I wish I'd written this first

...because I love it:

Ronald Reagan claimed that the Russian language had no word for "freedom." (The word is "svoboda"; it's quite well attested in Russian literature.) Ronald Reagan said that intercontinental ballistic missiles (not that there are any non-ballistic missiles—a corruption of language that isn't his fault) could be recalled once launched. Ronald Reagan said that he sought a "Star Wars" defense only in order to share the technology with the tyrants of the U.S.S.R. Ronald Reagan professed to be annoyed when people called it "Star Wars," even though he had ended his speech on the subject with the lame quip, "May the force be with you." Ronald Reagan used to alarm his Soviet counterparts by saying that surely they'd both unite against an invasion from Mars. Ronald Reagan used to alarm other constituencies by speaking freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible. In the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan told Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal, on two separate occasions, that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

There was more to Ronald Reagan than that. Reagan announced that apartheid South Africa had "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," when the South African leadership had been on the other side in the most recent world war. Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of "scuttling." Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)

One could go on. I only saw him once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn't like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter's briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn't, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.

I don't care if it makes 60% of NP readers stammer and drool. I'll say it anyway: I always hated Ronald Reagan.

What would Reagan do?

What would Reagan do? 

asks Martin Sieff.

The Republican Party and the conservative movement in America have been brought to their current appalling state because they are full of people who endlessly praise Ronald Reagan while doing the opposite of what he taught and practiced. In fact, Reagan’s brilliant example and crystal spirit can light up the road ahead – if conservatives will open their closed minds and shriveled spirits to him.

First of all, Ronald Reagan was a lifelong optimist and an example of remarkable resilience especially in bad times.

… Reagan therefore would not have lost heart and despaired of conservative and patriotic principles, nor of America. He would have taken a good night’s sleep and got up in the morning eager to find new directions and new opportunities for the way ahead.

Second, the conservative movement that Ronald Reagan created was generous and inclusive. Reagan welcomed brilliant African-American and Jewish intellectuals alike on to his team.

… Ronald Reagan was a social conservative and one of the greatest spokesmen for genuine moral values in the history of American politics. But he was never a bigot or a fool. He never outraged women or any other group by expressing ridiculous, offensive, or plain absurd sentiments.

… Ronald Reagan did not mindlessly worship youth or embody it. His mind and spirit were always young – always optimistic, intellectually curious and ready to challenge old orthodoxies from economics to national security. But he was almost 70 years old when he took the oath of office for the first time, the oldest American ever to do so.

Neither was Reagan afraid to change and adapt his policies to changing times. The Ronald Reagan who ended one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War by launching a new era of détente with Mikhail Gorbachev was not a different Reagan from the Reagan who had had fearlessly stood up to previous Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev, Yury Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. It was the same Reagan. But when the Soviet leadership changed, he recognized when he needed to change his policies – never his principles – too.

… Like Dwight David Eisenhower, for a full eight years he brilliantly preserved peace through strength and wisdom when it seemed almost impossible to do.

… Reagan would not have despaired -- or even been disheartened -- by the national election results on Tuesday night. He would have been energized by them to seek out new opportunities. He would have sought to learn the right lessons and apply them. And he would not have let the architects of such a sweeping and comprehensive defeat get the chance to bang their heads against the same old brick walls and ever bury the conservative movement again.

Finally, Ronald Reagan would never have tried to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age before the New Deal, or before Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal or, for that matter, before the Bill of Rights. For him the true golden age was always ahead, and it was a privilege for him and the American people to strive to achieve it.

Ronald Reagan 1911-2004

On the one hand is our belief that the people can and will decide what is best for themselves, and on the other side is the belief that a "few" can best decide what is good for all the rest. (January 1951)

Ronald Reagan

We are called materialistic. Maybe so … but our materialism has made our children the biggest, tallest, most handsome, and intelligent generation of Americans yet. They will live longer with fewer illnesses, learn more, see more of the world, and have more successes in realizing their personal dreams and ambitions than any other people in any other period of our history — because of our materialism. (Summer 1968)

Ronald Reagan

In all of history, one can find few, if any, instances where people have started a war. War is the province of government, and therefore the more autocratic government is, the more centralized, the more totalitarian, the more government can direct and control the will of the people — the greater the chance of war. (1967)

Ronald Reagan

…a little less détente with the Politburo and more encouragement to the dissenters might be worth a lot of armored divisions [in the Cold War] (1979)

Ronald Reagan

While pundits denounced the "evil empire" speech, political prisoners in Russia spread the word in their dark, damp cells. They tapped on walls and quietly talked through toilets to share what Reagan had said. Natan Scharansky remembers feeling energized and emboldened; Reagan had given them hope.

Reagan's War by Peter Schweizer

We in the West have a responsibility not only to preserve our own freedom but to nurture it where it does not exist. (Official US statement after Poland's imposition of martial law, January 1982)

Ronald Reagan

Dziękujemy Prezydencie Ronald Reagan

"Ronald Reagan is a Polish hero" exults Janina, as she sends us the website that underlines the importance of celebrations which are to be organized in many Polish towns on June 27. You can also like the event's Facebook page.

The initiative in Poland commemorating the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Ronald Reagan … has been a civic action directed to all those who are close to the values​​ adhered to by President Reagan and who appreciate his undeniable contribution to the overthrow of communism and the recovery of freedom. Our goal is to pay homage and express gratitude to President Ronald Reagan, using the 100th birthday anniversary to remind public opinion in Poland of his character, his achievements, and his ideals, to which he was faithful.

We invite everyone to testify in the Memorial Book, which after closing will be printed and sent to the Ronald Reagan Library in the United States.

We invite institutions, associations, governments, businesses, media, etc. to take in their fields of activity of initiatives to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. Remember that it is to a large extent thanks to Ronald Reagan that today we can enjoy freedom of association and civic activities, social and economic. All who choose to take any initiative, please let us know. We will inform, encourage and inform the media.

Remembering Reagan's Zero Option: How Trump's "Tariff War" Resembles the Last Battle of the Cold War

As critics within as without the United States voice incomprehension about America's brand-new tariffs all the while raving and ranting about the move as a "war" started by Donald Trump, it is far from inappropriate to recall one of the last "battles" of the Cold War.

During the 1980s, outrage erupted all over the West as Ronald Reagan went ahead with plans (pre-dating his election) to install medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was another heinous and brainless Republican duly detested across the globe not to mention another fascist or (neo-)Nazi who was willing to start the Third World War in addition to being the latest Adolf Hitler. (Spasibo za InstaGiperssylku, tovarich Sarah.)

And leftists everywhere, from America to Europe West as well as East, took to the streets to protest against the deranged "Hollywood actor" and the Pershing II missiles which would, but of course, start World War III.

But here a question arises: Why was Washington (not to mention its Western European allies) in favor of alleged escalation in the first place and insistent on installing nuclear-capable theater-level weapons in (Western) Europe?

For one major reason. Because the Soviet Union had started a policy of installing nuclear-capable theater-level weapons in (Eastern) Europe. Indeed, hundreds of the USSR's SS-20s were already installed throughout the countries of the Warsaw Pact when NATO's decision went through to reestablish military balance between East and West.

But nobody ever protested the Kremlin's SS-20s. Certainly nobody in the East, but nobody in the West either.

In fact, I recall one demonstration in Paris. When one single solitary pacifist decided that he would add one single solitary sign against the SS-20s to the hundreds if not thousands of signs against Uncle Sam's Pershings, the sign was torn to pieces and the guy may even have been beaten up. (Some pacifism!)

As François Mitterrand famously said, despite being a Socialist pressured to sympathize with Moscow's communists while decoupling from Washington's capitalists, "I too am against the Euromissiles. However, I do notice some simple truths: The pacifists are in the West, while the missiles are in the East." Another Socialist, Germany's Helmut Schmidt, also went along with the deployment (before being replaced by Helmut Kohl).

Among the useful idiots was my girlfriend's sister who insisted that "Vi vil ikke forsvares med atomvåben" ("we do not want to be protected by nuclear weapons", which is akin to saying we do not want to be protected by guns, only with knives, no matter what weapons the other side has) — to the ire of the elder members of her family, some of whom had lived through the Germans' occupation of Denmark in the 1940s.

Naïve Danes wanted the country to exit the NATO structure; then, they insisted, the Russians would not invade even if they attacked the rest of the NATO countries. After the Warsaw Pact broke up, Polish and other Eastern European officers divulged Soviet military plans to the West, and needless to say, the Scandinavian country, aka the door to the Baltic Sea, would be invaded and occupied no matter what its neutrality status. Indeed, military plans allowed for half a dozen atomic bombs (or missiles) to be dropped on the country immediately as the war broke out — started unilaterally by the USSR (whose motivations the pacifists kept telling us we had to try and understand).

Between 1983 and 1985, the Pershing IIs started being installed in Western Europe. Previously, Reagan had given voice to the Zero Option, whereby no Pershings would arrive in Europe if the Kremlin removed its SS20s from the continent.

With Mikhail Gorbachev getting the top job in Moscow ("I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together", said Margaret Thatcher), the message got through to the Soviets that if they removed their SS20s from Eastern Europe, the Pershings would disappear as well. That is what eventually happened: Reagan's Zero Option had come around full circle and had led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.

Congratulations, Ronald Reagan. (Even if — to its ever-lasting shame — the Nobel Prize Committee awarded its peace prize only to Gorbachev, leaving Reagan out to dry.)

What leftists and other useful idiots called outrageous behavior and an insane step towards World War III turned out to be the exact opposite and, indeed, a win-win situation.

Isn't this similar to what, 40 years later, is behind Donald Trump's "tariff war"?

Related: "Brutal Americans"? The issue is that we've never been brutal enough — with the evil of the world or with those who would take advantage of us, as a nation or as taxpayers

“Reagan should have a monument in every city” says Walesa as another Gipper statue unveiled in Eastern Europe

The Gdansk statue of Ronald Reagan is the second major statue to be unveiled in Poland — this one in the company of fellow Cold Warrior John Paul II — after that in Warsaw, and at least the fourth such commemoration of the Gipper in Eastern Europe, after Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest (the Hungarian capital has two statues of Reagan, as it also sports a bust of the former actor), not to mention the Reagan statue in London.

The Associated Press reports that

Polish officials unveiled a statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II on Saturday, honoring two men widely credited in this Eastern European country with helping to topple communism 23 years ago.

The statue was unveiled in Gdansk, the birthplace of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement, in the presence of about 120 former Solidarity activists, many of whom were imprisoned in the 1980s for their roles in organizing or taking part in strikes against the communist regime.

Reagan and John Paul shared a conviction that communism was a moral evil, not just a bad economic system. And Lech Walesa, founder of the Solidarity movement that led the anti-communist struggle in Poland, has often paid homage to both men and told the AP in a recent interview that he deeply respected Reagan.

“Reagan should have a monument in every city,” Walesa said.

"Utter Contempt Toward the United States by the French Political Establishment"

Concerning the funeral of America's 40th president, most of the letters to the editor in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune were anti-Reagan and/or anti-Bush, but one of them hit the nail on the head.

Honoring Reagan

Mikhail Gorbachev, a former enemy of the United States, came from Russia to pay his respects at President Ronald Reagan's funeral, while America's "friend," President Jacques Chirac of France, who was already on Sea Island, Georgia, attending the Group of Eight summit meeting, refused to attend the ceremonies.

This snub comes from a nation that only days ago pledged unending gratitude for the American lives lost in the liberation of France. This slight goes beyond not liking President George W. Bush, or even not liking President Ronald Reagan. This is utter contempt toward the United States by the French political establishment.

Anthony Murdocca, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania

Read also the Expat Yank

If Reagan Showed Signs of Alzheimer's Already in White House, then All I Can Say Is, I Wish All US Presidents Suffered From the Same Ailment

Scientists looked at transcripts from news conferences that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush held during their terms in office. They discovered that Reagan exhibited subtle changes in speaking patterns during his presidency that are linked to the development of dementia.

If it is true that Ronald Wilson Reagan showed early signs of Alzheimer's already during his White House years, as AOL reports, all I have to say then is that I wish all of Oval Office occupants would suffer from the same ailment.

Related: Some choice Ronald Reagan quotes

• I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers

• “Reagan should have a monument in every city” says Walesa as another Gipper statue unveiled in Eastern Europe

More Thoughts About Le Point's Piece on Ronald Reagan, and the Lessons Not Learned

This year alone (before the Gipper died), I was told by French people, on different occasions, that: Reagan wasn't as bad as we thought he was then; and that: Reagan and Bush have nothing in common, we respected Reagan…

In his Le Point article on the 40th president, Franz-Olivier Giesbert says that "all through his term, Ronald Reagan was described as an idiot by most French newspapers". Which is how I remember most of the populaton of Europe reacting, too. Giesbert then admits that he himself must say his mea culpa for having written in 1980 that Reagan was an "old joke". Nine years later, one had to admit that "the former B movie actor was one of the greatest presidents of his century." The Frenchman adds: "The idiots turned out to be those who, notably on our old continent, had under-estimated him or described him, among other inanities, as a warmonger."

So, cheer up, Dubya: it always seems that today's US leaders (whether "today" is in 2004, in 1980, in 1950, or whatever) are always idiots and brain-challenged jokes, while yesterday's presidents turn out to have been pretty good, all considering, even respected. What, then, will Giesbert and Le Point write of you in 2024?

In fact, when you think about it, this is what the French ought to be asking themselves: If this is how we feel about Reagan 20 years later, what will think of W in 20 years? And what should this be telling us about how we are treating him now? What should we be changing in our current attitude so we won't run the risk of having mea culpas to say two decades from now? In 2024, won't they be saying: "Oh, Dubya was in fact a good, strong president, completely different from the current cowboy in the White House, Jenna Bush (Chelsea Clinton?)"? The answer is… that the questions will not be asked. And the soul-searching will not take place. Not a shadow of a chance.

25 Years Later, Plantu Declares That the War-Monger Ronald Reagan Was Right

Every week, Le Monde Magazine gives Plantu a whole page upon which the Le Monde cartoonist can cover a current issue by reminiscing about the given subject and illustrating it with a handful of cartoons he has devoted to the matter in question over the years — or, indeed, over the decades…

The uprising in Libya gave Plantu the idea to choose Moammar Gadhafi, which brought him back to the 1980s and the conflict which opposed the "Messenger of the Desert" to Ronald Reagan (in the wake of Libya's involvement in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque attended by American servicemen)… Declareth Plantu:

They cannot say that they hadn't been warned, long ago, that Colonel Qaddafi was a tyrant and an international terrorist. On several occasions, American president Ronald Reagan warned the Europeans who… already then… preferred to close their eyes [literally: to look at their shoes].

Well, that's swell — maybe, in 2028 (if he's still around), Plantu will have a page in Le Monde Magazine (if it's still around) on how George W Bush was right to take on the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and how the Europeans were wrong to keep their eyes closed.

Because at the time, of course, all was different: notice Plantu's eternal saliva drop from Reagan's mouth showing how the drooliong president is old and senile. Notice also how the April 1986 cartoon (bottom left) depicts the war-mongering American (from whose aircraft-carrier-like head of hair a fighter takes off) and the war-mongering sheik flank the worried peace-loving (and innocent-looking) European in-between them.

The Common Thread Among All Recent American Presidents…

John Vinocur again hits the nail on the head in his weekly International Herald Tribune column.

Ronald Reagan, who Europe now thinks may not have been such a terrible leader after all, and George W. Bush, who it persists in regarding as fairly awful, shared a problem. They asked the Europeans to do what they could not easily offer.

So did Jimmy Carter, like other presidents. And in some respects, Reagan's Democratic predecessor hit on Europe earlier and for more than the Great Communicator ever attempted. The fact is that Reagan personified what Carter had started — walloping defense budgets, cruise and Pershing missiles to be deployed in Europe, and continuous dunning of the NATO allies for more military spending and sanctions against the Soviets, who had invaded Afghanistan. …

Very much unreassuringly for Europe, Reagan took credit for concepts like the Evil Empire to characterize the Soviet Union, and the space-based missile defense called Star Wars. Sounding well over the top, he even shouted seemingly loony stuff at Mikhail Gorbachev from a rostrum at the edge of the Iron Curtain in Berlin, like: Mr. G, tear down this wall.

Reagan was frontally, irredeemably American entering the White House in 1981, a time when Western Europe's economy and social fabric looked the sounder of the two continents' and when many Germans were convinced they had invented a magical massage of cash and euphemism that would soothe the Soviets into letting democracy tiptoe to their door.

Projected against this European mind-set (which, modified to fit current circumstances, applies again to Bush), Reagan was a dummy, a cowboy, and a voodoo economist creating McDo jobs. The clod actually used words that fit what he meant. The man said that if NATO's European members didn't militarily face down the Soviets' SS-20 missiles targeted on them by agreeing to deploy the cruises and Pershings, the Russians would win.

That was confrontation. And since much of the American press had amplified a vision of Reagan as a Master of Simplism, the Europeans jacked up those decibels in his first years and made Reagan out to be a dangerous fool. Demonstrations against the American missiles — Reagan-as-cowboy posters were their mark of ultimate disdain — rolled across Europe in numbers that made the anti-Iraq marching of 2003 seem weedy.

The common thread among all recent American presidents, whatever the party, and Reagan and George W. Bush, continues here.

Just as Carter initiated many specifics in a tough American line on Europe that Reagan would accentuate, Bill Clinton, in a sense, set in place a part of Bush-America's continuing tone.

It was Clinton's United States that was first accused by France of being a hyperpower and the world's great unilateralist menace. And that didn't like the Kyoto environmental treaty, the International Criminal Court, or having to run U.S. bombing targets past NATO committees in a Kosovo war whose multilateral confusion left the U.S. administration saying never again.

Read also about the differences between the two Republican presidents' experiences

Update: Clinton Offers Little
Sympathy to Europe's Bush-Bashers

Advice to Uncle Sam from Europe: Uncle Sam, Ignore the Advice from Europe

A New York Times op-ed piece on what Europeans want from the United States includes contributions from Elfriede Jelinek, Bono, Robert Skidelsky, Gianni Rota, Constanze Stellenmüller, Tariq Ramadan, and Guillaume Parmentier, but the best piece of advice — the only sensible one, in fact — comes from a East European. Slovakia's Stefan Hrib basically tells Dubya to …ignore what the Europeans want from the United States.

I grew up under communism in the former Czechoslovakia

explains the editor in chief of the Slovak weekly Tyzden

We were taught that Ronald Reagan was a servant of the military-industrial complex, a man who wanted war and scorned ordinary people. Paradoxically, most Europeans shared this view, not just those of us who lived behind the Iron Curtain. Had leaders in Moscow, Prague, Paris and Madrid been asked at the time what Mr. Reagan could do to reinvigorate relations between the United States and Europe, they probably would all have had the same answer: he should abandon his dream of American hegemony and start to consider Europe, including the Soviet Union, as an equal partner.

But Mr. Reagan didn't seek their advice, and communism eventually collapsed. Mr. Reagan reinvigorated relations between the United States and Europe by staying true to his convictions.

Now I live in democratic Slovakia, which is a member of NATO and the European Union. Since the Velvet Revolution in 1989, almost everything in our lives has changed. Our part of Europe is no longer under occupation; my friends can travel freely; our children can study at Harvard, Oxford and the Sorbonne; the secret police are not almighty; and a market economy has replaced socialism.

But one thing didn't change: the majority of people in Europe still consider the American president a servant of the military-industrial complex who wants war and scorns ordinary people. So to the question of what George Bush can do to reinvigorate relations between the United States and Europe, I offer the same answer that worked for Ronald Reagan 20 years ago: stay true to your convictions and act accordingly. The salons of postmodern Europe will eventually appreciate your wisdom.

A Cry to Nancy Reagan: "Remember, We Love You!"

In June 2004, a No Pasarán blogger happened to be in Washington when Ronald Reagan passed away. A few days later, Joe N. headed down to the mall, joining the crowds for the funerary ceremony. The crowds were silent. Then Nancy Reagan came walking by.

Joe remembers seeing a young man in a baseball cap who let out a shout.

Remember! We love you! 

The former Nancy Davis stopped, turned her head, and raised her hand to her chest. She placed her hand over her heart. Then, she turned back and walked on…

The BBC (video):

Nancy … is once again with the man she loved…

Related (from the archives):
Ronald Reagan 1911-2004

Remembering Ronnie

The challenge, at least in the early years, was to persuade Europeans that [Ronald] Reagan was actually guiding U.S. foreign and domestic policy. In Europe, the media and political elite treated Reagan with scorn.

Whenever I went back to Europe in Reagan's first term, our European friends would helpfully inform us that Reagan was a B-movie actor, a cowboy (both of which he was proud of) and a "warmonger" — which he definitely was not.

These comments said more about Europeans' ignorance of America than they did about Reagan. Europeans are used to their politicians working their way up parliamentary and party ladders before becoming leaders, and are often unaware that Americans pride themselves on the fact that almost anyone can seek the presidency.

Europeans tend to think of typical American leaders as sophisticated northeastern types from the Washington-Boston corridor, even though such people represent only a tiny fraction of today's America.

This is one reason why so many Europeans are assuming John Kerry is bound to win this year. One hears exactly the same small-minded insults ("dumb cowboy") hurled at President George W. Bush as were directed at Reagan two decades ago.

Be sure to read Reginald Dale's article on the Gipper in the International Herald Tribune, especially the second half devoted to the "two fond memories [that] illustrate Reagan's unique talent."

Lire la version française

A responsible citizenry: The rise of the welfare state and the decline of Christianity go hand in hand

Outstanding article by Paul Rahe (via Instapundit). You must read every word — but here's an excerpt:

One of the reasons that Romney was unable, despite my hopes, to do in 2012 what Reagan did in 1980 is that, in the intervening 32 years a great many of the American citizens who voted for Ronald Reagan had died and been replaced by Americans educated and morally formed in a very different fashion.

… The proper setting for the practice of Christian charity is a free-market society. The rise of the welfare state and the decline of Christianity go hand in hand. To see this, one need only go to church in Europe.

  … All of this began in the 1960s, and it has grown and grown and grown. We now live in a society educated by televisions series like Sex and the City and its successors, and it is in no way surprising that single mothers are almost as common as married mothers -- and they now feel entitled to our respect and support. The most astonishing aspect of the November, 2012 election was that the Democratic Party took as one of its slogans: "Sluts vote!" And, by golly, they did.

… We now, in fact, presume that [the single mother] is entitled to our help -- and we now have a political party in power built on that premise. We are to pay for her groceries through WIC (Women, Infants, Children), for her medical care through Medicaid, for the contraceptives that she does not have the discipline to use properly and for the morning-after pill should she slip up and need an abortion. Her right to be promiscuous trumps our right to the fruits of our own labor.

What I would say to libertarians is this: Liberty requires a responsible citizenry, and the sexual revolution (very much like the drug culture, which was and is its Doppelgänger) promotes irresponsibility of every kind. It promotes dependence, and it fosters an ethos in which those who exercise the virtues fostered by the market are punished for doing so and in which those who live for present pleasure are rewarded.

There are many reasons why Mitt Romney lost in 2012. Some, as I suggested in an earlier post, were his fault. Some of them were not. One of the latter is that the demographic deck was stacked against him in a fashion that it was not stacked against Ronald Reagan in 2008. If we do not find a way to reverse the sexual revolution, we are doomed. The future of liberty is contingent on the success of the social conservatives. The libertinism that some libertarians ostentatiously embrace provides the growth in the administrative entitlements state with its impetus. If to be a libertarian is to favor political liberty, then libertarians must embrace social conservatism. If to be a libertarian is to embrace sex, drugs, and rock and roll, then libertarians are the proponents -- whether witting or not -- of the soft despotism that threatens to engulf us.

Note to the Apologizer-in-Chief: No, a Republic Is Not Equal to a Dictatorship

Barack Obama … feels like he has been successful in ensuring other world leaders that "there are no senior or junior partners — we are simply partners."

Note to the apologizer-in-chief: no, all nations are not equal; a republic is not on the same level as a dictatorship!

Not least — Not least (!) in the minds of the strongman's victims, whether they be the intimidated and/or silenced dissidents; the jailed opposition members; the murdered opponents; or simply the citizens who are prevented from finding (and taking) a job of their liking, or their kids a school of their choice…

Never let things such as Obamania allow the Apologizer-to-Chief to pretend otherwise…

As he did on a recent trip to Europe, Obama stressed in Latin America that the United States is a willing partner, "inclined to listen and not just talk," in trying to advance national interests.

"We recognize that other countries have good ideas, too, and we want to hear them," he said, adding that the fact that an idea comes "from a small country, like Costa Rica," should not diminish its potential benefit.

The whole problem with strongmen, on a domestic as on an international level, is that they are the ones who are not willing to listen — although they love to pretend they do — and that what they want Washington to listen to (without Washington saying a word, precisely) is, overtly or otherwise, for the state of human rights in their nations (i.e., the power of the citizen to be listened to, including if he is a critic of the strongman's government) to be ignored or belittled…

Regarding Obama's contention that "It's hard to believe we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States" by talking with Chavez since Venezuela has a defense budget about one-six hundredth the size of the United States', and owns Citgo, the oil company: and how does Caracas's offense (sorry, defense) budget compare with that of neighboring Columbia's?! And is Russia's placing navy vessels and long-range bombers in Venezuela to be ignored in estimating Columbia's defense budget?! This type of context-less quote is nothing more than a pass to always go and apologize, to always go and bow down, to always surrender your principles (gracias para Larwyn)…

As Peter Schweizer reported after Reagan's evil empire speech:

While pundits denounced the "evil empire" speech, political prisoners in Russia spread the word in their dark, damp cells. They tapped on walls and quietly talked through toilets to share what Reagan had said. Natan Scharansky remembers feeling energized and emboldened; Reagan had given them hope.

To quote Natan Scharansky himself:

the great brilliant moment [was] when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.

Then again, it is true that such a strongman attitude is precisely what more than a few have charged Obama with wanting to do to his opposition (cf the Rush Limbaugh controversy, etc)…

The liberals' viewpoint on the world — the place where everybody can be nice to each other and where everybody could live together and where everybody is friends and where there are no enemies… Except… EXCEPT for those pesky Republicans! EXCEPT for America's pesky conservatives!!

That is why defense budgets must fall during a Democrat administration, in favor of social policies! Because there are no real enemies — not abroad, at least (and so there is no real bowing, kowtowing, and "surrendering of principles").

The only real enemies are American conservatives, and they are the ones that must be fought, tooth and nail, and fought against with a federal budget that batters defense expenses while inflating all kinds of social spending!

A Few Remarks to BluElephants, Republicans Who Are Urging People to Vote for the Democrat Party

It seems that a couple of days from now, a number of Republicans are voting for the Democrat party out of disgust for the failings, real or alleged, of Donald J Trump. 

Not only that, but the #AngryBluElephants, who want to #TakeBackTheGOP, are requesting that the rest of the population #TurnBlueNovember3, and in that spirit have been circulating memes like the one above, holding OrangeManBad responsible for the death toll caused by the Coronavirus.

To one Republican elected official's anger (who was a dorm mate of mine in college and who regrets the time of Ronald Reagan), my reaction on his wall has been as follows:

Thank God that (with the help of the mainstream media), people are managing to figure out who is to blame for the virus in America.

Just a couple of questions: 

 • When looking for the party responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans (as well as tens of thousands of Chinese, Europeans, etc…) at the "hands" of the Coronavirus, how come no news outlet ever seems to mention… China? 

 • Speaking of which: in compiling Trump's allegedly sorry record in fighting the Wuhan virus, how come no news outlet ever mentions that, like it or not, the very first steps taken against the virus were Trump's outright ban of flights from China? Steps widely ridiculed and demonized (as xenophobic and racist) by the media and in Europe, by the likes of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi (who promptly set up in a photo-op in San Francisco's Chinatown), and by such luminaries as the Italian politician who organized a "Hug a Chinese Tourist" movement.

 • Do you remember the media's predictions in March, of two million deaths caused by Covid-19 in the U.S. before the end of the year? Would it be fair, some wag might say, to at least consider the viewpoint that the actual 220,000 toll means that Trump has… saved nearly 1,800,000 American lives?! 

• And, more generally: a perennial with leftists is that (they love to repeat endlessly that) they are tolerant and considerate and (exceedingly) polite and, last but not least, and open to debate and discussion… 

Why, then, is it that they like so much to shut conversation down? 

 ••••••••••

This comment was not to the liking of the elected Republican official or to his wife (a charming woman, incidentally, whom he met at our college), who asked who I was to stand up for Donald Trump and why I did not believe Bill Gates when the Microsoft honcho denounced Trump's handling of the virus.

My answer:  

I’m not standing up for Donald Trump, nor for Joe Biden; I am not standing against either of them, either (or for or against Bill Gates, for that matter) 

I am standing up (as best I can) for facts and the truth — in whatever direction they will lead me 

All I am saying is that for every criticism of the Republican, you can find a criticism of a Democrat; or of a foreigner 

If Trump can be criticized for halting the plane flights (Bill Gates criticisms which I disagree with, but that’s not the point), shouldn’t at least some opprobrium be directed at, say, Nancy Pelosi for telling people to go visit Chinatown or at the Italian mayors whose response was it to institute (get this) a Hug-a-Chinese-tourist policy? (the appalling public service (sic) videos are on YouTube!) 

You speak of the “well-documented” policies of Donald Trump…

Whatever the case with policy failings, general or detailed, real or alleged, the fact remains that Europeans didn’t react until weeks afterwards and few media outlets, American or European, seem to make much of that. Why isn’t that well-documented? And why does that not deserve any criticism? 

It’s very strange that people living abroad are always allowed to think ill of the USA 🇺🇸 — antagonism which is supposed to reveal a deep dark truth about America — but when they are skeptical of the PC view and have something positive to say, they are told — by Americans and by their respective fellow countrymen alike — to mind their own business.

In that perspective, you seem to be forgetting that “the second-rate actor”, Ronald Reagan, was just as criticized and protested against in the 1980s as DT is now, by (outraged) Americans and foreigners alike, and for the same reasons…

People, American or foreign, are allowed to think that a Republican’s policy towards the Soviet Union (in the 1980s) or China 🇨🇳 (now) might be better than the PC fairy tale about how we can all live together if leaders only speak to each other, all the while ignoring how the same foreign leaders are really treating the West, stealthily, as well as their own people — i.e., shabbily is the softest word that comes to mind

If Foreigners (as well as Americans living abroad) have the right to criticize and protest the occupant of the White House, whoever is in the Oval Office, certainly they have the right to support same president as well, or to simply issue reservations… 

In that perspective, it is telling that while protestors in America were burning the American flag, protestors in Hong Kong were waving the Stars and Stripes while singing the Star-Spangled Banner… 

Does a protestor from Hong Kong, 🇭🇰 Xinjiang, or Tibet, i.e., not from the USA and living abroad — just like a person from the USSR or Eastern Europe in the 1980s — likewise have no right to praise Washington’s less conciliatory policy towards Beijing or Moscow — or, for that matter, any other of the president's policies (not excluding his vow that America will never be a socialist nation, leading the economic locomotive of the world to follow in the footsteps of, say, Venezuela, Russia, or… China)?

Those might be things to ponder over…

When Gaddafi Takes Offense at a (Rather Harmless) Comment, Apologizer-in-Chief's State Department Immediately Issues an Apology

Remember the era of Ronald Reagan? And how he, rightly, called Muammar Gaddhafi a "mad dog"?

In the era of the Apologizer-in-Chief's New Feel-Good American Foreign Policy©™, how things have changed. When a US State Department spokesman refers to a row involving Colonel Gaddhafi, rightly, as "lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense" and when it turns out that the colonel is in turn offended, this, in the era of Smart Diplomacy, brings about… an apology.

Department spokesman PJ Crowley, who made the dismissive comments, said they did not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend.

Col Gaddafi had criticised a Swiss vote against the building of minarets and urged Muslims to boycott the country.

Mr Crowley described it as "lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense."

When this offended Gaddafi (0r Kaddhafi or however you spell the tyrant's name), the U.S. State Department hastened to apologize. And the leftists are surprised that a (leftist!) poll finds that a majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago?!

"I should have focused solely on our concern about the term jihad, which has since been clarified by the Libyan government," Mr Crowley added.

"I understand my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack on the president," he said.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."

Perceived as a personal attack on the tyrant the president… That, in the 1980s, was exactly what Ronald Reagan intended and exactly what Gaddafi deserved (and… still does deserve)…

Civility? Not Applicable for a Conservative — Even When It's at His or Her Funeral

One leftist group, calling itself Good Riddance Maggie Thatcher, said it had sought prior approval for its supporters to turn their backs on the cortege [for the funeral of the Iron Lady], as they did when the gun carriage was nearing St. Paul’s Cathedral, Christopher Wren’s magnificent domed edifice in the heart of London’s financial district

Anybody wondering about whether the invitation to embrace civility, politeness, and the display of decent manners is only a one-sided affair, with the double standards applying to conservatives (international as well as American) alone, need only take a look at John F Burns and Alan Cowell's New York Times report of Maggie's London funeral (slideshow).

At Ludgate Circus, close to St. Paul's, a small group of protesters gathered, some with banners reading, Now Bury Thatcherism." Some jeered and shouted "Good riddance!" 

Just imagine the outrage had conservatives — again, British or other (say, Tea Party members) — done the same at the funeral (!) of some leftist icon.

Margaret Thatcher in Her Own Words

Happily, we learn that

the protesters’ rhythmic shouts of “Waste of money!” and “Rest in shame!” were overpowered in a countering wave of clapping, cheering and chanting of “Maggie! Maggie! Maggie!” by crowds straining for a view on the approaches to the cathedral.

Unfortunately, there is as follows — and the snub (if it can be called that) doesn't only seem to be the fault of American leftists:

One of the few jarring notes at the ceremony came from supporters of Mrs. Thatcher, who called President Obama’s decision not to send any senior members of his administration to attend the funeral a slight, in view of Mrs. Thatcher’s influential role as President Ronald Reagan’s partner in facing down the Soviet Union. The American delegation was led by former Vice President Dick Cheney and two other veterans of Republican administrations, George P. Shultz, 92, and James A. Baker III, 82. 

Funeral organizers said that they had invited all the former American presidents, but that none had accepted. Officials said they had cited a range of reasons, including poor health, in the case of the first President George Bush, and previous engagements, in the case of the second President Bush. Initially, organizers said there was a possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would attend, but she, too, declined, as did Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. 

The absences drew critical comment from across the spectrum of British politics. Gerald Howarth, chairman of a Thatcherite group of Conservatives in Parliament, told The Daily Mail: “The bond forged between the U.K. and the U.S. through Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in ending the cold war and liberating millions of people. That the present administration feels unable to be represented as the world marks the extraordinary contribution Margaret Thatcher made will be a disappointment to those who served with her in that endeavor.” 

Another Vindication of Ronald Reagan's Ridiculed Views

Once again, we see another vindication of Ronald Reagan’s much ridiculed view that there were lots of natural (or non-human) sources of smog

muses Ashbrook's Steven Hayward, while Peter W Schramm points out to this map of the growth of the United States.