Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, a powerful moment in world history that still resonates with those of us old enough to remember it and the end of the Soviet Union. What better way to recognize the day than watching Reagan’s speech at the Wall in 1987?

You can read the transcript here. While the speech is remembered for Reagan’s to call to Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” there are some other great passages in what is a wonderful speech overall. Here are some of my other favorite parts:

President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

I don’t want to make this about Obama, but listening to Reagan connect the Wall to the greater struggle for freedom makes me lament that, as good a speaker Obama is, he’ll never make such a strong statement with that larger connection. We’ve already watched Obama miss chances in Iran and Honduras to make those connections.

The build up to the call to tear down the Wall is also fantastic:

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

And, of course, the conclusion:

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.

Small businesses are rightfully concerned about mandates, penalties, and taxes in the House and Senate healthcare bills that would be job killers.

PhRMA also issued this statement of opposition to the House bill, warning that it would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs from an industry that employs a significant number of people. PhRMA is not likely bluffing, as several large employers in the industry have already announced large job cuts.

The Senate must now decide if we’re going to spend over $1 trillion to subsidize a government intervention that would result in job losses and wouldn’t actually decrease the cost of healthcare.

(DISCLOSURE: My employer is a member of PhRMA)

The UK Telegraph reports that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, attended the same mosque as two 9/11 terrorists at the same time. The imam at that mosque was described as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.”

Via Allahpundit.

Michelle Malkin asks why we have to get this news from a British paper.

What a game yesterday, and I’m not talking about football. House Democrats had been pushing for a vote on ObamaCare, but didn’t seem to have the numbers. Yet the bill was brought to the floor yesterday afternoon, and last night it passed 220-215. It was not bipartisan, as only one Republican voted for it, and 39 Democrats defected.

What can we conclude from a five vote spread to pass this takeover of American healthcare? Many Democrats must have seen the numbers from the elections in New Jersey and Virginia this week, where Republicans won important and symbolic victories in states that went for Obama just a year ago. Perhaps they have also seen polls like this one, suggesting that Americans are recognizing Obama’s policies as liberal. Also, if Pelosi had 39 defections and barely passed the bill, what does that say about the chances of anything similar passing the Senate?

What enabled Speaker Pelosi to round up enough votes last night? One big move was allowing a discussion and vote on an abortion amendment offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI). The amendment would uphold a ban on federal abortion funding. The roll call on that vote is here (it passed). Allowing a vote on this amendment gave moderate Democrats some cover, even if this amendment doesn’t make the final bill (and don’t be surprised if it doesn’t).

It’s likely that some Democrats were allowed to vote against the House bill last night because some of the more liberal provisions won’t end up in a final bill. That way, they wouldn’t have voted for something unpopular that didn’t even get signed into law. That only goes to show that many in Congress recognize the policies in this bill are not something most Americans want.

Where do we go from here? The Senate now has to pass something that would be reconciled with this House bill. The Senate Finance Committee bill (as we know of it) is the least damaging version of Democrat legislation out there, but it has to be merged with the HELP Committee bill and then that merged bill (or some other version) would have to pass the Senate. This is no small task. With a strong majority in the House, the Democrats barely passed their disastrous legislation.

The House made history last night, taking a step towards overhauling our healthcare system. Is this the kind of history Americans are hoping for?

Bob Laszewski explains that the watered-down public option in the almost 2,000 page House healthcare bill will waste a lot of money to achieve little:

Move away from a universal program covering 40 million seniors and into a voluntary individual insurance program that will require marketing costs, individual policy issue, individual monthly billing, claim paying, the need to build a stabilization fund, raise money to build, negotiate and manage provider networks, and all of the rest, and what do you have? An insurance company.

Do Americans want to pay $1 trillion to effectively establish another insurance company, and then bail it out if it isn’t successful?

In the Senate Finance Committee bill, subsidies would decrease over time and taxes on “Cadillac” insurance plans would creep into the middle class.

And if you’re looking for malpractice reform, well, the House bill actually goes in the opposite direction.

Courtesy of Americans for Tax Reform, here is a comprehensive list of taxes in the House healthcare bill (H.R. 3962 – “Affordable Health Care for America Act”).

PhRMA notes the CBO analysis, which says the mandatory Medicare Part D rebates in the House bill will lead to less research and development and higher premiums for seniors.

(DISCLOSURE: My employer is a member of PhRMA)

Ed Morrissey comments on the additional withholding that California will implement this week, as the state legislature continues to act irresponsibly. While residents should get that money back in tax returns, does anyone believe that the state would make that money more valuable than the people who earned it? What if the state has to issue IOUs again?

In other California news, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is withdrawing his candidacy for Governor.

Via Power Line, here is Dick Cheney’s speech at the Center for Security Policy. I’ll add some excerpts and comments soon.

UPDATE: Here are some key excerpts and the full transcript. Since those are already available, and since this speech makes compelling arguments for topics I’ve been covering here, I don’t have much to add. I will say, however, that Dick Cheney is winning these arguments by default, since the White House hasn’t offered much in response (Just attempts to marginalize critics).

If anything, Cheney is raising the level of discourse. His arguments are serious, and should be considered. The effect may be a change in public opinion of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. We may not see much effect right away, and President Obama can probably afford to let much of Cheney’s arguments go unchallenged right now, as the public focus is more on the economy and health care.

At some point, however, Cheney’s arguments should be addressed by serious people who wish to win the American public. The Bush administration may have largely failed to make its case to the public and to hit back at critics, but Cheney is very much doing that now.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has an interesting op-ed in the WSJ in which he makes a case against moving detained terrorist suspects to civilian courts where we used to try terrorists before 9/11.

Others like Andy McCarthy, Dick Cheney, and Michael Hayden have been vocal in their opposition to President Obama’s detention and interrogation policy proposals. Mukasey’s piece is another valid contribution to the discussions about national security and civil liberties.

We talked about the idea of using reconciliation,  but the Democrats’ attempts to force through healthcare reform have become even more creative. Now, in an attempt to pretend to keep the cost of the healthcare bill down, Democrats are considering breaking off a $245 billion chunk and passing a separate bill to pay the doctors. This would be done with a procedural maneuver that would bypass the normal Senate process.

Bob Laszewski explains what Democrats are trying to do:

How many times have you heard the President say that any health care bill must be “deficit neutral?” How many times have you heard conservative and moderate Democrats say they won’t vote for a health bill that isn’t paid for?

What are the Democrats about to try?

Peeling out one of the biggest components of health care and quickly spending $245 billion to bolster physician fees over the next ten years, doing it separate from the “deficit neutral” health bill, and just adding the $245 billion cost of this to the deficit!

In other words, the joke is on us. Americans shouldn’t buy it though, and they haven’t so far. Yet the Democrats continue to ignore the public.

Another good example of a legislative move to watch out for could involve cloture in the Senate. In order to end debate on whatever bill comes out of the Senate bill merger, moderate Democrats and Republicans may be asked to vote for cloture before being allowed to vote against the final bill. Cloture needs 60 votes, but passage only 50.

Therefore, we might see a John Kerry-esque “I voted for it before I voted against it” situation. Senators may vote for cloture, almost ensuring the passage of a bill, but then they could vote against passage and tell their constituents they didn’t support the bill. The cloture vote, however, would be the key vote. Senators who vote for cloture would need to be held accountable for the passage of a disastrous healthcare bill.

A blogger at Hot Air is frustrated by Senator Snowe’s call to history in support of her vote in the Senate Finance Committee. While her explanation is indeed weak, I wouldn’t criticize her “paternalism and ego” if she indeed believes that she is doing the right thing.

George W. Bush held his ground in the wars when public opinion was unpopular, and if enough people disagreed with him, they could have elected John Kerry. As I’ve said, we shouldn’t fault people for simply standing on principle (and I don’t claim to know if Senator Snowe is doing that). The beauty of Democracy, however, is that people can vote out their representatives if they don’t agree with what the representatives are doing. Applied to healthcare, if you don’t like the jam-down and scheming, you can express that at the polls.