugman to discuss the conservative movement as grounded in racism while totally ignoring the racial elements that have bolstered the liberal movement in America.

Krugman concludes:

Now, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. But we should be able to discuss the role of race in American politics honestly. We shouldn’t avert our gaze because we’re unwilling to tarnish Ronald Reagan’s image.

Let's discuss the role of race in American politics honestly.

Krugman fails to do that in this column.

Reagan and the '08 Republicans: Point/Counterpoint

In his analysis of the Republican presidential candidates, Charles Krauthammer takes some shots at Ronald Reagan.

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent.

What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent.

Krauthammer goes on to say that the current field of candidates is adequate.

He concludes:

So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.

Mark Levin disagrees with Krauthammer's assessment of Reagan. He counters Krauthammer's shots, point by point.

He also suggests that now is the time to carefully examine the '08 candidates. That's what the primary process is about.

Levin's column is worth reading.

He concludes:

Krauthammer never worked for Reagan; I did. That's not a prerequisite for understanding Reagan, but when an opinion-maker is wrong about him, my personal experience of Reagan obliges me to defend him. Krauthammer suggests to me that he still doesn't understand why Reagan was a great leader or the public's love for him. The public had confidence that when Reagan spoke, he meant what he said; He left no room for question about what he believed in, and that he would try to implement policies consistent with his long-held positions.

It's not so much that we long for Reagan, as some dismissively contend (although I note that the candidates themselves invoke his name endlessly as a substitute for their own conservative shortcomings, perceived or otherwise). It is rather that we long for someone who can lead as he did. We don't seek perfection (even if we could define it), and we don't claim Reagan was perfect.

Krauthammer says he's not putting Reagan down. If that is the case, then he nonetheless has a funny way of describing him. But even if Reagan never existed, surely there is some standard by which we judge the candidates. For some of us, that standard is the same standard we used to judge prior candidates, including Reagan. To say all the candidates are fine is to say nothing. To say that major aspects of their records don't square with recent campaign statements is more than nitpicking. Now is the time to be inquisitive, engaged, and discerning. That's what primaries are all about. That's not to say that there aren't worthy candidates in the field. But simply saying they’re worthy is unpersuasive.

This isn't the first election in which a war hero is running for president. We've had war heroes who have made lousy presidents. This isn't the first election involving a successful governor. But they, too, have had mixed presidential records. I would encourage more scrutiny, not less.

Hillary Clinton as the New Reagan

Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up?

Is she a raving Leftist loon or a centrist?

Could it be that Hillary is even a bit conservative? Are her Young Republican roots still alive, albeit deeply buried?

I wonder.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Hillary declares that she's best qualified to unite America.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed back against criticism from fellow Democrats that she is too polarizing to unite the country as president, arguing that the political battles she has been through make her uniquely equipped to bring the nation together and build a centrist governing coalition.

In an interview aboard her campaign bus, Clinton (N.Y.) acknowledged that she has contributed to the divisive politics of the past decade but said she has learned from those experiences. She said that if she becomes president, she will attempt to assemble a broad, centrist coalition on such key issues as health care, energy independence and national security.

The former first lady called President Bush's political and governing strategy of concentrating primarily on his party's base for support "a tragedy" for the country's politics.

"I actually think that in a way, the fact that I've been through so much incoming fire all these years is an advantage," she said, adding: "It's been my observation that when you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave -- or you persevere and show your resilience."

...Clinton spoke at some length about her rivals' criticism that she carries too much political baggage from the conflicts of her husband's administration to be an effective and unifying president.

"I really think my experience uniquely equips me to be president at this time, both having gone through it, having been on the receiving end of it and -- in campaigns that were hard-fought -- maybe on the giving end of it . . .," she said.

"The overall assessment, given all of the mistakes that I made and all of the lessons that I've learned, is that we've got to put an end to it, but you can't just hope it goes away," she said. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.' You've got to demonstrate that you're not going to be cowed or intimidated or deterred by it, and then you can reach out and bring people who are of good faith together."

She said she has begun to attract support from contributors and voters who may have been skeptical of her in the past. Criticizing Bush, she said he has pursued a "50-plus-one" strategy "instead of saying, 'You know what -- there may be some people we will lose if we reach out' " to create a broader coalition.

"That's what I intend to do," she said. "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."

While acknowledging that she may have contributed to polarization, she did not specify how or when. Pressed to explain, she said: "I've talked about it a lot, and I think I will continue to talk about it in a lot of different ways."

..."Let me tell you where I stand on Social Security, and maybe that will explain where I stand on all the particulars," she said. "First of all, I reject the conventional wisdom and the Republican talking points that Social Security is in a crisis. I do not agree with that."

She said she would follow President Ronald Reagan's example by appointing a bipartisan commission to study the issue and avoid making her own recommendations until it reports back.

"I'm not advocating any of it as a presidential candidate or as a president," she said. "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

So, Hillary wants to lead like Ronald Reagan.

This coming from the woman who would not condemn the smearing of General David Petraeus.

This coming from the woman who signed on to the Senate's witch hunt to burn Rush Limbaugh at the stake.

Yes, Hillary the uniter.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Hillary is no Reagan.

Hillary the queen of all things UNIVERSAL -- socialized medicine, $5000 for every baby, $1000 for every person.

Do those ideas sound like things that Reagan would suggest?

What is moderate or centrist about those proposed policies?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Will the American people buy into Hillary's "centrist coalition" crap?

Will they be duped by this tripe?

Republicans need to hit Hillary hard on her charade.

The Republican nominee must be the candidate who can best communicate to the American people that Hillary's proposals would swing the country to the far Left.

She is nothing like Reagan.

Obviously, Hillary is feeling very confident. She wouldn't be claiming to be centrist or aligning herself with Reagan if she had any doubts whatsoever about having the nomination locked up.

The GOP Debate and Abortion

Republican presidential hopefuls are seen during the first Republican presidential primary debate of the 2008 election at the Ronald Reagan Library on Thursday, May 3, 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif. They are from left: Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia, Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Tommy Thompson, former secretary of Health and Human Services, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)

Thursday night's Republican debate summary:

The Republican presidential candidates are better than the Democrat presidential candidates.

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- Alone among 10 Republican presidential contenders, Rudy Giuliani said in campaign debate Thursday night "it would be OK" if the Supreme Court upholds a 1973 landmark abortion rights ruling. "It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent," said the former New York city mayor, who has a record of supporting abortion rights.

In a party that draws strength from anti-abortion voters, Giuliani's nine GOP rivals agreed that it would be a great day if the court overturns the landmark ruling.

"Glorious day of human liberty and freedom," enthused Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney acknowledged he had changed his mind on the subject when he began to delve into the issue of cloning. He said his position had once effectively been "pro-choice."

But Giuliani, who said he personally hates abortion, hedged when asked about his current position.

"I think the Court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it," he said. "... The states could then make their own decisions."

Alone among the top three contenders, Arizona Sen. John McCain has a career-long record of opposition to abortion.

The 10 rivals showed their conservative credentials across 90 minutes of debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, each claiming to be a worthy heir to the political legacy of the late 40th president.

They stressed the importance of persisting in Iraq, called for lower taxes and a muscular defense and supported spending restraint.

First of all, the ten Republican candidates showed their superiority over the Democrat candidates by agreeing to participate in a debate hosted by the unabashedly lib-biased MSNBC and Democrat hack Chris Matthews.

(Not all libs are happy with Matthews' performance. Read more.)

The girly men Dems (Yes, Hillary is masculine enough to be considered one of the boys) weren't man enough to debate on the FOX News Channel.

The Republicans score points just for showing up.

On the substance of the debate--

Naturally, the lib news outlets are focusing on the abortion issue.

They want to divide and demoralize the Republicans, with hopes of subduing the popularity of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

...The issue of abortion looms large in the 2008 presidential campaign in a party where a wide swath of political activists support the overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Both Romney and Giuliani must persuade conservative voters they are ready to embrace that view — or else persuade them to overlook the issue in picking a candidate for the White House.

I am pro-life.

Like John Kerry, I believe that life begins at conception.

I support pro-life candidates.

Are the anti-abortion credentials of Giuliani and Romney strong enough to satisfy Republican voters?

I think so.

Romney used to be pro-choice. So what? He's not now.

Giuliani has said that he would appoint constructionist judges, like John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Since the abortion issue will be fought in the courts, I'm comfortable with Giuliani's stance.

I'm not troubled by a candidate's flip-flopping on abortion.

What counts is what the candidates are promising to do if elected president.

Remember, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before switching to the Right side. I'm not aware of many or any conservatives that hold that against Reagan.

The undeniable reality is that any Republican candidate would be dramatically better on pro-life issues than any Democrat.

The Democrats are beholden to the rabid pro-abortion crowd.

A Dem in the White House would be disastrous for the Culture of Life agenda.

That's important to keep in mind. If you are pro-life, there is no Democrat option. None.

Conservatives can be dissatisfied with the current field of Republicans. They can fantasize about savior Fred Thompson. Whatever.

It's a no brainer that a Democrat in the White House will put more unborn lives at risk than if a Republican wins.

In terms of upholding the sanctity of life, any Republican, including Giuliani, is better than a death merchant Democrat.

Ronald Reagan

Today is the 25th anniversary of the release of 52 Americans held hostage by the Iranians for 444 days.

This event coincided with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, sworn in as the 40th President of the United States.

President Reagan's inauguration was a watershed event in American history and World history.

The turbulence of the 1960s and the pessimism of the 1970s, the Carter malaise, had come to end. It was a new day, full of promise and hope.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall was unimaginable on January 20, 1981; yet within a decade, communism was crushed and millions were freed. Because of President Reagan, the world was freer and the United States was stronger, at home and abroad.

Would this have happened if the American people had elected Jimmy Carter to a second term?

Who knows?

It is indisputable that Ronald Reagan's leadership was instrumental in restoring strength to the nation, defeating oppression, and winning the Cold War.

All free people have reason to celebrate the anniversary of President Reagan's first inauguration.

Listening to his address, I'm struck by how his words resonate. His message remains as relevant today as it was 25 years ago.

First Inaugural Address

Audio mp3 of Address

Tuesday, January 20, 1981

(Excerpt)


On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, President of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of.... On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."

Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it--now or ever.

Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.

KETCHUP-GATE

WHAT DID CBS KNOW AND WHEN DID IT KNOW IT?

I love this story!

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center writes:

The October 2, 1981 New York Times provides a window into the media mindset of the time, with a reporter posing this question to President Reagan at a press conference the day before:

"The style of your administration is being called millionaires on parade. Do you feel that you are being sensitive enough to the symbolism of Republican mink coats, limousines, thousand-dollar-a-plate china at the White House, when ghetto kids are being told they can eat ketchup as a vegetable?"

Sadly, the identity of the person who posed this particular question was not reported in the Times, but this was a spin heard in various forms throughout the media landscape in the early 1980s.

On Tuesday, I received the usual late-afternoon "Inside Scoop" e-mail from CBS News, announcing the topics for that night's "Evening News" and the next morning's "Early Show." As always, the e-mail started out with an interesting quotation and a "Did You Know" fun fact.

The fact from CBS News: "DID YOU KNOW? 4 tablespoons of ketchup has about the same amount of nutrition as a ripe tomato."

Now, where were CBS's researchers 25 years ago?

This is priceless.

CBS, the network that made "The Reagans," a disgusting hit piece starring Mr. Barbra Streisand (James Brolin) as President Reagan originally intended to air during the 2003 November ratings sweeps, quietly admits that ketchup is in fact nutritious.


Mr. Barbra Streisand as President Ronald Reagan

Amid outrage from conservatives, CBS determined that the film did not "present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience." It was shipped off to air on the Showtime cable network instead.

One of the film's weirder moments depicted Nancy Reagan, played by Judy Davis, ranting about ketchup.

In November 2003, John Leo of Jewish World Review wrote that Davis as Nancy was shreiking at Brolin as President Reagan: "Ketchup is a vegetable! It is not a meat, right? So it is a vegetable!"

Leo added that Davis said she hoped the script would encourage Americans to examine their leaders more closely.

Maybe Reagan critics should examine nutrition facts more closely.

For a quarter of a century, libs have mocked the suggestion by the Reagan administration that ketchup be considered a vegetable for school lunch programs. The man responsible for the ketchup uproar was David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Early in Reagan's first term, Stockman proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs. Recognizing the nutrition value of ketchup would have made it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches.

The suggestion was widely ridiculed by Dems and the lib media. Eventually, the proposal was killed.

Since 1981, the libs have held up the "ketchup as a vegetable" fiasco as one of their favorite examples of the supposed heartlessness of Reagan and Republicans. When President Reagan passed away on June 5, 2004, Leftists again brought up the issue to ridicule him.

On June 6, 2004, AlterNet posted a list of "66 (Unflattering) Things about Ronald Reagan," written by The Nation's David Corn.

From AlterNet:

Editor's Note: This list of "66 Things to Think about When Flying in to Reagan National Airport" appeared in the Nation on March 2, 1998 after the renaming of Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. As Corn says, "the piece remains relevant today -- particularly as a cheat sheet for those who dare to point out the Reagan presidency was not all that glorious and was more nightmare in America than morning in America."

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

And the list goes on...

What a guy!

Corn and his lib cohorts were eager to attack Reagan (in the interest of being fair and balanced, of course), as the country mourned his death.

Ketchup took the sixth spot on Corn's lengthy list.

It looks like David Corn and all those angry, spiteful libs that have spent a quarter of a century criticizing President Reagan for the ketchup thing have egg on their faces.

A meager 4 tablespoons of ketchup has about the same amount of nutrition as a ripe tomato. The libs must believe that "fun fact" to be true because the word comes straight from the standard-bearer of truth in journalism, CBS.

I'd like to know how long CBS knew that ketchup was a nutritious addition to the diet. I wonder if Mary Mapes sat on the story. At the very least, don't you think this demands an internal investigation at CBS?

Hey libs, would you like a little ketchup with that crow?

FREEDOM'S TEAM

Ronald Reagan's death last June prompted John Fund to write an excellent piece, "Freedom's Team, How Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II won the Cold War."

(Excerpts)
Monday, June 7, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Ronald Reagan died just one day after President Bush bestowed the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, on Pope John Paul II for his heroic efforts to topple communism. Those two men, together with Margaret Thatcher, deserve much of the credit for the West's success in the Cold War.

As the nation mourns Ronald Reagan we should also pause to reflect that in the space of 27 months between 1978 and 1981 three such extraordinary leaders--each with the belief that evil must be confronted--should have come to power. Together they changed the world.

...Few like to recall the feelings of resignation or even despair that many in the West felt in the 1970s as countries from Angola to Nicaragua became Soviet proxies. Mrs. Thatcher says that the West was "slowly but surely losing" the Cold War, and she eagerly embraced Reagan's strategy to win it by becoming "his principal cheerleader" in NATO.

That strategy rested on six pillars: support internal disruption in Soviet satellites, especially Poland; dry up sources of hard currency; overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race; slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow; raise the cost of the wars it was fighting; and demoralize the Soviets by generating pressure for change.

On June 7, 1982, the day before Reagan gave his "ash heap" speech at Westminster Abbey, he met alone with the pope in the Vatican. Richard Allen, Reagan's first national security adviser, says the two men "agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the dissolution of the communist empire." Until it was legalized in 1989, Poland's Solidarity union was kept alive by the U.S. and the Vatican. Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, who later became president of free Poland, has said that "we owe our freedom to their unstinting efforts."

It's certainly safe to say that no other president would have made two famous speeches that drew a sharp moral distinction between the West and communism and lifted countless spirits behind the Iron Curtain. The State Department fought desperately to take out Reagan's reference to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" as well as his challenge to Mr. Gorbachev: "Tear down this wall." But Reagan's candor undermined Moscow's legitimacy. "Reagan's truth-telling--together with the examples of Mrs. Thatcher's economic success and Pope John Paul's moral strength--gave millions of people courage to rise up when the opportunity for change came," says President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic.

After Reagan's death on Saturday, Sen. Ted Kennedy graciously saluted him as "the president who won the Cold War." Historians know the reality is more complicated, but they will no doubt remark on the world's extraordinary good fortune that he, Pope John Paul II and Mrs. Thatcher were able to work as a team for a full eight years.

Joseph Stalin once dismissed the Vatican's influence by asking, "How many divisions does the pope have?" In the end, that didn't matter. The pope and two stalwart Western leaders helped topple the entire Soviet empire without moving a single division across a border. As Reagan himself said in his 1989 Farewell Address, "Not bad, not bad at all."