50 Years Ago Today -- Reagan "A Time For Choosing" 

Fifty years ago today, October 27, 1964, Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan delivered the most important speech in the history of modern conservatism. Just days before the Johnson-Goldwater election, Reagan delivered a nationwide televised speech called "A Time For Choosing." In 28 minutes, speaking with no teleprompter and armed only with his signature note cards, Reagan outlined the challenge facing America. 

Reagan wrote the speech himself and its impact was dramatic. In the first 24 hours over $1 million in small donations (the equivalent of $10 to $15 million today) poured into the Republican National Committee. Goldwater got a bump in the polls, but still lost in a landslide. Overnight, Ronald Reagan became the leader of conservatism in America. Two years later, he was elected governor of California.

Of the millions of people Reagan inspired that night, one was an 18 year-old boy sitting with his father in Newport, Kentucky. The boy was amazed at what he heard -- that America had "a rendezvous with destiny." 

He turned to his skeptical father and with youthful exuberance made an improbable pledge: "Dad, I bet this actor Reagan will be president some day. And when he is, I'm going to work for him at the White House!" 

"Spike" Bauer responded, "Gary, you're nuts!" That's right -- I was the 18 year-old boy. In this great country, I was able to fulfill that dream and work for President Ronald Reagan for eight years. 

Obama AWOL, Governors Act 

Late last week three governors took action to address concerns about travelers coming into the country from nations ravaged by Ebola. Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ), Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Pat Quinn (D-IL) ordered mandatory 21-day quarantines for "high risk" travelers. 

These orders came in the wake of news that a New York doctor who had just returned from Africa, where he had been treating Ebola patients, had tested positive for the disease days after he had been riding the subway and bowling. 

The governors took this step because the White House has been AWOL. Even though the American public overwhelmingly supports restricting travel from countries facing Ebola outbreaks, Obama is doing the bare minimum -- only requiring travelers from West Africa to submit to additional temperature screenings. After they enter the country, they are supposed to self-monitor for 21-days. 

But what if they don't? Well, that's not Obama's problem. According to the White House, it's up to the states to police these people. 

In issuing his order, Governor Quinn said: "This protective measure is too important to be voluntary. While we have no confirmed cases of the Ebola virus in Illinois, we will continue to take every safeguard necessary to protect first responders, health care workers and the people of Illinois."

Nurse Kaci Hickox, who had been treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, became the first person subject to such a quarantine when she landed at Newark Liberty International Airport Friday. Ms. Hickox protested loudly. She published an op-ed in, of all places, a Dallas newspaper. She told CNN, "to put me through this emotional and physical stress, is completely unacceptable. I feel like my basic human rights have been violated." 

A recent poll found that 72% of Americans believe "we should quarantine people who have been in any of the western African countries where there is a major Ebola outbreak." Ignoring public opinion yet again, Obama is pressuring Governors Christie, Cuomo and Quinn to abandon their quarantine policies. 

But as a Wall Street Journal editorial put it: "The real problem is that the CDC, the World Health Organization, the Health and Human Services Department and the White House have all given ample reason not to trust their assurances. They said the chance of an Ebola case in the U.S. was remote. They said airport screeners would catch anyone sick trying to enter. They said hospitals were prepared for such cases. . ." 

It's a sign of the prevailing politically correct culture we live in that the public overwhelmingly supports this policy, but to hear Ms. Hickox you'd think she had been put in a concentration camp. And now that she has uttered the magic words -- "I'll sue" -- she has been released. Should our soldiers sue too, since the Obama Administration is imposing a quarantine policy on them? 

Selfish Humanitarians? 

If we quarantine healthcare workers coming back from West Africa for 21 days, the CDC and other liberals tell us that those workers won't volunteer. Really? 

Think about that for a moment. Presumably, these are caring people who are putting their lives at risk to help strangers in a foreign land. I deeply admire their courage. But it is not unreasonable to ask that they sacrifice when they come back to their own country to reassure their fellow citizens and confine themselves for 21 days. 

By the way, a five year-old boy was admitted to a New York hospital yesterday after exhibiting symptoms of Ebola. The boy and his family had just returned from West Africa the day before. I hope this turns out be another false alarm. 

Condolences For A Teen-age Terrorist? 

As we reported Thursday, there is a simmering uprising taking place in Jerusalem. Last week a Palestinian jihadist intentionally drove his car into a crowd of Israelis, killing a three month-old baby who was a U.S. citizen. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "We express our deepest condolences to the family of the baby, reportedly an American citizen, who was killed in this despicable attack." 

Friday, a 17 year-old Palestinian, who was throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli cars, was shot and killed. He was also a U.S. citizen. In response to this news, Psaki said, "The United States expresses its deepest condolences to the family of a U.S. citizen minor who was killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. . ."

It is thoroughly appropriate to recognize the victim of a terrorist attack -- the dead baby. But why is our State Department so eager to express its condolences for a dead teen-age terrorist who was shot as he tried to kill Israelis? The United States should stand with Israel and stop the moral equivalency between our ally Israel and its -- and our -- jihadist enemies.