Ron Reagan Jr: Co-Opting the Reagan Legacy

On the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth the left is desperately trying to co-opt his memory. Suddenly everyone one from Dick Durbin to Ron Reagan Jr. is telling us what Ronnie would have thought about … well, just about everything.

Hardest to take in this sudden outburst Reagan authoritativeness, however, are Ron Reagan Jr and Patti Davis, the Great Communicator’s second family. Those are the ones who disrespected their father when he was alive, while making their living solely on the fact that he was president.

During the early years of Reagan’s presidency, Ron Jr. disgraced his father by hanging out in teen gay bars like Hollywood’s Odyssey 1, probably doing dope with the locals, but definitely picking up cash by giving tongue-in-cheek interviews to make it clear he wanted nothing to do with his father’s politics.

For those of you who don’t remember, this was the era when Junior and his sister Patty Davis supported the leftos who were blaming their father for everything from homelessness to the AIDS virus.

They still do.

But today, Ron Reagan Jr. is out busily attempting to lay claim to his father’s legacy, while continuing to denounce everything the 40th President stood for, and expecting us to accept his veracity as the authoritative voice on Ronald Wilson Reagan.

This week Ron Jr. is back in the headlines, capitalizing once again on his father’s centennial, and proclaiming himself the be go-to guy on all things Reagan. Want to know what the Gipper would think? Call Ron Jr.

“Sarah Palin is a soap opera, basically,” the Junior Reagan tells AP. “She’s doing mostly what she does to make money and keep her name in the news.”

Now is that the pot calling the kettle black, or what? Reagan Jr., who made it absolutely certain no one called him Junior, because he didn’t want to be associated with his father, went on to say, “She is not a serious candidate for president and never has been.”

Ron Jr., the failed ballerino (um, charger), cum failed radio commentator, cum failed journalist, cum failed television presenter, and now GOP political consultant.

Let me get this straight. Junior whores himself out to a publisher with a scandalous piece of trash he tries to dress up as a tribute to his father, and he wants us to believe that Sarah Palin is only honoring Dad for the money?

For the record, Junior does this on the anniversary of his father’s birth every year. For—you guessed it—money. Last year he took a shot at the tea party and Palin, and in 2008 he told us all how Ronnie would have voted.

Patty Davis is up to this, as well, but she obviously couldn’t get a book deal this year.

Two slacker scions of one of the greatest American’s in history, who were embarrassed be mentioned in the same breath with Ronald Reagan when he was president, are all of a sudden authorities on everything from his opinions to his medical history?

The very idea that either of them would presume to know what their father’s conservative views would be about the tea parties or Sarah Palin is laughable. What we are pretty sure of, though, is that President Reagan wouldn’t be consulting the family ne’er-do-wells for advice.

A final note: Ronald Reagan was arguably one of America’s greatest presidents, but he was not quite the paragon of perfection many on the right tout him to be. He may not have liked Sarah Palin—after all he married Nancy, and Jane Wyman before her. Nor was he much in the field of siring children; actually he had to adopt one to get it right.

Wikileaks: None Dare Call It Journalism

Editor’s Note: Many of my posts are now published on Associated Content. Do me a big, big favor and click on a few of them. Thank’s so much for your support.

Back in the glory days of the CIA—that was about 15 minutes in 1948—Julian Assange would have been found face down in an ally near the Brandenburg Gate with a slit throat. That is if he were a Western traitor. Had he been a Russian turncoat in 2007, he would have been found in the selfsame “ally” in the West End of London, having died from indigestion after eating a dinner of tainted clams.

If Julian Assange were Russian, today’s blog would be an open discussion on the neato methods former KGB head Vladimir Putin uses to “disappear” Russian traitors. Gotta love that Vlad. My favorite Vlad clip was during McCartney in Red Square, when the then Russian president entered the concert to “Back in the USSR.” Paul positively gushed.

Instead we’re stuck here scratching our heads in wonder at American stupidity. Face it, anyone can convince Pat Robertson to apologize for saying that the U.S. should “take out” Hugo Chavez, has perfected stupidity to an art form. Of course we should take out the little scab, he poses a threat to U.S interests in the Western hemisphere. I realize that one cannot arrive at this conclusion with a social science degree from Dartmouth, but every big rig trucker on the I-10 between Santa Monica and Jacksonville knows it.

The U.S. has had a long history of traitors, in and out of the media. During World War I, Congress and the Wilson administration enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 to deal with, not only the medial but anyone who releases the nation’s secrets, whether during a time of war or peace. The penalties included death.

“[F]or decades, American newspapers and broadcasters have regularly censored themselves on security grounds, plucking compromising details from a story, delaying its publication or killing it entirely,” says New York Times columnist Scott Shane.  “The New York Times has withheld articles that might have jeopardized counterterrorism programs or efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material.”

Oh, really? And just what level security clearance does the Times issue to Mr. Shane and his colleagues that qualifies them to make such judgments, one way or another? The arrogance of the U.S. press is beyond belief in divulging the nation’s intelligence, and it has on a number of occasions caused untold damage. This should be—and in any other country of the world is—a crime. Yet we quibble over propriety?

Let’s digress for a moment. Remember Manuel Noriega? The U.S. under George H.W. Bush went into Panama to arrest the “strongman” for narco trafficking. He was brought back to the U.S., tried and sentenced to 40 years for his crimes.

Yet over the 90-plus years since the Espionage Act was passed, we have developed such a profaned reverence for freedom of the press, that we allow the New York Times and Washington Post to place at risk the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. and allied troops, without so much as a Senate investigation.

Make no mistake: the government will investigate the Pentagon. But no one will go after the Times or anyone at Wikileaks. It is in times like these when even the most conservative American must tip his hat to Vladimir Putin.

The publication of these classified materials is treason. Julian Assange is a traitor to Australia and the editors and publishers of the New York Times are traitors to the U.S. Hundreds, if not thousands of allied soldiers, not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistani assets, will die as a result of their treason.

The issue at hand is not whether the government has lied to the American people. Suppose it has? It is not up to the Times or the Washington Post or some third-rate website to pass sentence on U.S. soldiers because perceive the government has lied to us.

There is a way for the media to deal with government wrongdoing, in the event such information comes to its attention. Tell the world they have the information, and turn it over to their favorite liberal congressman.

Over the weekend we were treated to a banquette of news magazines headlining the Wikileaks controversy with banners like: “Wikileaks: Journalism or Treason?” and “The Politics of the Leak.”

Nonsense. It is treason pure and simple. And, yes, U.S. intelligence should track down Julian Assange wherever he is in the world and whack his anti-American butt.

Then someone should pay a visit to the Times.

A Word From Sarah Palin

Editor’s Note: I’ve taken the liberty today of reprinting Sarah Palin’s post from her FaceBook page this week. This is legal since she is a public figure and I am not profiting from the post. I don’t think she would mind anyway.

Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!”

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.