Over the past four years it’s been widely speculated that Matt Drudge has a soft spot for Mitt Romney. No one knows the real story, but there’s little doubt that Mr. Drudge is in an all out offensive against Newt Gingrich this week at the Drudge Report. For Mitt Romney Florida might be the most important election of his life. If he wins he stops the Gingrich surge (at least for now), but a loss would be a terrible blow.

Perhaps that’s why Drudge is on the offensive.

Last night, the day after President Reagan’s birthday, HBO is running a documentary called Reagan that’s nothing like the film for JFK. It’s another tired hit piece from the left who has spent my entire life trying to vilify the man. Instead of discussing the man, it’s a rehash of every liberal talking point. Give us your voodoo economics, Iran-Contra, and deregulation.

Liberals are unable to understand that the sky high tax burden on the rich before Reagan had crippled the economy. Yes, the tax cuts led to massive deficits, but that’s only because the Congress was and is unable to reduce spending. Thirty years has passed and no majority in Congress has summoned up the courage to reduce spending. Is this Reagan’s fault? Would liberals be happier if the tax rates stayed the same and the economy stayed in the gutter?

Serial documentary filmmaker Eugene Jarecki never addresses this, but spends twenty minutes on Iran-Contra. What has Jarecki learned?

Ronald Reagan’s legacy is deeply misunderstood because there are political actors in America who, for several reasons, have privately held agendas that they want to sell to the American public in the most appealing way possible. They often find the best way to do that is to package their product with the Reagan brand.

Where is Jarecki’s documentary on JFK? Is there a more deeply misunderstood president in American history? JFK is still cited as one of the greatest presidents of all time by Americans and for what, exactly? Liberals still complain that Reagan reacted too slowly to AIDS, as if that had any effect on the spread of the disease.

During the ’80s the press loved to talk about the homeless. These homeless didn’t disappear during the Clinton administration and they certainly exist today, but it doesn’t fit the left’s talking points.

“Tear down this myth” is what the documentary claims. The left has spend over a half century claiming that FDR saved us from the Great Depression despite the fact it continued throughout his presidency. Reagan was a larger than life figure and of course much of his presidency has moved into myth. The truth is that it’s the power of Reagan’s ideas that are so powerful.

The only reason the left is so adamant that Reagan isn’t turned into a icon is because they want a state that spends and taxes more. The left is invested in a state that solves all our problems. When the left sees a problem (real or imagined) they don’t think of what they can do to solve the problem, they think of how the government can solve the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs

“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” – Ronald Reagan

There have been some bizzaro comparisons between President Obama and President Reagan recently. There’s a key difference between the two men. President Reagan actually stood for something. In Reagan’s speeches he actually said something. What is Obama’s big idea? What does he stand for? President Obama makes eloquent speeches but the reason no one remembers any of them is because he doesn’t say anything.

President Reagan stood up against big government and high taxation, but he was only one person. The President cannot do it all alone. Reagan faced a Democratic House for both his terms. It’s amazing he was able to accomplish anything. The GOP should quit looking for a leader and start championing Reagan’s ideas.

Hollywood has a revolting habit of patting themselves on the back for their “bravery” and “speaking truth to power,” but most of what they churn out is nothing of the sort. It’s more akin to Joseph Goebbels’ role in the Nazi regime.

Hyperbolic? Maybe, but like Goebbels, Hollywood and other “mainstream” pop culture media specialize in character assassinations of those who aren’t on board with their stripe of politics; essentially, anyone to the right of Olympia Snowe.

In the topsy-turvy American leftwing media oxymoronic world, a racist, murdering homophobe is a noble and tragic figure, while the duo that brought the Soviet Union to its knees are soulless buffoons. Maybe it has something to do with Marxism and the left’s religious belief that it will bring “social justice” and Utopia to earth, all the while denying they’re Marxist.

Anyone to the left of Lenin, however, is sure to be the subject of some hagiographic memoir that makes you laugh, cry, sing and cheer (Che Guevara, Harvey Milk, Frida Kahlo, and on and on and on). I know the media’s propaganda has been quite effective, particularly over time as reality morphs with each nail the media pounds into the coffin it’s preparing for certain conservative figures year after year.

For instance, I have conservative friends who tell me that Newt Gingrich is not a viable presidential candidate. They say he’s “damaged goods,” but usually have nothing to back this up other than dredging up Gingrich’s affair. I think my friends’ negativity about Gingrich has more to do with the constant barrage of negative press Gingrich received when he was Speaker of the House, and the implication that if he wasn’t simply a lunatic, then he was “extreme”.

Gingrich was targeted by the media, Alinsky style. The media created a hobgoblin image of him that even conservatives bought into following years of unrelenting negative press. The “news” media use innuendo while the pop media bolster the innuendo with lies and distortions. Today’s news cycle is very predictable: CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, The Washington Post, NPR, etc., etc., yada yada, imply through their reporting that the Tea Party is full of racist homophobes, then the bulk of Law & Order‘s episodes are devoted to bringing the white male Christian serial killer to justice, Jon Stewart devotes half his show to smirkily deriding the Tea Party, Janeane Garofalo prattles on and on about how it’s all about “hating a black man” and so on and so forth until the American public is duped into believing it’s all true.

So, while the news media in the ’80s subtly portrayed Thatcher and Reagan, for instance, as heartless demagogues by placing greater emphasis on certain aspects of society that have always been with us (homelessness), the pop media characterize them as doddering old fools who end up regretting their role as monsters.

Apparently, no one in the Obama administration has bothered to read Arizona’s law, but they are so heavily invested in their ideology that what they want to believe about the law makes it magically turn into what they believe it is: a racist, fascist excuse for Arizona’s Gestapo-like police to harass and detain anyone with dark skin or an accent.

I know exactly how William Shatner felt in the Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet". Does anyone else notice that the Obama administration is lying about Arizona's immigration law? Stewardess! There's a creature on the wing!

Every time I hear someone in the Obama administration denounce Arizona’s law – from Obama himself down to people whose job it is to actually know the law, like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano – I feel like I’m living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I’m almost as shocked and perplexed as William Shatner was when he saw a creature on the wing of the airplane he was flying on. Is this really happening and does anyone else notice it?

This is just the tip of the wing, however, as the belief in an alternative universe translates to every conceivable issue. Cyclical, historical climate change turns into Armageddon. Babies are no longer babies, but clumps of unorganized tissue that reveal themselves as babies only after they leave the womb. The only way to make airplanes safe from terrorists is not to look for terrorists. And so on and so forth.

My favorite is how progressives turn the First Amendment into something completely different than what it actually says. They believe it calls for the “separation of church and state,” though it says no such thing. It actually reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That’s funny, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” refuse to appear in the First Amendment. Maybe they’re hiding elsewhere in the Constitution? Or maybe not.

Despite the conspicuous absence of these words from the Constitution, progressives are constantly shouting down any religious references in the public square based on the Constitution’s supposed prohibition of religious speech through the “separation” clause. No such clause exists and the Amendment clearly states that Congress “shall make no law,” which means, for any progressives reading this, that Congress “shall make no law.” Do I need to repeat the phrase again so it’s clear? Apparently I do, but even if I do repeat it, progressives will still read, “separation of church and state.” It’s exasperating to say the least.

In the same way, progressives read the First Amendment’s free speech clauses as applying only to individuals and the causes they believe in. In other words, if you’re an organization representing the interests of a group of people, you’re not entitled to the same speech rights as an individual. Moreover, if you’re a group progressives distrust and malign, say an evil corporation or a conservative non-profit, you have even fewer rights to free speech, if any.

Progressives fervently believe that the First Amendment applies only to individuals when it’s in their best interests to believe this (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), though the text itself says, rather clearly: “…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The key phrase here is “of the people”. Note that it does not read, “of the person,” nor does it say, “of the people we agree with who aren’t racist Nazi homophobes like we say they are because they don’t believe in the same foolish notions of creating an earthly Utopia like we do.”

There’s something heartwarming about the use of “not” in that bitter assessment of my entry. Even though it’s not 1993 anymore some people still think using “not” is funny. Now, I’m not going to pick too much on @top20reos. Although I’m sure he won’t mind. As Bob Wiley once said: “He’s so high above us, we’re like ropes on the Goodyear blimp.” For someone who acts like they don’t care about what conservatives think he spends a lot of time trying to agitate people on the right.

Needless to say I engaged Mr. Beck via Twitter but it was a lost cause. He didn’t want to directly answer anything I had to say. It was easier to hurl insults about the quality of The Daily Plunge. I guess I would be upset but I’m not sure I really care about the opinion of a liberal tweeter who uses his real estate agent account to attack conservatives. Anyway, the only reason I bring this up is because of Jeff Beck’s last meaningful tweet to me.

@top20reos: Intelligent people rarely, if ever experience condescension. Think about it.

That really sums it all up. People like Jeff Beck feel like they’re intellectually superior to any conservative. Is it really surprising that every prominent conservative’s intelligence is attacked? The reason why true liberals will never be honestly elected nationally in the United States is because they don’t understand the average American.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

“But Henshaw, Obama was elected and he’s liberal.” Oh, I know, but he didn’t run as a liberal. Obama ran as a post-partisan centrist. He was helped by his sparse record and the fact he ran in 2008, a year any Democrat could have won. The fact is if Obama ever wants to be reelected he’ll have to act more conservative. If intelligent people rarely ever feel condescension, then liberals like Jeff Beck must never be happy. It must be depressing to know that your political beliefs are a pariah to the average American.

Q: You say on the DVD, referring to Pacino’s character, that America in 1985 was not ready for an “anti-hero.”
A: The movie heroes were, what? Stallone, Schwarzenegger. And Reagan. Reagan was a true hero to the American people, in a way. Pacino plays a grunt, a soldier, a resistant man, resistant to going to war, to fighting, to being a part of society. He was a roughneck, trading furs. An anti-hero, really. He says, “It’s not my fight.”

Like George Bush is to blame for every problem faced in the 2000s Ronald Reagan is still a liberal whipping boy for the dreadful 80s. President Eisenhower was immensely popular during the 1950s and the movie The Searchers staring John Wayne is considered a classic. John Wayne played the anti-hero Ethan Edwards. The real problem with Revolution is that it’s a terrible movie.

At the beginning the American colonialists are just an angry mob. Pacino’s boat is seized by the mob and then inexplicably his young boy “joins the cause.” After that it’s just one boring event after another. The problem with the movie isn’t the historical interpretation or Pacino’s reluctance to fight, but the dreadful plot. It’s just not a fun story to watch. Back in December I wrote “It [Revolution] certainly cannot be worse than Mel Gibson’s The Patriot.” I’m not so sure, but I know I won’t go out of my way to watch either film again.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.“? - Gerald Ford
Sadly the Obama administration isn’t really a change. More spending and larger entitlements is simply an expansion of the status quo. It is a quiet march into bankruptcy. It’s amazing to hear liberals tout environmental sustainability. They are champions of only taking what is necessary from the environment, but what about sustainable government? Is there a better example of waste and mismanagement than our federal government? Our spending priorities are simply not sustainable. What is a disillusioned voter to do? The Democrats offer no way out and the Republicans just spent eight years spending and increasing entitlements.
American needs change and neither party is offering a solution. America needs real courageous leadership. It will be a colossal task to reshape our government. I’m not sure it’s possible. Fewer Americans are paying taxes while an increasing number of Americans are receiving some kind of government assistance. This is not the recipe for a stable Republic. As the hand outs increase the number of entitlement voters increases as well. The American experiment is a miracle, and it’s going to need another miracle to escape this vicious trend.

“I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” Obama told NBC’s Savanah Guthrie. “And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet that’s another but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.” [Emphasis added]

Oh really? Does anyone truly believe the that White House would be wasting time on FOX if Obama was completely unconcerned? One thing I think Americans are learning about this young presidency is that he can’t take criticism. By any standard Obama has received the greatest coverage from the press in modern history. Yet, he’s upset with FOX? I can see why the White House holds up CNN as the model of centrist journalism. After all it was CNN’s superstar Anderson Cooper who was making jokes about “teabagging” and Wolf Blitzer “factchecking” a skit on SNL. I can see why the White House loves CNN. Just for the record, George W. Bush never said the word “strategery” and Sarah Palin never said that she could see Russia from her front porch. I didn’t know “factchecking” was necessary for sketch comedy.

Corruption we can believe in!
Maybe what Obama is really upset about is his falling approval numbers. If so, he really is a thin-skinned woosie. If I remember my Greek mythology correctly, Narcissus was a thin-skinned woosie. This is part of the job, Mr. President. Even President Reagan had days when he wasn’t so popular. Obama needs to get tough. Quit complaining about FOX News. The leader of the free world needs to start acting like it. Let’s start with making a decision about Afghanistan.