National Review once opined, many years ago, that, every year, the Nobel peace prize should go to the U.S. secretary of defense: The American military is the number-one guarantor of peace in the world. But maybe something like a Nobel freedom prize would be a more appropriate award for Reagan than a peace prize.

So much of contemporary liberalism seems to be never having grown up.

History does not have sides, although historians do.

Yesterday, I tried to call Northwest Airlines' customer-service line over a couple of hours. I couldn't get through. The recording said, "Due to a high volume of calls" Well, you could put it that way - "Due to a high volume of calls". Or you could say, "Due to an insufficient number of employees..."

Nuclear weapons are to be worried about only when they're in the hands of Ronald Reagan - not so much when they're in the hands of a Third World anti-imperialist like Saddam Hussein. Can't you see?

National Review once opined, many years ago, that, every year, the Nobel peace prize should go to the U.S. secretary of defense: The American military is the number-one guarantor of peace in the world. But maybe something like a Nobel freedom prize would be a more appropriate award for Reagan than a peace prize.

In human history who hold the reigns of political power, and there are some women who were very much a team player during their husband's oppressive regime.