Ontario Premier Doug Ford on X announced that he planned to run an ad featuring a 1987 speech by Ronald Reagan, the same speech that led to US President Donald Trump suspending all trade negotiations with Canada. Ford, on X, announced that he had "directed his team to keep putting our message in front of Americans over the weekend so that we can air our commercial during the first two World Series games" (Oct 25 and 26). However, he said that after talks with Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ontario has decided to "pause its US advertising campaign effective Monday" (Oct 27) so that the trade talks between the US and Canada could resume.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/steve-bannon-insists-trump-needs-one-more-term-hints-at-secret-plan-for-trump-2028-comeback-1761288412586">Steve Bannon insists Trump 'needs one more term,' hints at secret plan for 'Trump 2028' comeback</a><h2>Why did Trump stop US-Canada trade talks?</h2>The trade relationship between the United States and Canada took an unexpected turn this week, after a decades-old speech by former US president Ronald Reagan triggered a diplomatic storm. It began when Ontario Premier Doug Ford ran an ad in US markets featuring Reagan’s 1987 remarks denouncing tariffs. The video, meant to celebrate cross-border unity, quickly caught Donald Trump’s attention — and his fury. Within hours, Trump announced that all US trade talks with Canada were “terminated.”Soon after, speaking on X, Ford sought to strike a conciliatory tone. "Canada and the United States are friends, neighbours and allies. President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together," he wrote. But the backlash from Washington grew so intense that Ford later said, after consulting Prime Minister Mark Carney, he would pull the ad campaign by Monday.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Canada and the United States are friends, neighbours and allies. President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together. God bless Canada and God bless the United States.<a href="https://t.co/n1Nj6ofNZU">https://t.co/n1Nj6ofNZU</a>&mdash; Doug Ford (@fordnation) <a href="https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1981694254687904184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses," Ford said. “We've achieved our goal, having reached US audiences at the highest levels.”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses. We&#39;ve achieved our goal, having reached U.S. audiences at the highest levels. I&#39;ve directed my team to keep putting our…&mdash; Doug Ford (@fordnation) <a href="https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1981789712516858293?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The one-minute ad featured Reagan saying that "trade barriers hurt every American worker." But Trump accused Canada of running a "fake" and "fraudulent" video, and without offering any evidence to back the claim, declared all trade negotiations suspended. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio added fuel, claiming the clip took Reagan’s words "out of context." The Reagan Foundation joined the criticism, saying Ontario used Reagan’s remarks without permission and "misrepresents" his intent.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-we-re-just-gonna-kill-them-trump-says-won-t-seek-congress-before-strikes-venezuela-urges-no-crazy-war-please-1761271095909">'We're just gonna kill them': Trump says won't seek Congress nod before striking Venezuela; Maduro pleads 'No crazy war, please!'</a><h2>Canada defends ad</h2>Ford's office, however, countered that the ad used "an unedited excerpt from one of Reagan’s public addresses, which is available through public domain" and posted a longer version online for transparency.Even as the spat escalated, some US lawmakers came to Ford’s defence. Members of the House Ways and Means Committee reposted the ad. "This is the ad that drove Trump to cancel all trade talks with Canada," the committee posted on social media, adding, "Unlike Trump’s AI slop, this is real and uses Reagan’s own words on tariffs."

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has decided to pause a US ad campaign using Ronald Reagan’s 1987 speech on tariffs after it triggered a diplomatic row. However, he said that the ad will air on THESE days. 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford on X announced that he planned to run an ad featuring a 1987 speech by Ronald Reagan, the same speech that led to US President Donald Trump suspending all trade negotiations with Canada. Ford, on X, announced that he had "directed his team to keep putting our message in front of Americans over the weekend so that we can air our commercial during the first two World Series games" (Oct 25 and 26). However, he said that after talks with Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ontario has decided to "pause its US advertising campaign effective Monday" (Oct 27) so that the trade talks between the US and Canada could resume. Also read | Steve Bannon insists Trump 'needs one more term,' hints at secret plan for 'Trump 2028' comeback Why did Trump stop US-Canada trade talks? The trade relationship between the United States and Canada took an unexpected turn this week, after a decades-old speech by former US president Ronald Reagan triggered a diplomatic storm. It began when Ontario Premier Doug Ford ran an ad in US markets featuring Reagan’s 1987 remarks denouncing tariffs. The video, meant to celebrate cross-border unity, quickly caught Donald Trump’s attention — and his fury. Within hours, Trump announced that all US trade talks with Canada were “terminated.” Soon after, speaking on X, Ford sought to strike a conciliatory tone. "Canada and the United States are friends, neighbours and allies. President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together," he wrote. But the backlash from Washington grew so intense that Ford later said, after consulting Prime Minister Mark Carney, he would pull the ad campaign by Monday.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has decided to pause a US ad campaign using Ronald Reagan’s 1987 speech on tariffs after it triggered a diplomatic row. However, he said that the ad will air on THESE days.&nbsp;

Canada to continue airing controversial Ronald Reagan ad? Ontario Premier said THIS after Trump suspended trade talks

US President Donald Trump announced an immediate end to all trade talks with Canada, citing an ad that misrepresented former US President Ronald Reagan. Trump accused Ottawa of falsely quoting Reagan in an ad campaign aimed at criticising US tariffs. “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has confirmed that Canada used a fabricated advertisement with Reagan’s voice, making false claims about tariffs,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This was an attempt to influence the Supreme Court’s decisions and other legal proceedings. Tariffs are crucial for US national security and economic stability. Due to these actions, all trade negotiations with Canada are now terminated.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-i-didn-t-kill-anybody-alabama-man-s-last-words-before-execution-by-nitrogen-gas-for-1993-murder-amid-legal-challenges-1761273080973">'I didn’t kill anybody’: Alabama man’s last words before execution by nitrogen gas for 1993 murder amid legal challenges</a><h2>The controversial ad escalates tensions</h2>In Canada, Ontario launched an anti-tariff campaign featuring an excerpt from a 1987 radio address by Reagan, originally aimed at justifying tariffs on Japanese electronics. The ad warns of the dangers of long-term tariffs, predicting negative consequences like trade wars and economic collapse. The ad aired on networks such as Newsmax and Bloomberg, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a $75 million budget for the campaign, aiming to spread the message across Republican districts in the United States. Ford, a self-proclaimed Reagan admirer, emphasised the importance of this issue for Canada's economic interests.

'All trade negotiations with Canada are terminated': Trump ends talks after dispute over controversial ad featuring Reagan

US President Donald Trump announced an immediate end to all trade talks with Canada, citing an ad that misrepresented former US President Ronald Reagan. Trump accused Ottawa of falsely quoting Reagan in an ad campaign aimed at criticising US tariffs. “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has confirmed that Canada used a fabricated advertisement with Reagan’s voice, making false claims about tariffs,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This was an attempt to influence the Supreme Court’s decisions and other legal proceedings. Tariffs are crucial for US national security and economic stability. Due to these actions, all trade negotiations with Canada are now terminated.” Also Read: 'I didn’t kill anybody’: Alabama man’s last words before execution by nitrogen gas for 1993 murder amid legal challenges The controversial ad escalates tensions In Canada, Ontario launched an anti-tariff campaign featuring an excerpt from a 1987 radio address by Reagan, originally aimed at justifying tariffs on Japanese electronics. The ad warns of the dangers of long-term tariffs, predicting negative consequences like trade wars and economic collapse. The ad aired on networks such as Newsmax and Bloomberg, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a $75 million budget for the campaign, aiming to spread the message across Republican districts in the United States. Ford, a self-proclaimed Reagan admirer, emphasised the importance of this issue for Canada's economic interests.

US President Donald Trump announced an immediate end to all trade talks with Canada, citing an ad that misrepresented Ronald Reagan. Trump accused Ottawa of falsely quoting Reagan in an ad campaign aimed at criticising US tariffs

Oliver North and Fawn Hall, two of several people involved in the Iran-Contra affair, a political scandal that rocked the United States in the 1980s, got married on August 27 in Virginia, according to a copy of the marriage certificate obtained by CNN. When the outlet reached out to North, he said, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” quoting a line from "Gone With The Wind." A retired United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, he was a National Security Council staffer when the affair of arms trafficking affair to Iran between 1981 and 1986 happened. Fawn was his secretary and grabbed the limelight for helping him shred confidential documents. The news that the two had tied the knot, a year after North's first wife, Betsy Stuart, died, was first reported by journalist Michael Isikoff for a Substack publication known as SpyTalk. Meanwhile, Fawn was married to Danny Sugerman, the manager of the rock band The Doors, who passed away in 2005.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-elizabeth-tsurkov-israeli-russian-student-freed-by-kata-ib-hezbollah-after-903-days-1757482142477">Who is Elizabeth Tsurkov? Israeli-Russian student freed by Kata’ib Hezbollah after 903 days</a>&nbsp;The Iran-Contra affair saw the involvement of senior officials of the Ronald Reagan administration who sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund the Contras, an anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua. Congress had prohibited further funding of the Contras under the Boland Amendment. However, the Reagan administration secretly continued to fund the group. The officials justified their actions by saying that it was done to ensure the release of American hostages in the Middle East. North was the one who formulated the funding of the Contra plan. He set up a covert network to channel the funds from Iran to the Contras.&nbsp;<h2>Fawn Hall smuggled Iran-Contra affair documents inside her clothes and shredded them</h2>Hall became North's secretary in 1983. Her mother, Wilma Hall, was also a secretary to a high-profile official, Robert McFarlane, Reagan's national security advisor. He was North's superior and also part of the Iran–Contra affair. Hall made an error when she mixed up the digits of a Swiss bank account number. The money from the Sultan of Brunei, which was supposed to fund the Contras, was instead credited to a Swiss businessman's bank account. She was fired for her involvement in the scandal on November 25, 1986. During the trial, Hall admitted that she helped destroy a huge chunk of official documents to protect North. She smuggled the papers in her clothes and boots, and she and North put them in a paper shredder. Hall said there were so many papers that the shredder was jammed. In 1989, she was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against North. &nbsp;

Oliver North and Fawn Hall are married. North is a Vietnam War veteran and was a National Security Council staff member during the Iran–Contra affair of the 1980s. Hall was his secretary who helped him shred papers to erase evidence of his involvement.

Oliver North and Fawn Hall, two of several people involved in the Iran-Contra affair, a political scandal that rocked the United States in the 1980s, got married on August 27 in Virginia, according to a copy of the marriage certificate obtained by CNN. When the outlet reached out to North, he said, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” quoting a line from "Gone With The Wind." A retired United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, he was a National Security Council staffer when the affair of arms trafficking affair to Iran between 1981 and 1986 happened. Fawn was his secretary and grabbed the limelight for helping him shred confidential documents. The news that the two had tied the knot, a year after North's first wife, Betsy Stuart, died, was first reported by journalist Michael Isikoff for a Substack publication known as SpyTalk. Meanwhile, Fawn was married to Danny Sugerman, the manager of the rock band The Doors, who passed away in 2005. Also Read: Who is Elizabeth Tsurkov? Israeli-Russian student freed by Kata’ib Hezbollah after 903 days The Iran-Contra affair saw the involvement of senior officials of the Ronald Reagan administration who sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund the Contras, an anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua. Congress had prohibited further funding of the Contras under the Boland Amendment. However, the Reagan administration secretly continued to fund the group. The officials justified their actions by saying that it was done to ensure the release of American hostages in the Middle East. North was the one who formulated the funding of the Contra plan. He set up a covert network to channel the funds from Iran to the Contras. Fawn Hall smuggled Iran-Contra affair documents inside her clothes and shredded them Hall became North's secretary in 1983. Her mother, Wilma Hall, was also a secretary to a high-profile official, Robert McFarlane, Reagan's national security advisor. He was North's superior and also part of the Iran–Contra affair. Hall made an error when she mixed up the digits of a Swiss bank account number. The money from the Sultan of Brunei, which was supposed to fund the Contras, was instead credited to a Swiss businessman's bank account. She was fired for her involvement in the scandal on November 25, 1986. During the trial, Hall admitted that she helped destroy a huge chunk of official documents to protect North. She smuggled the papers in her clothes and boots, and she and North put them in a paper shredder. Hall said there were so many papers that the shredder was jammed. In 1989, she was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against North.

Oliver North and Fawn Hall are married. North is a Vietnam War veteran and was a National Security Council staff member during the Iran–Contra affair of the 1980s. Hall was his secretary who helped him shred papers to erase evidence of his involvement.

Iran–Contra affair colleagues Oliver North and Fawn Hall marry 40 years after scandal: What was it?

Over the past 10 years, the Republican Party has been reshaped as an outpost of Donald Trump's views, but the Grand Old Party of US politics has a storied history far from its current right-wing avatar.

Not many know that the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854.

Watch: Trump at Republican Convention after assassination bid | Republicans formally nominate Trump

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-at-republican-convention-after-assassination-bid-republicans-formally-nominate-trump-741461/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Along with groups like former Whigs and Free Soilers, they created the party to fight against the expansion of slavery of Africans into new areas in the United States.

Equally unbelievable when compared to the present stance of Democrats is that that party had supported slavery. The Republicans became the main opposition to the Democratic party with their fight against slavery.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-comes-up-with-a-shocking-idea-to-end-violent-crime-in-us-suggests-a-day-like-the-purge-763269">Also read: Trump comes up with shocking idea to end violent crime in US, suggests a day like 'The Purge'</a>

Possibly the most well-known figure in the Republican party is&nbsp;Abraham Lincoln, who became the first Republican president and went on to serve from 1861 to 1865 till his assassination.

Lincoln's election in 1860 took place amid the conflict between the pro-slavery southern states and the rest of the union, which eventually led to the American Civil War following the secession move by the South.

Under Lincoln, the abolitionist North won the Civil War, and the Republican president made the Emancipation Proclamation, which set the US on a path towards ending slavery.

Republican party gave several other prominent presidents including Ulysses S Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. It also has the not-so-bright record of Richard Nixon, the only US president who was forced to resign.&nbsp;

The slow move of the party towards conservative and right-wing politics and economic policies was cemented by Reagan, and his Republican successors George HW Bush, his son George W Bush and then, Donald Trump.

At various times, the Republicans controlled Congress and the US legislature. They had the majority in the House of Representatives in 1947-49 and 2011-2019. In the Senate, they were in the majority in the 1980s and early 2000s, wresting majority again in the 2015-2021 period.

When compared to the anti-slavery idealism of its founders which was progressive for its time, the current politics of the Republicans is almost unbelievable.&nbsp;

The party currently advocates free-market policies and limited government intervention in people's lives, particularly in taxation.

While it endorses individual freedom away from government authority, the party is also conservative in its fiscal and social policies.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/liz-cheney-urges-republican-women-to-side-with-harris-in-us-elections-over-abortion-rights-769821">Also read: Liz Cheney urges Republican women to side with Harris in US elections over abortion rights</a>

Amplified by Trump, who has changed the composition of the Republican party in the past eight years with his relatives or allies in key positions, the Republicans have a relatively hardline approach towards immigration and race relations, appearing to favour the white majority.

Trump is an ardent opponent of immigration, particularly from Latin American and Muslim nations.&nbsp;

His party is also opposed to taxing the rich, and government intervention in healthcare and medical insurance.

On the issue of abortion, the current Republicans prefer the right to life to the right of choice.

Republican presidents like George Bush and George W Bush have led the meddling of the US in global issues, including W's move to export democracy that led to civil wars, conflicts and the rise of Islamic terrorism in West Asia, and at least partially caused the 9/11 attacks of 2001.&nbsp;

Under Trump, the Republican Party seemed to favour American isolationism, with his key slogan being Make America Great Again.

Will Trump lead the Grand Old Party back into power and shape the legislative and policy landscape of the US?

We will know in November. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Over the past 10 years, the Republican Party has been reshaped as an outpost of Donald Trump's views, but the Grand Old Party of US politics has a storied history far from its current right-wing avatar.

Over the past 10 years, the Republican Party has been reshaped as an outpost of Donald Trump's views, but the Grand Old Party of US politics has a storied history far from its current right-wing avatar. Not many know that the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854. Watch: Trump at Republican Convention after assassination bid | Republicans formally nominate Trump × Along with groups like former Whigs and Free Soilers, they created the party to fight against the expansion of slavery of Africans into new areas in the United States. Equally unbelievable when compared to the present stance of Democrats is that that party had supported slavery. The Republicans became the main opposition to the Democratic party with their fight against slavery. Also read: Trump comes up with shocking idea to end violent crime in US, suggests a day like 'The Purge' Possibly the most well-known figure in the Republican party is Abraham Lincoln, who became the first Republican president and went on to serve from 1861 to 1865 till his assassination. Lincoln's election in 1860 took place amid the conflict between the pro-slavery southern states and the rest of the union, which eventually led to the American Civil War following the secession move by the South. Under Lincoln, the abolitionist North won the Civil War, and the Republican president made the Emancipation Proclamation, which set the US on a path towards ending slavery. Republican party gave several other prominent presidents including Ulysses S Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. It also has the not-so-bright record of Richard Nixon, the only US president who was forced to resign. The slow move of the party towards conservative and right-wing politics and economic policies was cemented by Reagan, and his Republican successors George HW Bush, his son George W Bush and then, Donald Trump. At various times, the Republicans controlled Congress and the US legislature. They had the majority in the House of Representatives in 1947-49 and 2011-2019. In the Senate, they were in the majority in the 1980s and early 2000s, wresting majority again in the 2015-2021 period. When compared to the anti-slavery idealism of its founders which was progressive for its time, the current politics of the Republicans is almost unbelievable. The party currently advocates free-market policies and limited government intervention in people's lives, particularly in taxation. While it endorses individual freedom away from government authority, the party is also conservative in its fiscal and social policies. Also read: Liz Cheney urges Republican women to side with Harris in US elections over abortion rights Amplified by Trump, who has changed the composition of the Republican party in the past eight years with his relatives or allies in key positions, the Republicans have a relatively hardline approach towards immigration and race relations, appearing to favour the white majority. Trump is an ardent opponent of immigration, particularly from Latin American and Muslim nations. His party is also opposed to taxing the rich, and government intervention in healthcare and medical insurance. On the issue of abortion, the current Republicans prefer the right to life to the right of choice. Republican presidents like George Bush and George W Bush have led the meddling of the US in global issues, including W's move to export democracy that led to civil wars, conflicts and the rise of Islamic terrorism in West Asia, and at least partially caused the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Under Trump, the Republican Party seemed to favour American isolationism, with his key slogan being Make America Great Again. Will Trump lead the Grand Old Party back into power and shape the legislative and policy landscape of the US? We will know in November. (With inputs from agencies)

US Elections 2024: Republican party of Donald Trump - What you should know

John Hinckley, the man who shot at former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 was given full freedom on Wednesday (June 15). This step was taken six years after he was released from a psychiatric hospital. A court in Washington had ruled earlier this month that after decades of treatment and psychiatric reviews, Hinckley no longer presented a threat

"After 41 years 2 months and 15 days, FREEDOM AT LAST!!!" he tweeted in celebration on Thursday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After 41 years 2 months and 15 days, FREEDOM AT LAST!!!
— John Hinckley (@JohnHinckley20) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnHinckley20/status/1537105834571976704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Hinckley, now 67, shot Reagan and three others with a revolver outside a Washington hotel on March 30, 1981. Hinckley said he wanted to impress actress Jodie Foster, with whom he became obsessed after watching her in the film "Taxi Driver."

All four people he shot survived, although Reagan press secretary James Brady was left partially paralyzed and forced to use a wheelchair.

Hinckley was declared not guilty on grounds of insanity. He was then admitted to St. Elizabeth Hospital, &nbsp;a psychiatric institution in Washington, for 34 years

He was released in September 2016 but required to live with his elderly mother in a gated community in Williamsburg, Virginia under a long list of restrictions.

Those included controls on his movements and monitoring of his electronic devices and online accounts.

He was also forbidden to contact Foster or travel to any area where a current or former president, vice president or member of Congress would be present.

Nor could Hinckley speak to the media or post any writings or memorabilia on the internet, or display them in person without authorization.&nbsp;

A government report on his status filed to the court on May 19 said his mental health had "remained stable" and that his psychiatric illness had been in "full and sustained remission for decades."

(With inputs from agencies)

John Hinckley, the man who shot at former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 was given full freedom on Wednesday (June 15). This step was taken six years after he was released from a psychiatric hospital.

John Hinckley, the man who shot at former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 was given full freedom on Wednesday (June 15). This step was taken six years after he was released from a psychiatric hospital. A court in Washington had ruled earlier this month that after decades of treatment and psychiatric reviews, Hinckley no longer presented a threat "After 41 years 2 months and 15 days, FREEDOM AT LAST!!!" he tweeted in celebration on Thursday. After 41 years 2 months and 15 days, FREEDOM AT LAST!!! — John Hinckley (@JohnHinckley20) June 15, 2022 × Hinckley, now 67, shot Reagan and three others with a revolver outside a Washington hotel on March 30, 1981. Hinckley said he wanted to impress actress Jodie Foster, with whom he became obsessed after watching her in the film "Taxi Driver." All four people he shot survived, although Reagan press secretary James Brady was left partially paralyzed and forced to use a wheelchair. Hinckley was declared not guilty on grounds of insanity. He was then admitted to St. Elizabeth Hospital, a psychiatric institution in Washington, for 34 years He was released in September 2016 but required to live with his elderly mother in a gated community in Williamsburg, Virginia under a long list of restrictions. Those included controls on his movements and monitoring of his electronic devices and online accounts. He was also forbidden to contact Foster or travel to any area where a current or former president, vice president or member of Congress would be present. Nor could Hinckley speak to the media or post any writings or memorabilia on the internet, or display them in person without authorization. A government report on his status filed to the court on May 19 said his mental health had "remained stable" and that his psychiatric illness had been in "full and sustained remission for decades." (With inputs from agencies)

'Freedom at last': Man who shot at Ronald Reagan granted full freedom

From Abraham Lincoln to James Buchanan: America's best and worst presidents ranked

John Hinckley, the man who shot former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 has been granted full freedom by a US federal judge on Wednesday. This has capped a four-decade legal journey for the once metally ill Hinckley.

Hinckley shot Reagan on March 30, 1981. The former president recovered fully. However, his press secretary James Brady was partially paralyzed. Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Washington Police officer Thomas Delahanty were also wounded.

The court had said last September that it would lift restrictions on Hinckley by June 15 if Hinckley continued his good behaviour. At the hearing on Wednesday, the judge noted that Hinckley had continued to do well. Hincley has lived in the community in Virginia for years. 
&nbsp; 
“He’s been scrutinized. He’s passed every test. He’s no longer a danger to himself or others,” said Judge Friedman said at a hearing that lasted about an hour. Hinckley was not present at the time.

The judge noted that Hinckley, now 67-years-old, was mentally troubled when he shot Ronald Reagan but he got mental heath help. The court said that Hinckley has not shown signs of mental illness from mid-80s.

Prosecutors, who were opposed to Hinckley's freedom initially but they changed their position last year. They said that they would agree to Hinckley's release provided he shows mental stability.

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

John Hinckley, the man who shot former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 has been granted full freedom by a US federal judge on Wednesday. This has capped a four-decade legal journey for the once metally ill Hinckley.

John Hinckley, the man who shot former US president Ronald Reagan in 1981 has been granted full freedom by a US federal judge on Wednesday. This has capped a four-decade legal journey for the once metally ill Hinckley. Hinckley shot Reagan on March 30, 1981. The former president recovered fully. However, his press secretary James Brady was partially paralyzed. Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Washington Police officer Thomas Delahanty were also wounded. The court had said last September that it would lift restrictions on Hinckley by June 15 if Hinckley continued his good behaviour. At the hearing on Wednesday, the judge noted that Hinckley had continued to do well. Hincley has lived in the community in Virginia for years. “He’s been scrutinized. He’s passed every test. He’s no longer a danger to himself or others,” said Judge Friedman said at a hearing that lasted about an hour. Hinckley was not present at the time. The judge noted that Hinckley, now 67-years-old, was mentally troubled when he shot Ronald Reagan but he got mental heath help. The court said that Hinckley has not shown signs of mental illness from mid-80s. Prosecutors, who were opposed to Hinckley's freedom initially but they changed their position last year. They said that they would agree to Hinckley's release provided he shows mental stability. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

John Hinckley, man who shot Ronald Reagan, gets full freedom

It is easy to recall the 1980s as being a boom time for the United States economy — a time of gleaming excess that, among other things, powered Ronald Reagan to a landslide reelection in 1984.

But the decade didn’t start out quite so sunny. And understanding the history of how the economy went from bust to boom in the early 1980s offers a surprising model for optimism about how the U.S. economy could progress in the next couple of years.

All it would take is for the Federal Reserve to pull off a delicate economic pivot that is the mirror image of the one it managed four decades ago.

Now, high inflation and a seemingly never-ending pandemic are depressing Americans’ attitudes about the economy. By contrast, in December 1981 — when Reagan had been president for 11 months, just as President Joe Biden has now — conditions were by most measures substantially worse. The unemployment rate was 8.5% and would keep rising throughout 1982. Inflation was 8.9%, and indexes of consumer sentiment were abysmal.

In an issue of Time magazine published this month 40 years ago, if you flip past a cover story that ranks the performance of Reagan’s Cabinet and an advertisement pitching a Smith-Corona typewriter as a holiday gift for your child, you see just how bad the vibes were.

“Gathering Gloom for Workers,” goes the headline, reporting that “A spreading slump swells the long gray line of the unemployed.” The article said joblessness was so high in Detroit that community leaders “fear that they are sitting on a smoldering powder keg of urban unrest.”

If nothing else, this chronology is a reminder that conditions can change surprisingly quickly. By the time Reagan was reelected in 1984, the jobless rate was 7.2% and falling and inflation was down to 4.2%.

Some commentators have argued that Biden has the opportunity to be an inverse of Reagan politically (much of this commentary, it should be noted, came before Sen. Joe Manchin pulled his support from the president’s signature Build Back Better bill ). And there is of course no telling what the next three years will bring politically, regardless of what happens to the economy.

But in terms of the economic backdrop, it is important to understand the “why” of the Reagan economic reversal.

Those gloomy unemployment numbers in Reagan’s first two years were a consequence of aggressive tightening of monetary policy by Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who was aiming to end the high inflation of the 1970s.

Over the course of the previous decade, high inflation had come to seem inevitable. This led labor unions and individual workers to demand higher pay raises and made businesses willing to pay more and charge more for their products. This had settled into a vicious cycle, with deep social and political ramifications.

“Inflation wasn’t just an economic problem,” said Mike Konczal, director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute. “It gave people the impression of a social and political breakdown, that the system was not working.”

Volcker wanted to break that psychology. He did it with steep interest rate increases that, in the service of inflation control, brought the worst downturn in five decades.

Across the government, including in the Reagan administration, there was a concerted focus on breaking inflation, even as the job market worsened. “What I find startling about this downturn is that so few politicians are calling for federal job training or the extension of unemployment benefits,” said Alan Greenspan, a former presidential adviser who would go on to succeed Volcker, in the 1981 Time article. “Five years ago, politicians would have been stumbling all over themselves to demand anti-recession spending.”

By late 1981, there were signs it was starting to work. That same article, for example, notes that Teamsters who had managed a 31.5% pay raise in 1979 promised to be “reasonable” in the next negotiations, and that employees at major airlines had agreed to a 10% wage reduction.

With this progress against inflation, Volcker was ready to relent and begin lowering interest rates. This enabled a speedy recovery from the recession, powering the Reagan boom and a period in which both unemployment and inflation were steadily falling.

As the Fed chair now, Jerome Powell has until recently faced the opposite problem.

For most of the 2010s, inflation was lower than the Fed aims for and the job market was persistently weak. And for the first nine months or so of the pandemic, too-low inflation and too few jobs appeared to be the predominant economic problem. Just one year ago, in December 2020, bond market prices implied that inflation would remain below the Fed’s 2% target for years to come, and the jobless rate was still 6.7%.

Powell and the Fed organized their strategy for monetary policy around building the Fed’s credibility that it would no longer allow a persistently too-low inflation and a too-weak job market. A new “flexible average inflation targeting” strategy introduced in 2020 was built on allowing inflation to sometimes overshoot 2%.

That, in turn, helps explain why the Fed has been slow to move toward tighter money this year, even as inflation soared and the job market recovered quickly. Only this month, after year-over-year inflation reached a whopping 6.8%, did Powell undertake a clear shift toward tighter money. He signaled the Fed would speed up the end of its bond-buying program and could begin raising interest rates in the first part of 2022.

Just as Volcker was willing to allow a recession to take hold to break the high-inflation cycle of the 1970s, Powell has, until recently, emphasized that an inflationary surge that started earlier this year was likely to be temporary and that the urgency of achieving full employment was paramount.

The Powell pivot to tighter money in 2021 is the equivalent of Volcker’s 1981 move: By then Volcker was ready to relent and, in effect, declare victory, cutting interest rates and setting the stage for the economy to recover. The signs that inflationary pressures were shifting downward was sufficiently compelling that the psychology had broken.

“It was a nasty, nasty fall, but Volcker stuck the landing to the point that many parts of the macroeconomic landscape could be changed and tilted toward prosperity and markets,” said Paul McCulley, an economist and senior fellow at Cornell Law School.

What would a full reverse Reagan economy look like over the next few years?

Over the course of 2022, inflation starts to fade. Consumers shift some of their spending back toward services and away from physical goods, corporate supply chain managers figure out how to adjust to whatever changes in demand prove permanent, and demand moderates as the Fed moves toward somewhat higher interest rates and Congress does not repeat its pandemic spending binge of the first half of 2021.

But, crucially, in the best-case scenario for Biden and the Democrats, the Fed doesn’t overdo it. Just as the Volcker Fed was able to achieve a simultaneous drop in unemployment and inflation in 1983 and 1984, the Powell Fed faces the delicate task of trying to bring down inflation while not acting so aggressively as to undermine further improvement in the job market.

The goal is to achieve something of a Goldilocks scenario for the economy by late 2022. In projections released this month, for example, the median Fed leader expected an unemployment rate of a mere 3.5% and 2.6% inflation in the final months of next year, with a strong labor market and gradually receding inflation continuing through 2024.

“If the Fed, through skill and fate and luck, gets this thing settled down in the next year or two, you can make a pretty strong case that the underlying progressive agenda, which is to deal with income and wealth inequality, could actually flourish,” said McCulley.

If that were to happen, it would be an economy in which the favorable aspects of the 2021 economy — workers empowered, wages rising, and so on — persist, while the high inflation that has overwhelmed those gains in the minds of many Americans fades.

It would be no easy task to achieve. History is littered with examples of the Fed raising interest rates to rein in inflation, only to cause a recession; indeed, it was a more common pattern than not in the decades immediately following World War II. In a pessimistic scenario, the inflationary forces that have taken hold will prove sufficiently profound that they won’t go away absent a recession.

But the experience of the 1980s shows that things can get better, and that the economic and political fortunes can change faster than it might seem in a gloomy December.

It is easy to recall the 1980s as being a boom time for the United States economy — a time of gleaming excess that, among other things, powered Ronald Reagan to a landslide reelection in 1984.

It is easy to recall the 1980s as being a boom time for the United States economy — a time of gleaming excess that, among other things, powered Ronald Reagan to a landslide reelection in 1984. But the decade didn’t start out quite so sunny. And understanding the history of how the economy went from bust to boom in the early 1980s offers a surprising model for optimism about how the U.S. economy could progress in the next couple of years. All it would take is for the Federal Reserve to pull off a delicate economic pivot that is the mirror image of the one it managed four decades ago. Now, high inflation and a seemingly never-ending pandemic are depressing Americans’ attitudes about the economy. By contrast, in December 1981 — when Reagan had been president for 11 months, just as President Joe Biden has now — conditions were by most measures substantially worse. The unemployment rate was 8.5% and would keep rising throughout 1982. Inflation was 8.9%, and indexes of consumer sentiment were abysmal. In an issue of Time magazine published this month 40 years ago, if you flip past a cover story that ranks the performance of Reagan’s Cabinet and an advertisement pitching a Smith-Corona typewriter as a holiday gift for your child, you see just how bad the vibes were. “Gathering Gloom for Workers,” goes the headline, reporting that “A spreading slump swells the long gray line of the unemployed.” The article said joblessness was so high in Detroit that community leaders “fear that they are sitting on a smoldering powder keg of urban unrest.” If nothing else, this chronology is a reminder that conditions can change surprisingly quickly. By the time Reagan was reelected in 1984, the jobless rate was 7.2% and falling and inflation was down to 4.2%. Some commentators have argued that Biden has the opportunity to be an inverse of Reagan politically (much of this commentary, it should be noted, came before Sen. Joe Manchin pulled his support from the president’s signature Build Back Better bill ). And there is of course no telling what the next three years will bring politically, regardless of what happens to the economy. But in terms of the economic backdrop, it is important to understand the “why” of the Reagan economic reversal. Those gloomy unemployment numbers in Reagan’s first two years were a consequence of aggressive tightening of monetary policy by Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who was aiming to end the high inflation of the 1970s. Over the course of the previous decade, high inflation had come to seem inevitable. This led labor unions and individual workers to demand higher pay raises and made businesses willing to pay more and charge more for their products. This had settled into a vicious cycle, with deep social and political ramifications. “Inflation wasn’t just an economic problem,” said Mike Konczal, director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute. “It gave people the impression of a social and political breakdown, that the system was not working.” Volcker wanted to break that psychology. He did it with steep interest rate increases that, in the service of inflation control, brought the worst downturn in five decades. Across the government, including in the Reagan administration, there was a concerted focus on breaking inflation, even as the job market worsened. “What I find startling about this downturn is that so few politicians are calling for federal job training or the extension of unemployment benefits,” said Alan Greenspan, a former presidential adviser who would go on to succeed Volcker, in the 1981 Time article. “Five years ago, politicians would have been stumbling all over themselves to demand anti-recession spending.” By late 1981, there were signs it was starting to work. That same article, for example, notes that Teamsters who had managed a 31.5% pay raise in 1979 promised to be “reasonable” in the next negotiations, and that employees at major airlines had agreed to a 10% wage reduction. With this progress against inflation, Volcker was ready to relent and begin lowering interest rates. This enabled a speedy recovery from the recession, powering the Reagan boom and a period in which both unemployment and inflation were steadily falling. As the Fed chair now, Jerome Powell has until recently faced the opposite problem. For most of the 2010s, inflation was lower than the Fed aims for and the job market was persistently weak. And for the first nine months or so of the pandemic, too-low inflation and too few jobs appeared to be the predominant economic problem. Just one year ago, in December 2020, bond market prices implied that inflation would remain below the Fed’s 2% target for years to come, and the jobless rate was still 6.7%. Powell and the Fed organized their strategy for monetary policy around building the Fed’s credibility that it would no longer allow a persistently too-low inflation and a too-weak job market. A new “flexible average inflation targeting” strategy introduced in 2020 was built on allowing inflation to sometimes overshoot 2%. That, in turn, helps explain why the Fed has been slow to move toward tighter money this year, even as inflation soared and the job market recovered quickly. Only this month, after year-over-year inflation reached a whopping 6.8%, did Powell undertake a clear shift toward tighter money. He signaled the Fed would speed up the end of its bond-buying program and could begin raising interest rates in the first part of 2022. Just as Volcker was willing to allow a recession to take hold to break the high-inflation cycle of the 1970s, Powell has, until recently, emphasized that an inflationary surge that started earlier this year was likely to be temporary and that the urgency of achieving full employment was paramount. The Powell pivot to tighter money in 2021 is the equivalent of Volcker’s 1981 move: By then Volcker was ready to relent and, in effect, declare victory, cutting interest rates and setting the stage for the economy to recover. The signs that inflationary pressures were shifting downward was sufficiently compelling that the psychology had broken. “It was a nasty, nasty fall, but Volcker stuck the landing to the point that many parts of the macroeconomic landscape could be changed and tilted toward prosperity and markets,” said Paul McCulley, an economist and senior fellow at Cornell Law School. What would a full reverse Reagan economy look like over the next few years? Over the course of 2022, inflation starts to fade. Consumers shift some of their spending back toward services and away from physical goods, corporate supply chain managers figure out how to adjust to whatever changes in demand prove permanent, and demand moderates as the Fed moves toward somewhat higher interest rates and Congress does not repeat its pandemic spending binge of the first half of 2021. But, crucially, in the best-case scenario for Biden and the Democrats, the Fed doesn’t overdo it. Just as the Volcker Fed was able to achieve a simultaneous drop in unemployment and inflation in 1983 and 1984, the Powell Fed faces the delicate task of trying to bring down inflation while not acting so aggressively as to undermine further improvement in the job market. The goal is to achieve something of a Goldilocks scenario for the economy by late 2022. In projections released this month, for example, the median Fed leader expected an unemployment rate of a mere 3.5% and 2.6% inflation in the final months of next year, with a strong labor market and gradually receding inflation continuing through 2024. “If the Fed, through skill and fate and luck, gets this thing settled down in the next year or two, you can make a pretty strong case that the underlying progressive agenda, which is to deal with income and wealth inequality, could actually flourish,” said McCulley. If that were to happen, it would be an economy in which the favorable aspects of the 2021 economy — workers empowered, wages rising, and so on — persist, while the high inflation that has overwhelmed those gains in the minds of many Americans fades. It would be no easy task to achieve. History is littered with examples of the Fed raising interest rates to rein in inflation, only to cause a recession; indeed, it was a more common pattern than not in the decades immediately following World War II. In a pessimistic scenario, the inflationary forces that have taken hold will prove sufficiently profound that they won’t go away absent a recession. But the experience of the 1980s shows that things can get better, and that the economic and political fortunes can change faster than it might seem in a gloomy December.

How the 2020s economy could resemble the 1980s

President Joe Biden's complete pullout of US troops in Afghanistan can&nbsp;undermine Asia shift, contrary to his intent.

Biden had said it had been impossible to leave Afghanistan without chaos, as the United States pleaded with the victorious Taliban to allow safe passage for people to flee.

Amid desperate scenes at the Kabul airport where American forces are racing against the clock to evacuate tens of thousands of people,&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;stood by his decision to end the 20-year US war in Afghanistan.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-afghanistan-exit-soviets-vs-america-407005/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Kurt Campbell, the White House's top Asia adviser, declared last month that a historic change in US&nbsp;foreign policy was afoot, one that would shift US&nbsp;focus away from the Middle East to Asia, where China's growing might has cast shadows over Washington's allies.

"It will be painful, in all likelihood. We'll see some real challenges in places like&nbsp;Afghanistan," Campbell told an Asia Society webinar, a blunt assessment of what since has come to pass as the Taliban's swift takeover of the country has sparked a humanitarian crisis.

Officials argued that withdrawing from&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;would free up time and attention of senior US&nbsp;political and military leaders, as well as some military assets, to focus on the Indo-Pacific.

But experts and former officials say President Joe Biden's poorly executed troop withdrawal from&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;appears, in the near term and possibly for much longer,&nbsp;to be undermining the very goal of freeing the United States to concentrate on China, something successive presidents have sought, only to be pulled back to the Middle East.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Update on the Status of Hamid Karzai International Airport: 
 
-In the last 24 hours: 2,000 people evacuated 
-Since August 14th: 7,000 people evacuated 
-Since the end of July: 12,000 evacuated 
 
There are currently 5,200 troops on the ground and the airport is secure and open.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1428378620502872065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Contrary to the planned quick pullout, Biden has been forced to send in thousands of troops to protect the evacuation of US&nbsp;personnel and Afghans potentially subject to Taliban retribution, while the chaos has unleashed a political storm at home.

Biden has said the original August&nbsp;31 deadline for troop withdrawal now may be extended to finish the job.

Moreover, the United States was forced to move its lone aircraft carrier in the Asia-Pacific, the Ronald Reagan, to the Middle East in June to help with the withdrawal. As the situation in Kabul has deteriorated, jets from the carrier have been flying over the city to provide extra security.

While the redeployment may only be short-term, the need to divert the carrier from the Asia-Pacific has raised questions about the US&nbsp;ability to project power there.

US&nbsp;operations in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;are also likely to continue to consume the attention of senior officials who might otherwise have their eyes on Beijing.

"As Assistant Secretary for the Indo-Pacific, Ely Ratner has&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;in his portfolio. Where do you think his primary focus is for the next three months or longer?" said Eric Sayers, a defense policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

Others warn that terrorist groups will likely reestablish themselves in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;under the Taliban, raising the prospect that the United States will need to return in some fashion, much like it returned to Iraq to combat the rise of the Islamic State.&nbsp;

David Sedney, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for&nbsp;Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, dismissed claims by US&nbsp;officials that counterterrorism operations could be conducted from outside the country as a mirage.

"No one who is serious about counterterrorism believes it," he said. "The United States is going to pay a terrible price for this at some point in the future. Another 9/11."

'Protection of others'

For Campbell, architect of former President Barack Obama's halting pivot to Asia, building US&nbsp;bona fides in the Indo-Pacific has meant making good on unfinished business and&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;was an enduring distraction.

Yet the chaotic evacuations from Kabul have evoked images of the 1975 US&nbsp;withdrawal from Vietnam, a country Vice President Kamala Harris will visit next week to push back on China's territorial claims in the South China Sea.

That trip, which includes a stop in Singapore, will make her the latest in a string of senior officials to travel to Asia as part of Biden's effort to step up engagement there.

"Our strategic competitors around the world would have liked nothing more than to see us in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;for another 5, 10, 20 years dedicating even more resources to&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;while it remained in the midst of a civil war," a senior US&nbsp;official said.

But the hasty pullout following a failed 20-year project in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;appears to have shaken some of the very allies Washington hoped to bolster with its Indo-Pacific push.

In Chinese-claimed Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen on Wednesday responded to the chaos in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;by saying the self-ruled island had no choice but to boost its own defense.

"It is not an option for us to do nothing ourselves and rely only on the protection of others," she said.

China's state-controlled media have seized on Afghan developments, portraying US&nbsp;support for allies as fickle.

And while experts are quick to dismiss most geopolitical comparisons of&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and Taiwan, there is a general concern that this latest blow to American prestige undermines Biden's pledge that US&nbsp;leadership was back following the isolationist tendencies of the Trump administration.

"As bin Laden said back around 2001, this is an issue of demonstrating who was the stronger horse. The US&nbsp;appears to be producing nags and mules, rather than racehorses," said Dean Cheng of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, referring to Osama bin Laden, whose orchestration of the 9/11 attacks led the United States to invade&nbsp;Afghanistan.

"Taiwan and other East Asian states will be thinking about this."

(With inputs from agencies)

President Joe Biden's complete pullout of US troops in Afghanistan can undermine Asia shift, contrary to his intent. Biden had said it had been impossible to leave Afghanistan without chaos, as the United States pleaded with the victorious Taliban to allow safe passage for people to flee.

President Joe Biden's complete pullout of US troops in Afghanistan can undermine Asia shift, contrary to his intent. Biden had said it had been impossible to leave Afghanistan without chaos, as the United States pleaded with the victorious Taliban to allow safe passage for people to flee. Amid desperate scenes at the Kabul airport where American forces are racing against the clock to evacuate tens of thousands of people, Biden stood by his decision to end the 20-year US war in Afghanistan. Kurt Campbell, the White House's top Asia adviser, declared last month that a historic change in US foreign policy was afoot, one that would shift US focus away from the Middle East to Asia, where China's growing might has cast shadows over Washington's allies. "It will be painful, in all likelihood. We'll see some real challenges in places like Afghanistan," Campbell told an Asia Society webinar, a blunt assessment of what since has come to pass as the Taliban's swift takeover of the country has sparked a humanitarian crisis. Officials argued that withdrawing from Afghanistan would free up time and attention of senior US political and military leaders, as well as some military assets, to focus on the Indo-Pacific. But experts and former officials say President Joe Biden's poorly executed troop withdrawal from Afghanistan appears, in the near term and possibly for much longer, to be undermining the very goal of freeing the United States to concentrate on China, something successive presidents have sought, only to be pulled back to the Middle East. Update on the Status of Hamid Karzai International Airport: -In the last 24 hours: 2,000 people evacuated -Since August 14th: 7,000 people evacuated -Since the end of July: 12,000 evacuated There are currently 5,200 troops on the ground and the airport is secure and open. — The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 19, 2021 × Contrary to the planned quick pullout, Biden has been forced to send in thousands of troops to protect the evacuation of US personnel and Afghans potentially subject to Taliban retribution, while the chaos has unleashed a political storm at home. Biden has said the original August 31 deadline for troop withdrawal now may be extended to finish the job. Moreover, the United States was forced to move its lone aircraft carrier in the Asia-Pacific, the Ronald Reagan, to the Middle East in June to help with the withdrawal. As the situation in Kabul has deteriorated, jets from the carrier have been flying over the city to provide extra security. While the redeployment may only be short-term, the need to divert the carrier from the Asia-Pacific has raised questions about the US ability to project power there. US operations in Afghanistan are also likely to continue to consume the attention of senior officials who might otherwise have their eyes on Beijing. "As Assistant Secretary for the Indo-Pacific, Ely Ratner has Afghanistan in his portfolio. Where do you think his primary focus is for the next three months or longer?" said Eric Sayers, a defense policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. Others warn that terrorist groups will likely reestablish themselves in Afghanistan under the Taliban, raising the prospect that the United States will need to return in some fashion, much like it returned to Iraq to combat the rise of the Islamic State. David Sedney, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, dismissed claims by US officials that counterterrorism operations could be conducted from outside the country as a mirage. "No one who is serious about counterterrorism believes it," he said. "The United States is going to pay a terrible price for this at some point in the future. Another 9/11." 'Protection of others' For Campbell, architect of former President Barack Obama's halting pivot to Asia, building US bona fides in the Indo-Pacific has meant making good on unfinished business and Afghanistan was an enduring distraction. Yet the chaotic evacuations from Kabul have evoked images of the 1975 US withdrawal from Vietnam, a country Vice President Kamala Harris will visit next week to push back on China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. That trip, which includes a stop in Singapore, will make her the latest in a string of senior officials to travel to Asia as part of Biden's effort to step up engagement there. "Our strategic competitors around the world would have liked nothing more than to see us in Afghanistan for another 5, 10, 20 years dedicating even more resources to Afghanistan while it remained in the midst of a civil war," a senior US official said. But the hasty pullout following a failed 20-year project in Afghanistan appears to have shaken some of the very allies Washington hoped to bolster with its Indo-Pacific push. In Chinese-claimed Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen on Wednesday responded to the chaos in Afghanistan by saying the self-ruled island had no choice but to boost its own defense. "It is not an option for us to do nothing ourselves and rely only on the protection of others," she said. China's state-controlled media have seized on Afghan developments, portraying US support for allies as fickle. And while experts are quick to dismiss most geopolitical comparisons of Afghanistan and Taiwan, there is a general concern that this latest blow to American prestige undermines Biden's pledge that US leadership was back following the isolationist tendencies of the Trump administration. "As bin Laden said back around 2001, this is an issue of demonstrating who was the stronger horse. The US appears to be producing nags and mules, rather than racehorses," said Dean Cheng of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, referring to Osama bin Laden, whose orchestration of the 9/11 attacks led the United States to invade Afghanistan. "Taiwan and other East Asian states will be thinking about this." (With inputs from agencies)

Can US President Joe Biden's Afghan pullout undermine Asia shift?

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump?

That debate has long absorbed Reagan historians and biographers, particularly these days as Reagan’s legacy seems ever more gauzy when held up against these past four years of the just-defeated president.

And it is now being tackled in “The Reagans,” a four-part documentary on Ronald and Nancy Reagan premiering Sunday on Showtime. It is the work of Matt Tyrnauer, a documentarian whose subjects have included Roy Cohn, fashion designer Valentino and Studio 54.

Tyrnauer grew up in Los Angeles when Reagan was governor of California. As a boy being driven to school by his father, he sat in traffic as the motorcade taking the newly elected president from his home in the Pacific Palisades to a postelection news conference in Century City sped down Sunset Boulevard.

From the second instalment of “The Reagans,” it is clear where Tyrnauer, who began his career as a junior aide in Democratic politics before moving into magazine writing and directing documentaries, comes down on Reagan’s place in the nation’s fraught history of race and politics. The episode opens with 40-year-old footage of Reagan in Mississippi, affirming his support for “states’ rights” at a county fair filled with white voters.

“The reason I wanted to make this was to show how Reagan in many ways paved the way for Trump — and the Republican Party that has now fallen into Trump’s hands,” he said in a video interview from his Beverly Hills home a week before the president’s defeat was called. “I really thought it was very important to show that the Republican Party, certainly after the 1950s and since the era of this country’s civil rights movement and reckoning, has been on the wrong side of history. And Reagan was right at the center of that.”

Over the course of nearly four hours, the documentary explores Reagan’s boyhood in Illinois and recounts his Hollywood years and the skills he learned as an actor — the bright smile, his affable if slightly inscrutable affect -&nbsp;that made him such a powerful candidate for president. Recalling Reagan’s first screen test, studio head Jack Warner said, in a 1960s interview clip included in the documentary, that the actor’s “personality projected off the screen and into the audience.”

The series offers a portrait of Nancy Reagan as a powerful and manipulative behind-the-scenes player who was essential to her husband’s success. It follows Ronald Reagan’s evolution from a liberal, the son of two Democrats and the former head of the Screen Actors Guild, to a staunch anti-communist conservative.

And it is striking, after this polarizing election and four years of the Trump presidency, to hear Reagan’s tough talk about law and order, to note his 1980 campaign slogan -&nbsp;“Make America Great Again” -&nbsp;and to watch the parallels between a movie star and a reality television star, both of whom knew how to command the attention of the American public and the media.

But more than anything, this documentary is animated by the notion of Reagan as an early practitioner of dog-whistle politics, a member of the generation of politicians who used coded appeals directed at an attuned audience of white voters.

“I believe in states’ rights,” he said in the summer of 1980 at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, 7 miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It is a dramatic moment in which he seemingly affirms the power of Southern states to defy a federal government trying to end discrimination: The camera follows as he steps off his campaign plane to be greeted by a grinning Trent Lott, then a senator from Mississippi, and shadows his motorcade winding through crowds of white voters.

To be clear, the idea of Reagan as a politician who swam in the waters of American racism, preparing the way for a Trump presidency, is not a consensus position.

“To me, Reagan is the anti-Trump,” Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer who appears in the documentary, said last week. “If you look at Reagan’s presidency, you did not see a career of racial incitement. It’s not a fair rap.

“Reagan is the antithesis of Trump in so many ways,” he added. “He was uniformly courteous and nice and decent to people. Trump, by the way he acts, has made us see that human decency in a political leader is important. Second, he was a compromiser. He always said that he was willing to take half a loaf. He got legislation through because of that.”

Historian Rick Perlstein cautioned against reading too much into the Mississippi speech, arguing that it oversimplified Reagan’s complicated relationship with race.

“Liberals, and I am a proud liberal, are always looking for smoking guns to prove that conservatives are racist,” Perlstein said an interview.

In his new book, “Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980,” Perlstein says the former president’s invocation of states’ rights was halfhearted, buried midway into his speech, and inserted at Lott’s suggestion. (And to what end? Reagan barely squeaked by Jimmy Carter in Mississippi.)

Tyrnauer is not a presence in any of his documentaries, and he is heard only twice in “The Reagans,” asking questions off camera. He builds his case with interviews — Ron Reagan Jr., surviving members of Reagan’s White House, journalists from the era and historians — along with contemporaneous news clips and rare archival film footage.

“What I look for is the obscure stuff, or the angles you never saw,” he said. The documentary opens with behind-the-scenes footage in which Reagan’s advertising team is filming the president speaking in the Oval Office for a 1984 campaign commercial. At the side of the shot, aides look at a stopwatch, impressed that this former actor clocked in for the 60-second advertisement at 57 seconds.

Tyrnauer tracked down a lost documentary about Nancy Reagan from when Reagan was governor, with intimate shots of the new governor and his family moving into their new home in Sacramento, and scenes of Nancy Reagan back in Los Angeles shopping for dog food at the Brentwood Country Mart (and admitting, with obvious chagrin, that she did not have money to pay for it).

Most of all, in making his case against the former president, Tyrnauer draws on footage of Reagan in his early days as a politician, as he likened streets in crime-stricken urban areas to “jungle paths” and talked about “welfare queens” in disparaging what he described as a liberal state.

“What was really astonishing to me was seeing how much film there was of Reagan in the act of dog whistling,” Tyrnauer said. “And some of his dog whistles at the time would be considered foghorns today.”

I met Tyrnauer while covering the 1988 presidential campaign; he was an assistant at the Boston headquarters of Michael Dukakis, the Democrat who would lose to George H.W. Bush. Tyrnauer left politics to become a writer at Vanity Fair before turning to directing documentaries. His first, "Valentino: The Last Emperor,” released in 2009, was based on a profile he wrote in Vanity Fair. His Cohn documentary, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?,” explored the relationship between Cohn and one of his most famous law clients, Donald Trump.

Needless to say, it’s an eclectic portfolio.

The Reagan documentary would have been challenging at any time — the Reagans are well-plowed ground. It may have been 32 years since the end of his presidency, but he is remembered by millions of Americans, defined for many of them by the upbeat advertisement that opened with the words “It’s morning again in America,” which helped lift him to a landslide reelection over Walter Mondale in 1984. Nancy Reagan was, apart from Hillary Clinton, arguably the most powerful and polarizing first lady of the past 75 years.

But this project was complicated by the onset of the pandemic. Tyrnauer and his staff were forced to work from their homes. Archives, and in particular the files and videos collected by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, abruptly shut down.

Interviews became far more complicated. Most of the subjects are, not surprisingly, older and thus wary of letting a film crew into their homes. Tyrnauer finished his interview with Lesley Stahl, the Reagan White House reporter for CBS, a week before she was hospitalized with COVID-19. Tyrnauer, changing gears, conducted half of the project’s 30 interviews by video from his home, sending in local film crews.

Many top figures in Reagan’s world sat down for interviews, including James Baker III, Reagan’s chief of staff; George Shultz, secretary of state; and Colin Powell, national security adviser. The Reagans’ son, Ron, is a prominent voice throughout the series, chatty and candid. But their daughter, Patti Davis, is notably absent. (Tyrnauer said she was working on another project.)

Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press.

“We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.”

Most jarring, for anyone looking for parallels between the Trump and Reagan years, is the appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The coronavirus crisis is not his first experience with either a pandemic or a president who failed to deal with one: Reagan largely ignored the deadly AIDS epidemic during its early years, and the documentary presents this as one of his most consequential failures as president.

“I was very frustrated with seeing an emerging catastrophe, and he wanted nothing to do with it,” Fauci says.

As a rule, Americans’ views of presidents soften with time — Trump may prove to be the exception — and that certainly happened with Reagan. But this documentary invites a reappraisal. It is a harsh portrait of Reagan as a politician and as a president, and it seems likely to reignite old arguments. Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.

“You can listen to podcast after podcast today of respectable historians talking about all of the dog-whistle sins of the past,” Tyrnauer said. “George Wallace comes up, and Richard Nixon comes up with the Southern strategy. And Willie Horton comes up and George H.W. Bush comes up. Reagan is shockingly absent from all those narratives and discussions.

“He was an extraordinarily intuitive politician and ultimately among the most successful of his generation,” Tyrnauer said. “But how is he not held accountable?”

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump?

Was Ronald Reagan a kindhearted conservative who remade government and merits his standing as a beloved icon of the Republican Party? Or was he a glorified actor who won election with a coded racist appeal to white voters, setting the stage for the rise of President Donald Trump? That debate has long absorbed Reagan historians and biographers, particularly these days as Reagan’s legacy seems ever more gauzy when held up against these past four years of the just-defeated president. And it is now being tackled in “The Reagans,” a four-part documentary on Ronald and Nancy Reagan premiering Sunday on Showtime. It is the work of Matt Tyrnauer, a documentarian whose subjects have included Roy Cohn, fashion designer Valentino and Studio 54. Tyrnauer grew up in Los Angeles when Reagan was governor of California. As a boy being driven to school by his father, he sat in traffic as the motorcade taking the newly elected president from his home in the Pacific Palisades to a postelection news conference in Century City sped down Sunset Boulevard. From the second instalment of “The Reagans,” it is clear where Tyrnauer, who began his career as a junior aide in Democratic politics before moving into magazine writing and directing documentaries, comes down on Reagan’s place in the nation’s fraught history of race and politics. The episode opens with 40-year-old footage of Reagan in Mississippi, affirming his support for “states’ rights” at a county fair filled with white voters. “The reason I wanted to make this was to show how Reagan in many ways paved the way for Trump — and the Republican Party that has now fallen into Trump’s hands,” he said in a video interview from his Beverly Hills home a week before the president’s defeat was called. “I really thought it was very important to show that the Republican Party, certainly after the 1950s and since the era of this country’s civil rights movement and reckoning, has been on the wrong side of history. And Reagan was right at the center of that.” Over the course of nearly four hours, the documentary explores Reagan’s boyhood in Illinois and recounts his Hollywood years and the skills he learned as an actor — the bright smile, his affable if slightly inscrutable affect - that made him such a powerful candidate for president. Recalling Reagan’s first screen test, studio head Jack Warner said, in a 1960s interview clip included in the documentary, that the actor’s “personality projected off the screen and into the audience.” The series offers a portrait of Nancy Reagan as a powerful and manipulative behind-the-scenes player who was essential to her husband’s success. It follows Ronald Reagan’s evolution from a liberal, the son of two Democrats and the former head of the Screen Actors Guild, to a staunch anti-communist conservative. And it is striking, after this polarizing election and four years of the Trump presidency, to hear Reagan’s tough talk about law and order, to note his 1980 campaign slogan - “Make America Great Again” - and to watch the parallels between a movie star and a reality television star, both of whom knew how to command the attention of the American public and the media. But more than anything, this documentary is animated by the notion of Reagan as an early practitioner of dog-whistle politics, a member of the generation of politicians who used coded appeals directed at an attuned audience of white voters. “I believe in states’ rights,” he said in the summer of 1980 at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, 7 miles from where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It is a dramatic moment in which he seemingly affirms the power of Southern states to defy a federal government trying to end discrimination: The camera follows as he steps off his campaign plane to be greeted by a grinning Trent Lott, then a senator from Mississippi, and shadows his motorcade winding through crowds of white voters. To be clear, the idea of Reagan as a politician who swam in the waters of American racism, preparing the way for a Trump presidency, is not a consensus position. “To me, Reagan is the anti-Trump,” Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and Reagan biographer who appears in the documentary, said last week. “If you look at Reagan’s presidency, you did not see a career of racial incitement. It’s not a fair rap. “Reagan is the antithesis of Trump in so many ways,” he added. “He was uniformly courteous and nice and decent to people. Trump, by the way he acts, has made us see that human decency in a political leader is important. Second, he was a compromiser. He always said that he was willing to take half a loaf. He got legislation through because of that.” Historian Rick Perlstein cautioned against reading too much into the Mississippi speech, arguing that it oversimplified Reagan’s complicated relationship with race. “Liberals, and I am a proud liberal, are always looking for smoking guns to prove that conservatives are racist,” Perlstein said an interview. In his new book, “Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980,” Perlstein says the former president’s invocation of states’ rights was halfhearted, buried midway into his speech, and inserted at Lott’s suggestion. (And to what end? Reagan barely squeaked by Jimmy Carter in Mississippi.) Tyrnauer is not a presence in any of his documentaries, and he is heard only twice in “The Reagans,” asking questions off camera. He builds his case with interviews — Ron Reagan Jr., surviving members of Reagan’s White House, journalists from the era and historians — along with contemporaneous news clips and rare archival film footage. “What I look for is the obscure stuff, or the angles you never saw,” he said. The documentary opens with behind-the-scenes footage in which Reagan’s advertising team is filming the president speaking in the Oval Office for a 1984 campaign commercial. At the side of the shot, aides look at a stopwatch, impressed that this former actor clocked in for the 60-second advertisement at 57 seconds. Tyrnauer tracked down a lost documentary about Nancy Reagan from when Reagan was governor, with intimate shots of the new governor and his family moving into their new home in Sacramento, and scenes of Nancy Reagan back in Los Angeles shopping for dog food at the Brentwood Country Mart (and admitting, with obvious chagrin, that she did not have money to pay for it). Most of all, in making his case against the former president, Tyrnauer draws on footage of Reagan in his early days as a politician, as he likened streets in crime-stricken urban areas to “jungle paths” and talked about “welfare queens” in disparaging what he described as a liberal state. “What was really astonishing to me was seeing how much film there was of Reagan in the act of dog whistling,” Tyrnauer said. “And some of his dog whistles at the time would be considered foghorns today.” I met Tyrnauer while covering the 1988 presidential campaign; he was an assistant at the Boston headquarters of Michael Dukakis, the Democrat who would lose to George H.W. Bush. Tyrnauer left politics to become a writer at Vanity Fair before turning to directing documentaries. His first, "Valentino: The Last Emperor,” released in 2009, was based on a profile he wrote in Vanity Fair. His Cohn documentary, “Where’s My Roy Cohn?,” explored the relationship between Cohn and one of his most famous law clients, Donald Trump. Needless to say, it’s an eclectic portfolio. The Reagan documentary would have been challenging at any time — the Reagans are well-plowed ground. It may have been 32 years since the end of his presidency, but he is remembered by millions of Americans, defined for many of them by the upbeat advertisement that opened with the words “It’s morning again in America,” which helped lift him to a landslide reelection over Walter Mondale in 1984. Nancy Reagan was, apart from Hillary Clinton, arguably the most powerful and polarizing first lady of the past 75 years. But this project was complicated by the onset of the pandemic. Tyrnauer and his staff were forced to work from their homes. Archives, and in particular the files and videos collected by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, abruptly shut down. Interviews became far more complicated. Most of the subjects are, not surprisingly, older and thus wary of letting a film crew into their homes. Tyrnauer finished his interview with Lesley Stahl, the Reagan White House reporter for CBS, a week before she was hospitalized with COVID-19. Tyrnauer, changing gears, conducted half of the project’s 30 interviews by video from his home, sending in local film crews. Many top figures in Reagan’s world sat down for interviews, including James Baker III, Reagan’s chief of staff; George Shultz, secretary of state; and Colin Powell, national security adviser. The Reagans’ son, Ron, is a prominent voice throughout the series, chatty and candid. But their daughter, Patti Davis, is notably absent. (Tyrnauer said she was working on another project.) Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press. “We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.” Most jarring, for anyone looking for parallels between the Trump and Reagan years, is the appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The coronavirus crisis is not his first experience with either a pandemic or a president who failed to deal with one: Reagan largely ignored the deadly AIDS epidemic during its early years, and the documentary presents this as one of his most consequential failures as president. “I was very frustrated with seeing an emerging catastrophe, and he wanted nothing to do with it,” Fauci says. As a rule, Americans’ views of presidents soften with time — Trump may prove to be the exception — and that certainly happened with Reagan. But this documentary invites a reappraisal. It is a harsh portrait of Reagan as a politician and as a president, and it seems likely to reignite old arguments. Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability. “You can listen to podcast after podcast today of respectable historians talking about all of the dog-whistle sins of the past,” Tyrnauer said. “George Wallace comes up, and Richard Nixon comes up with the Southern strategy. And Willie Horton comes up and George H.W. Bush comes up. Reagan is shockingly absent from all those narratives and discussions. “He was an extraordinarily intuitive politician and ultimately among the most successful of his generation,” Tyrnauer said. “But how is he not held accountable?”

Was Reagan a precursor to Trump? A new documentary says yes

US President Donald Trump on Sunday launched an attack on former American President Reagan's Presidential foundation. This happened after the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation asked Trump and the Republican party to stop fundraising off the 40th president’s name.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/germany-rejects-trumps-proposal-to-let-russia-back-into-g7-foreign-minister-316152" hreflang="en">Germany rejects Trump's proposal to let Russia back into G7: Foreign Minister</a>

Trump took to Twitter and said: "So the Washington Post is running the Reagan Foundation." Linking Reagan to a mortal media enemy. He also retweeted &nbsp;Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who said that "Frederick J Ryan Jr, who chairs the Reagan foundation board, is also publisher and chief executive of the Washington Post".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
So the Washington Post is running the Reagan Foundation, and RINO Paul Ryan is on the Board of Fox, which has been terrible. We will win anyway, even with the phony <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a> suppression polls (which have been seriously wrong for 5 years)! <a href="https://t.co/fOi3AROxuz">https://t.co/fOi3AROxuz</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1287455273473507330?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to Washington Post's column, Reagan Foundation "has demanded that Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit raising campaign money by using Ronald Reagan's name and likeness." This column was published on Saturday.&nbsp;

The complaint was about an email sent on July 19. It was from "Donal J Trump" and was titled "Ronald Regan and yours truly". The mail asked for a donation of $45 or more a "limited edition" set of two "iconic" gold-coloured coins, one showing Reagan and the other showed Trump.

"The coins were mounted with a 1987 photograph of Reagan and Trump shaking hands in a White House receiving line – the type of fleeting contact that presidents have with thousands of people a year," as per Washington Post's report. The email was sent to a certain list of people that included reporters it also said: &nbsp;“This offer is NOT available to the general public, so please, do NOT share this email with anyone.”

According to the Post, the RNC has agreed to stop, however, the coins remain available. The Post declined to comment on its connection with Ryan Jr.&nbsp;

Donald Trump's scathing attacks on the former Republican presidents has become a common thing now. First, he hit out at George W Bush for failing to support him during impeachment and on various issues like 9/11 and now, he hit out at former Republican Ronald Reagan's foundation. Trump considers himself to be the best Republican President after Abraham Lincoln. &nbsp;

US President Donald Trump on Sunday launched an attack on former American President Reagan's Presidential foundation. This happened after the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation asked Trump and the Republican party to stop fundraising off the 40th president’s name.

US President Donald Trump on Sunday launched an attack on former American President Reagan's Presidential foundation. This happened after the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation asked Trump and the Republican party to stop fundraising off the 40th president’s name. Also read: Germany rejects Trump's proposal to let Russia back into G7: Foreign Minister Trump took to Twitter and said: "So the Washington Post is running the Reagan Foundation." Linking Reagan to a mortal media enemy. He also retweeted Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who said that "Frederick J Ryan Jr, who chairs the Reagan foundation board, is also publisher and chief executive of the Washington Post". So the Washington Post is running the Reagan Foundation, and RINO Paul Ryan is on the Board of Fox, which has been terrible. We will win anyway, even with the phony @FoxNews suppression polls (which have been seriously wrong for 5 years)! https://t.co/fOi3AROxuz — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2020 × According to Washington Post's column, Reagan Foundation "has demanded that Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit raising campaign money by using Ronald Reagan's name and likeness." This column was published on Saturday. The complaint was about an email sent on July 19. It was from "Donal J Trump" and was titled "Ronald Regan and yours truly". The mail asked for a donation of $45 or more a "limited edition" set of two "iconic" gold-coloured coins, one showing Reagan and the other showed Trump. "The coins were mounted with a 1987 photograph of Reagan and Trump shaking hands in a White House receiving line – the type of fleeting contact that presidents have with thousands of people a year," as per Washington Post's report. The email was sent to a certain list of people that included reporters it also said: “This offer is NOT available to the general public, so please, do NOT share this email with anyone.” According to the Post, the RNC has agreed to stop, however, the coins remain available. The Post declined to comment on its connection with Ryan Jr. Donald Trump's scathing attacks on the former Republican presidents has become a common thing now. First, he hit out at George W Bush for failing to support him during impeachment and on various issues like 9/11 and now, he hit out at former Republican Ronald Reagan's foundation. Trump considers himself to be the best Republican President after Abraham Lincoln.

Donald Trump slams Ronald Reagan foundation over fundraising coins

In a recently emerged audio recording from 1971, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan can he heard disparaging African delegates to the United Nations as "monkeys" during a phone call with U.S. President Richard Nixon.

Ronald Reagan's racist slur sparks debate

This INF nuclear pact was signed between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union in 1987 by Mikhail Gorbachev & Ronald Reagan. This limits the use of missiles with a range of 500-5,500 Kms. Watch this video to know more.

Trump decides to undone 32 years-old INF Nuclear treaty between U.S-Soviet Union

The United States will officially withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on Friday, clearing the way for a new arms race with Russia -&nbsp;and throwing China into the mix.

The treaty -&nbsp;concluded in 1987 by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev -&nbsp;limited the Cold War powers' medium-range missiles, both conventional and nuclear.

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the demise of the treaty a dangerous step that "will likely heighten, not reduce, the threat posed by ballistic missiles."

"When it expires tomorrow, the world will lose an invaluable brake on nuclear war," he said on Thursday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-hit-300-billion-worth-of-chinese-goods-with-10-tariff-donald-trump-240021">US President Donald Trump's administration</a> says the treaty is effectively dead already because of Russian violations -- a charge Russia denies. The White House launched the six-month procedure for leaving the treaty on February 1.

"I think the INF Treaty has served us well, but it only works if both parties comply," new US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said recently.

"The United States will remain in compliance with all of our obligations until August 2nd -&nbsp;and after that point in time, we will continue to pursue what is in our best interest," he told lawmakers.

In response, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-gives-russian-citizenship-to-novateks-finance-chief-a-us-national-237779">Russian President Vladimir Putin</a> signed off on Moscow's participation in the INF on July 3.&nbsp;

Under the deal, missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometres were eliminated.&nbsp;

That paved the way for the mothballing of Russian SS-20 missiles and American Pershing missiles deployed in Europe.

Even if European nations have expressed concerns about the consequence of a new arms race, NATO has endorsed the US position, saying Russia's 9M729 missile had violated the INF agreement.

Moscow insists the new projectile has a maximum range of 480 kilometres -- within INF parameters.

But the death of the INF treaty may suit Washington, former defence secretary Ash Carter said in early July.

"From the military point of view, not the political point of view, it's not so bad," Carter said at a conference at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We can make good use of what we call conventional prompt strike."

On Thursday, Trump told reporters that the INF did not even come up when he talked by telephone with Putin about Russian wildfires on Wednesday.

However, he did suggest vaguely that a new treaty may be in the mix.

"Russia would like to do something on a nuclear treaty and that's ok with me. They'd like to do something and so would I," he said.

Next-generation technology

The Pentagon is thrilled that it will now be able to modernize its arsenal to counter the mounting might of China, which is looking to assert its military supremacy in Asia.

"Most of China's inventory is of intermediate-range missiles and so we need to make sure we have the capability as well to respond should we -- God forbid -- get in a fight with them one day," Esper said.

The United States has pledged not to deploy new nuclear-armed missiles in Europe. But it has made no such promise on the deployment of conventional weapons.

Advances in technology have allowed for the development of mid-range missiles that are much more precise than those made 30 years ago, explained career diplomat William Courtney, who is now a senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Rand Corporation.

"The technology has changed so much that is makes it militarily attractive," said Courtney, an arms control expert.

For Thomas Mahnken, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, the United States must now deploy medium-range conventional weapons on its islands in the Pacific and other territory controlled by its allies.

Such a move would help counter China's rise, especially in the South China Sea, where the People's Liberation Army has effectively commandeered several disputed islands.

"It is time to turn the tables," Mahnken said in a commentary published on the specialist website War on the Rocks.

"Such weapons, capable of denying China the use of littoral waters, would be a powerful deterrent to Chinese aggression."

Such a move seems to have the support of the next chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley.

When asked by US senators about the imminent demise of the INF Treaty, he said he supported the deployment of conventional ground-based medium-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region.

"Do you think those would be helpful?" one senator asked.

"I do," Milley replied.

The United States will officially withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on Friday, clearing the way for a new arms race with Russia - and throwing China into the mix.

The United States will officially withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on Friday, clearing the way for a new arms race with Russia - and throwing China into the mix. The treaty - concluded in 1987 by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev - limited the Cold War powers' medium-range missiles, both conventional and nuclear. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the demise of the treaty a dangerous step that "will likely heighten, not reduce, the threat posed by ballistic missiles." "When it expires tomorrow, the world will lose an invaluable brake on nuclear war," he said on Thursday. US President Donald Trump's administration says the treaty is effectively dead already because of Russian violations -- a charge Russia denies. The White House launched the six-month procedure for leaving the treaty on February 1. "I think the INF Treaty has served us well, but it only works if both parties comply," new US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said recently. "The United States will remain in compliance with all of our obligations until August 2nd - and after that point in time, we will continue to pursue what is in our best interest," he told lawmakers. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on Moscow's participation in the INF on July 3. Under the deal, missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometres were eliminated. That paved the way for the mothballing of Russian SS-20 missiles and American Pershing missiles deployed in Europe. Even if European nations have expressed concerns about the consequence of a new arms race, NATO has endorsed the US position, saying Russia's 9M729 missile had violated the INF agreement. Moscow insists the new projectile has a maximum range of 480 kilometres -- within INF parameters. But the death of the INF treaty may suit Washington, former defence secretary Ash Carter said in early July. "From the military point of view, not the political point of view, it's not so bad," Carter said at a conference at the Council on Foreign Relations. "We can make good use of what we call conventional prompt strike." On Thursday, Trump told reporters that the INF did not even come up when he talked by telephone with Putin about Russian wildfires on Wednesday. However, he did suggest vaguely that a new treaty may be in the mix. "Russia would like to do something on a nuclear treaty and that's ok with me. They'd like to do something and so would I," he said. Next-generation technology The Pentagon is thrilled that it will now be able to modernize its arsenal to counter the mounting might of China, which is looking to assert its military supremacy in Asia. "Most of China's inventory is of intermediate-range missiles and so we need to make sure we have the capability as well to respond should we -- God forbid -- get in a fight with them one day," Esper said. The United States has pledged not to deploy new nuclear-armed missiles in Europe. But it has made no such promise on the deployment of conventional weapons. Advances in technology have allowed for the development of mid-range missiles that are much more precise than those made 30 years ago, explained career diplomat William Courtney, who is now a senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Rand Corporation. "The technology has changed so much that is makes it militarily attractive," said Courtney, an arms control expert. For Thomas Mahnken, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, the United States must now deploy medium-range conventional weapons on its islands in the Pacific and other territory controlled by its allies. Such a move would help counter China's rise, especially in the South China Sea, where the People's Liberation Army has effectively commandeered several disputed islands. "It is time to turn the tables," Mahnken said in a commentary published on the specialist website War on the Rocks. "Such weapons, capable of denying China the use of littoral waters, would be a powerful deterrent to Chinese aggression." Such a move seems to have the support of the next chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley. When asked by US senators about the imminent demise of the INF Treaty, he said he supported the deployment of conventional ground-based medium-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region. "Do you think those would be helpful?" one senator asked. "I do," Milley replied.

US pullout from INF treaty will likely heighten, not reduce threat: UN chief Guterres

Then-California governor Ronald Reagan made racist remarks about Africans, calling them "monkeys" in a newly-discovered taped conversation with US president Richard Nixon.

The tape of the October 1971 phone call was unearthed by Tim Naftali, former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, and his findings were published online on Wednesday in The Atlantic magazine.

The tape is of a call Reagan placed to Nixon after the United Nations voted to recognise the People's Republic of China.

Reagan, who went on to win the presidency in 1980, was an ardent defender of Taiwan and called Nixon to vent his anger at the African nations which defied the United States and voted at the UN to grant recognition to the People's Republic.

In the call, Reagan criticises the African countries which sided against the United States.

"Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did," &nbsp;Reagan said.

"Yeah," Nixon said.

Reagan continued: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries -- damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"

Nixon responds with a huge guffaw and went on to gleefully repeat Reagan's remarks in other taped conversations with his advisers.

Naftali, who is now an associate professor at New York University, said the portion of the tape containing Reagan's remarks was initially withheld to protect his privacy but the complete version was released by the National Archives two weeks ago.

President Donald Trump has been accused of repeatedly making racist remarks and was rebuked recently by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives over "racist comments" he made about four minority Democratic lawmakers. 
&nbsp;

Then-California governor Ronald Reagan made racist remarks about Africans, calling them "monkeys" in a newly-discovered taped conversation with US president Richard Nixon.

Then-California governor Ronald Reagan made racist remarks about Africans, calling them "monkeys" in a newly-discovered taped conversation with US president Richard Nixon. The tape of the October 1971 phone call was unearthed by Tim Naftali, former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, and his findings were published online on Wednesday in The Atlantic magazine. The tape is of a call Reagan placed to Nixon after the United Nations voted to recognise the People's Republic of China. Reagan, who went on to win the presidency in 1980, was an ardent defender of Taiwan and called Nixon to vent his anger at the African nations which defied the United States and voted at the UN to grant recognition to the People's Republic. In the call, Reagan criticises the African countries which sided against the United States. "Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did," Reagan said. "Yeah," Nixon said. Reagan continued: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries -- damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Nixon responds with a huge guffaw and went on to gleefully repeat Reagan's remarks in other taped conversations with his advisers. Naftali, who is now an associate professor at New York University, said the portion of the tape containing Reagan's remarks was initially withheld to protect his privacy but the complete version was released by the National Archives two weeks ago. President Donald Trump has been accused of repeatedly making racist remarks and was rebuked recently by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives over "racist comments" he made about four minority Democratic lawmakers.

Those 'monkeys' from those African countries, said Ronald Reagan to ex-President Nixon in 1971

NATO and Russia did not make significant progress on saving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in talks at the alliance headquarters on Friday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.

Barring a last-minute decision by Russia to destroy a new medium-range missile that <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/two-us-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan-nato-230514&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwipxeKE553jAhVUg-YKHRw9A_cQFjAAegQIBBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw32BVzsLyKd1nw__K9YRz9E">NATO</a> says violates the INF, the United States is set to pull out of the accord on Aug. 2, arguing that it needs to develop its own warheads to deter Moscow.

Moscow says it is fully compliant with the INF treaty negotiated by <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/nato-treated-us-unfairly-says-trump-during-state-of-the-union-address-195468&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwipxeKE553jAhVUg-YKHRw9A_cQFjACegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw3IZsdXI7UaWUwfigXpnSKi">US&nbsp;President</a> Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers.

"We have not seen any signs of a breakthrough," Stoltenberg told reporters after a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, a closed-door forum that allows for dialogue between the two sides' diplomats and officials.

Stoltenberg said the chances of a resolution were "going down, day by day" but that <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/opinions/russias-resurgence-and-chinas-rise-will-test-nato-219295&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwipxeKE553jAhVUg-YKHRw9A_cQFjABegQIEBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw15HleKAxQr69Ybh6oAlcW4">NATO</a> had not given up on trying to convince Moscow to destroy the SSC-8 ground-launched cruise missile, which it says the treaty ban on land-based missiles with a range of 500 km to 5,500 km (300-3,400 miles).

The breakdown of the treaty, the latest in a growing list of East-West tensions, is of grave concern because medium-range rockets would allow Russia to launch a nuclear attack on Europe at very short notice, Western experts and officials say.

NATO and Russia did not make significant progress on saving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in talks at the alliance headquarters on Friday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.

NATO and Russia did not make significant progress on saving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in talks at the alliance headquarters on Friday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said. Barring a last-minute decision by Russia to destroy a new medium-range missile that NATO says violates the INF, the United States is set to pull out of the accord on Aug. 2, arguing that it needs to develop its own warheads to deter Moscow. Moscow says it is fully compliant with the INF treaty negotiated by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world's two biggest nuclear powers. "We have not seen any signs of a breakthrough," Stoltenberg told reporters after a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, a closed-door forum that allows for dialogue between the two sides' diplomats and officials. Stoltenberg said the chances of a resolution were "going down, day by day" but that NATO had not given up on trying to convince Moscow to destroy the SSC-8 ground-launched cruise missile, which it says the treaty ban on land-based missiles with a range of 500 km to 5,500 km (300-3,400 miles). The breakdown of the treaty, the latest in a growing list of East-West tensions, is of grave concern because medium-range rockets would allow Russia to launch a nuclear attack on Europe at very short notice, Western experts and officials say.

No breakthrough with Russia on INF treaty dispute: NATO's Stoltenberg

When President Donald Trump proposes his 2020 federal budget on Monday, official Washington will likely have a quick look, shrug and move on, marking another stage in the quiet decay of the US government's traditional policy-making processes.

There was a time when the release of the president's budget was a red-letter day on the calendar of Washington wonkery, with policy experts and fiscal hawks delving into spreadsheets and expounding upon new spending plans and the national debt.

But the hoopla of the budget day is gone, a relic of a time when politics were less polarised, the federal deficit drove political decisions and the White House and Congress still took the budget process seriously.

"It has seemed to me that budget day ain't what it used to be," said Robert Bixby, who has pored over the budget for more than 25 years at the Concord Coalition, a fiscal responsibility advocacy group.

Last year's budget weighed in at a whopping $4.4 trillion. It was not balanced and was panned for relying on rosy economic projections and for not doing enough to cut the federal deficit.

The 2020 Trump budget will land a month after a deadline established in law, a lag blamed on the recent five-week partial shutdown of the federal government over a funding dispute.

Congress, which controls federal spending, is likely to dismiss Trump's proposal if recent history is any guide.

The Democratic-ruled House of Representatives and Republican-majority Senate also are unlikely to agree on a joint budget resolution of their own. Instead, they probably will stumble forward until fiscal 2019 ends and a spending deadline arrives on October 1, forcing them to produce a last-minute deal or face another government shutdown.

"The entire process has become one of the missed deadlines, make-believe budgets filled with gimmicks and magic asterisks," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

MacGuineas remembers in years gone by "scurrying around" to read through the budget as fast as possible so that she could answer a flurry of calls from reporters. These days, the budget is a blip on the news cycle, a process that is neither serious nor effective.

"I think it feels like a bit of kabuki theatre at this point, for everybody," MacGuineas said.

The White House disagreed. The budget process helps the administration set priorities for agencies for the year ahead and lays down a marker on issues, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Of course, Congress has the power of the purse but the president’s budget plants a flag to define terms of the tax and spending debate in Washington," the official said.

Budget on a stranger

The traditional budget and appropriations process was limping along well before Trump took office.

One of former President Ronald Reagan's budgets in the 1980s was brought out on a stretcher as a stunt to show the document was alive and well, ahead of it being declared dead-on-arrival in Congress, recalled Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"What we have right now is essentially government by automatic pilot and that's not healthy," Moore said, describing the cycle of last-minute massive omnibus spending bills agreed on only when deadlines loom.

The budget and spending process has been further hobbled by lawmakers' unwillingness to compromise and tendency to put off hard decisions while hoping for a shift in the next election cycle, said Kenneth Baer, an associate director in the Office of Management and Budget under former President Barack Obama.

Trump's budget office has accelerated the downward slide of the process by using more gimmicks to make up for shortfalls, Baer said. "All the normal ways of operating the government have just been thrown out of the window," he said.

Trump's acting budget director, Russell Vought, has said the budget aims to cut non-defence spending and cap spending under levels set in the 2011 Budget Control Act - a feat made possible only with an increase in an emergency account called the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund to cover Trump's plan to increase defense spending.

The tactic makes a mockery of the budget process, said Bixby of the Concord Coalition.

"It's nothing but an astronomical gimmick! It's over the top! It's so over the top, it's clownish!" Bixby said.

With the national debt now topping $22 trillion and the deficit at $900 billion in 2019, it is unlikely that Washington will find its way to fiscal discipline without an overhaul of the process, Bixby said.

He said he is frustrated and worried that it could take a crisis to jolt change, like a recession or a failure to raise the government's debt limit - something that needs to happen in coming months to avoid stumbling into a first-ever default.

"If they act as dysfunctionally this fall as they did last fall and throw the debt limit into the mix, it's very, very toxic," Bixby said.

When President Donald Trump proposes his 2020 federal budget on Monday, official Washington will likely have a quick look, shrug and move on, marking another stage in the quiet decay of the US government's traditional policy-making processes.

When President Donald Trump proposes his 2020 federal budget on Monday, official Washington will likely have a quick look, shrug and move on, marking another stage in the quiet decay of the US government's traditional policy-making processes. There was a time when the release of the president's budget was a red-letter day on the calendar of Washington wonkery, with policy experts and fiscal hawks delving into spreadsheets and expounding upon new spending plans and the national debt. But the hoopla of the budget day is gone, a relic of a time when politics were less polarised, the federal deficit drove political decisions and the White House and Congress still took the budget process seriously. "It has seemed to me that budget day ain't what it used to be," said Robert Bixby, who has pored over the budget for more than 25 years at the Concord Coalition, a fiscal responsibility advocacy group. Last year's budget weighed in at a whopping $4.4 trillion. It was not balanced and was panned for relying on rosy economic projections and for not doing enough to cut the federal deficit. The 2020 Trump budget will land a month after a deadline established in law, a lag blamed on the recent five-week partial shutdown of the federal government over a funding dispute. Congress, which controls federal spending, is likely to dismiss Trump's proposal if recent history is any guide. The Democratic-ruled House of Representatives and Republican-majority Senate also are unlikely to agree on a joint budget resolution of their own. Instead, they probably will stumble forward until fiscal 2019 ends and a spending deadline arrives on October 1, forcing them to produce a last-minute deal or face another government shutdown. "The entire process has become one of the missed deadlines, make-believe budgets filled with gimmicks and magic asterisks," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. MacGuineas remembers in years gone by "scurrying around" to read through the budget as fast as possible so that she could answer a flurry of calls from reporters. These days, the budget is a blip on the news cycle, a process that is neither serious nor effective. "I think it feels like a bit of kabuki theatre at this point, for everybody," MacGuineas said. The White House disagreed. The budget process helps the administration set priorities for agencies for the year ahead and lays down a marker on issues, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Of course, Congress has the power of the purse but the president’s budget plants a flag to define terms of the tax and spending debate in Washington," the official said. Budget on a stranger The traditional budget and appropriations process was limping along well before Trump took office. One of former President Ronald Reagan's budgets in the 1980s was brought out on a stretcher as a stunt to show the document was alive and well, ahead of it being declared dead-on-arrival in Congress, recalled Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "What we have right now is essentially government by automatic pilot and that's not healthy," Moore said, describing the cycle of last-minute massive omnibus spending bills agreed on only when deadlines loom. The budget and spending process has been further hobbled by lawmakers' unwillingness to compromise and tendency to put off hard decisions while hoping for a shift in the next election cycle, said Kenneth Baer, an associate director in the Office of Management and Budget under former President Barack Obama. Trump's budget office has accelerated the downward slide of the process by using more gimmicks to make up for shortfalls, Baer said. "All the normal ways of operating the government have just been thrown out of the window," he said. Trump's acting budget director, Russell Vought, has said the budget aims to cut non-defence spending and cap spending under levels set in the 2011 Budget Control Act - a feat made possible only with an increase in an emergency account called the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund to cover Trump's plan to increase defense spending. The tactic makes a mockery of the budget process, said Bixby of the Concord Coalition. "It's nothing but an astronomical gimmick! It's over the top! It's so over the top, it's clownish!" Bixby said. With the national debt now topping $22 trillion and the deficit at $900 billion in 2019, it is unlikely that Washington will find its way to fiscal discipline without an overhaul of the process, Bixby said. He said he is frustrated and worried that it could take a crisis to jolt change, like a recession or a failure to raise the government's debt limit - something that needs to happen in coming months to avoid stumbling into a first-ever default. "If they act as dysfunctionally this fall as they did last fall and throw the debt limit into the mix, it's very, very toxic," Bixby said.

Trump's budget to land with a thud on Monday

Top US diplomat Mike Pompeo has tapped Elliot Abrams, a central figure in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/roger-stone-indictment-has-nothing-to-do-with-trump-white-house-192791">Ronald Reagan's controversial</a> anti-communist campaigns in Central America, as a new envoy to "restore democracy" in Venezuela.

Pompeo announced the appointment of Abrams on Friday, two days after Washington declared head of state Nicolas Maduro to be illegitimate and recognised opposition leader Juan Guaido as the interim president of crisis-plagued Venezuela.

Pompeo said Abrams "will be a true asset to our mission to help the Venezuelan people fully restore democracy and prosperity to their country".

Abrams told reporters in brief remarks: "This crisis in Venezuela is deep and difficult and dangerous and I can't wait to get to work on it."

The veteran Republican foreign policy hand took charge of Latin America policy under Reagan, clashing with human rights groups as he channelled generous US support to anti-communist forces in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

In one notorious incident, he initially dismissed the massacre of nearly 1,000 civilians by the Salvadoran army at El Mozote in 1981. Abrams later pleaded guilty to two misdemeanour counts of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, when the Reagan administration secretly funded the Contra rebels in Nicaragua through arms sales to revolutionary Iran.

Abrams later returned as a senior adviser to president George W Bush in charge of human rights and the Middle East. But when Republicans returned to the White House with President Donald Trump's election, Abrams was initially passed over as the new administration shut out critics of the unorthodox new leader.

Abrams during the 2016 election had written a piece in The Weekly Standard magazine entitled, "When You Can't Stand Your Candidate," in which he argued that Trump "cannot win and should not be president of the United States".

Pompeo, one of Trump's favourite cabinet members, assured that Abrams was on board, saying the new envoy was "eager to advance President Trump's agenda and promote the ideals and interests of the American people".

Pompeo said that Abrams would join him Saturday as the secretary of state heads to New York for a special UN Security Council session on Venezuela.&nbsp;

Top US diplomat Mike Pompeo has tapped Elliot Abrams, a central figure in Ronald Reagan's controversial anti-communist campaigns in Central America, as a new envoy to "restore democracy" in Venezuela.

Top US diplomat Mike Pompeo has tapped Elliot Abrams, a central figure in Ronald Reagan's controversial anti-communist campaigns in Central America, as a new envoy to "restore democracy" in Venezuela. Pompeo announced the appointment of Abrams on Friday, two days after Washington declared head of state Nicolas Maduro to be illegitimate and recognised opposition leader Juan Guaido as the interim president of crisis-plagued Venezuela. Pompeo said Abrams "will be a true asset to our mission to help the Venezuelan people fully restore democracy and prosperity to their country". Abrams told reporters in brief remarks: "This crisis in Venezuela is deep and difficult and dangerous and I can't wait to get to work on it." The veteran Republican foreign policy hand took charge of Latin America policy under Reagan, clashing with human rights groups as he channelled generous US support to anti-communist forces in Nicaragua and El Salvador. In one notorious incident, he initially dismissed the massacre of nearly 1,000 civilians by the Salvadoran army at El Mozote in 1981. Abrams later pleaded guilty to two misdemeanour counts of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, when the Reagan administration secretly funded the Contra rebels in Nicaragua through arms sales to revolutionary Iran. Abrams later returned as a senior adviser to president George W Bush in charge of human rights and the Middle East. But when Republicans returned to the White House with President Donald Trump's election, Abrams was initially passed over as the new administration shut out critics of the unorthodox new leader. Abrams during the 2016 election had written a piece in The Weekly Standard magazine entitled, "When You Can't Stand Your Candidate," in which he argued that Trump "cannot win and should not be president of the United States". Pompeo, one of Trump's favourite cabinet members, assured that Abrams was on board, saying the new envoy was "eager to advance President Trump's agenda and promote the ideals and interests of the American people". Pompeo said that Abrams would join him Saturday as the secretary of state heads to New York for a special UN Security Council session on Venezuela.

US taps controversial Abrams to 'restore democracy' in Venezuela

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russia-calls-on-japan-to-recognise-outcome-of-world-war-two-190737">Russia </a>said on Wednesday it was ready to work with Washington to save a crucial arms control treaty and called on Europe to help in faltering talks.

Tensions have raged for months over the fate of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) signed in 1987 by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

US President Donald Trump has promised to walk away from the agreement and President Vladimir Putin threatened a new arms race, saying Europe would be its main victim.&nbsp;

Speaking after fresh talks between US and Russian officials in Geneva to salvage the INF led nowhere, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was ready to continue talks.

"We are still ready to work to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty," Russia's top diplomat told reporters.&nbsp;

He called on European nations to help influence Washington, saying they had a major stake in the issue and should not be "at the tail-end of the US position".

Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal.

Moscow's top negotiator in Geneva, deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov, said the Geneva talks centred on Russia's 9M729 system but that US demands regarding the missile were unacceptable.&nbsp;

Lavrov said on Wednesday the Russian side in Geneva came up with "constructive proposals" aiming to give the US an idea of what the 9M729 system was.

"However, US representatives arrived with a prepared position that was based on an ultimatum and centred on a demand for us to destroy this rocket, its launchers, and all related equipment under US supervision," Lavrov said.&nbsp;

The US negotiators never explained why Washington did not want to consider Russia's proposals, he added.

'You are violating, we are not'

Talks have essentially ground to a halt, Lavrov said, describing Washington's logic as: "You are violating the treaty and we are not."

Russian negotiators on Tuesday proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but received no reply from the US side, Ryabkov has said.&nbsp;

Russia denies it is in violation of the treaty, which forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles.

In Geneva on Tuesday, US and Russian diplomats blamed each other for pushing the agreement to the brink of collapse. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Russia said Washington had confirmed its intention to exit the February 2 treaty.&nbsp;

US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Andrea Thompson, has said the Geneva meeting was "disappointing" and Russia continued "to be in material breach of the treaty."

US trying to 'impose its will'

Lavrov also expressed hope it would be possible to save another key arms control agreement, the New START.&nbsp;

The agreement, which caps the number of nuclear warheads held by Washington and Moscow, expires in 2021.

"We are doing a lot to remove possible irritants regarding it and are interested in having it extended," he said.

He slammed Washington's overall position, saying the potential for conflict was increasing due to the West's unwillingness to accept "the reality of an emerging multi-polar world" and its desire to "impose its will" on the rest of the global community.

Putin has threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped.&nbsp;

He said in December he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement.

Putin has also said that if Washington moved to place more missiles in Europe after ditching the deal, Russia would respond "in kind" and that any European countries agreeing to host US missiles would be at risk of a Russian attack.

The INF deal resolved a crisis over Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.

Russia said on Wednesday it was ready to work with Washington to save a crucial arms control treaty and called on Europe to help in faltering talks. Tensions have raged for months over the fate of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) signed in 1987 by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Russia said on Wednesday it was ready to work with Washington to save a crucial arms control treaty and called on Europe to help in faltering talks. Tensions have raged for months over the fate of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) signed in 1987 by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. US President Donald Trump has promised to walk away from the agreement and President Vladimir Putin threatened a new arms race, saying Europe would be its main victim. Speaking after fresh talks between US and Russian officials in Geneva to salvage the INF led nowhere, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was ready to continue talks. "We are still ready to work to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty," Russia's top diplomat told reporters. He called on European nations to help influence Washington, saying they had a major stake in the issue and should not be "at the tail-end of the US position". Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal. Moscow's top negotiator in Geneva, deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov, said the Geneva talks centred on Russia's 9M729 system but that US demands regarding the missile were unacceptable. Lavrov said on Wednesday the Russian side in Geneva came up with "constructive proposals" aiming to give the US an idea of what the 9M729 system was. "However, US representatives arrived with a prepared position that was based on an ultimatum and centred on a demand for us to destroy this rocket, its launchers, and all related equipment under US supervision," Lavrov said. The US negotiators never explained why Washington did not want to consider Russia's proposals, he added. 'You are violating, we are not' Talks have essentially ground to a halt, Lavrov said, describing Washington's logic as: "You are violating the treaty and we are not." Russian negotiators on Tuesday proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but received no reply from the US side, Ryabkov has said. Russia denies it is in violation of the treaty, which forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles. In Geneva on Tuesday, US and Russian diplomats blamed each other for pushing the agreement to the brink of collapse. Russia said Washington had confirmed its intention to exit the February 2 treaty. US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Andrea Thompson, has said the Geneva meeting was "disappointing" and Russia continued "to be in material breach of the treaty." US trying to 'impose its will' Lavrov also expressed hope it would be possible to save another key arms control agreement, the New START. The agreement, which caps the number of nuclear warheads held by Washington and Moscow, expires in 2021. "We are doing a lot to remove possible irritants regarding it and are interested in having it extended," he said. He slammed Washington's overall position, saying the potential for conflict was increasing due to the West's unwillingness to accept "the reality of an emerging multi-polar world" and its desire to "impose its will" on the rest of the global community. Putin has threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped. He said in December he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement. Putin has also said that if Washington moved to place more missiles in Europe after ditching the deal, Russia would respond "in kind" and that any European countries agreeing to host US missiles would be at risk of a Russian attack. The INF deal resolved a crisis over Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.

Russia ready to 'save' INF arms treaty, urges Europe to help

US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that the United States was in consultation with its European allies on an arms control treaty, as NATO members urge Washington to try to bring Russia back into compliance with the pact rather than quit it.

President Donald Trump said on October 20 that Washington planned to quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty which Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, and Ronald Reagan had signed in 1987.

Washington has cited Russia's alleged violation of the treaty as its reason for leaving it, a charge Moscow denies. Russia in turn accuses Washington of breaking the pact.

"We are in consultations with our European counterparts, I was speaking about it the day before with the German defense minister, and so as I said the consultations continue," Mattis told reporters travelling with him to Prague.

He will be meeting with his Czech counterpart and Prime Minister Andrej Babis during a short trip to Prague.

Mattis said ministers from NATO would be meeting in Brussels in December and at that point he would have some kind of "culminating point."

European members of NATO urged the United States on Thursday to try to bring Russia back into compliance with a nuclear arms control treaty rather than quit it, diplomats said, seeking to avoid a split in the alliance that Moscow could exploit.

Mattis said he had asked his NATO counterparts after the last summit if they had any ideas on how to bring Russia back into compliance of INF treaty, but so far none had come back to him.

European allies see the INF treaty as a pillar of arms control and, while accepting that Moscow is violating it by developing new weapons, are concerned its collapse could lead to a new arms race with possibly a new generation of US&nbsp;nuclear missiles stationed on the continent.

Heather Conley, a former US&nbsp;State Department official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Mattis would receive a range of questions from European allies like when a formal notification would be made and whether it signals a new arms race.

"It just deepens the uncertainty. Our allies do not know where US&nbsp;leadership is going, what it's going to do from the day to day basis," Conley said.

When asked whether he could rule out placing intermediate-range missiles on the ground if Washington left the INF treaty, Mattis said: "I never rule things out like that, I also don't rule it in."

"There are a number of ways for us to respond, it does not have to be symmetric and it'll be in close consultation with allies," he added.

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that the United States was in consultation with its European allies on an arms control treaty, as NATO members urge Washington to try to bring Russia back into compliance with the pact rather than quit it.

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that the United States was in consultation with its European allies on an arms control treaty, as NATO members urge Washington to try to bring Russia back into compliance with the pact rather than quit it. President Donald Trump said on October 20 that Washington planned to quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty which Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, and Ronald Reagan had signed in 1987. Washington has cited Russia's alleged violation of the treaty as its reason for leaving it, a charge Moscow denies. Russia in turn accuses Washington of breaking the pact. "We are in consultations with our European counterparts, I was speaking about it the day before with the German defense minister, and so as I said the consultations continue," Mattis told reporters travelling with him to Prague. He will be meeting with his Czech counterpart and Prime Minister Andrej Babis during a short trip to Prague. Mattis said ministers from NATO would be meeting in Brussels in December and at that point he would have some kind of "culminating point." European members of NATO urged the United States on Thursday to try to bring Russia back into compliance with a nuclear arms control treaty rather than quit it, diplomats said, seeking to avoid a split in the alliance that Moscow could exploit. Mattis said he had asked his NATO counterparts after the last summit if they had any ideas on how to bring Russia back into compliance of INF treaty, but so far none had come back to him. European allies see the INF treaty as a pillar of arms control and, while accepting that Moscow is violating it by developing new weapons, are concerned its collapse could lead to a new arms race with possibly a new generation of US nuclear missiles stationed on the continent. Heather Conley, a former US State Department official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Mattis would receive a range of questions from European allies like when a formal notification would be made and whether it signals a new arms race. "It just deepens the uncertainty. Our allies do not know where US leadership is going, what it's going to do from the day to day basis," Conley said. When asked whether he could rule out placing intermediate-range missiles on the ground if Washington left the INF treaty, Mattis said: "I never rule things out like that, I also don't rule it in." "There are a number of ways for us to respond, it does not have to be symmetric and it'll be in close consultation with allies," he added.

Jim Mattis looks to calm European allies nervous about INF treaty

President Donald Trump said Monday that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/nuclear-pact-is-key-to-europes-security-macron-to-trump-172810">his decision to withdraw from a decades-old atomic</a> accord with Russia was also driven by a need to respond to China's nuclear build-up.

"Until people come to their senses, we will build it up," <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-pulls-out-of-nuclear-treaty-russia-says-it-will-retaliate-172639">Trump said at the White House</a>, referring to the US nuclear arsenal.

"It's a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China. And it includes Russia. And it includes anybody else that wants to play that game."

Beijing is not a signatory to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

China for its part on Monday called on the United States to "think twice" about its decision to ditch a Cold War-era nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

"It needs to be emphasised that it is completely wrong to bring up China when talking about withdrawal from the treaty," said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying.

The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated.

It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals.

Meanwhile, Trump's national security advisor John Bolton insisted at meetings with top Russian officials that Moscow has been violating a Cold War-era nuclear treaty the US president wants to abandon.

Bolton, who is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, also implied the three-decade-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) could not be salvaged.

He was visiting Russia after Trump sparked concern globally at the weekend by saying he wanted to jettison the pact which bans intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles.

On Monday, Bolton discussed the fate of the treaty with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and spent "nearly five hours" in talks with Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev,

President Donald Trump said Monday that his decision to withdraw from a decades-old atomic accord with Russia was also driven by a need to respond to China's nuclear build-up.

President Donald Trump said Monday that his decision to withdraw from a decades-old atomic accord with Russia was also driven by a need to respond to China's nuclear build-up. "Until people come to their senses, we will build it up," Trump said at the White House, referring to the US nuclear arsenal. "It's a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China. And it includes Russia. And it includes anybody else that wants to play that game." Beijing is not a signatory to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). China for its part on Monday called on the United States to "think twice" about its decision to ditch a Cold War-era nuclear weapons treaty with Russia. "It needs to be emphasised that it is completely wrong to bring up China when talking about withdrawal from the treaty," said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying. The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated. It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals. Meanwhile, Trump's national security advisor John Bolton insisted at meetings with top Russian officials that Moscow has been violating a Cold War-era nuclear treaty the US president wants to abandon. Bolton, who is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, also implied the three-decade-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) could not be salvaged. He was visiting Russia after Trump sparked concern globally at the weekend by saying he wanted to jettison the pact which bans intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles. On Monday, Bolton discussed the fate of the treaty with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and spent "nearly five hours" in talks with Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev,

Pulling out of atomic treaty with Russia also aimed at China, says Trump

The United States' statement on its intention to withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces(INF) Treaty received criticism from Russian officials on Sunday.

Russian Deputy foreign minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-pulls-out-of-nuclear-treaty-russia-says-it-will-retaliate-172639">Sergei Ryabkov said that the</a> US withdrawal from the INF Treaty would be a very dangerous step, and condemned by the international community.

He said that the US has unilaterally pulled out of a series of international agreements and mechanisms, including the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue. The country's international policies have aroused growing international opposition, he added.

In the case of US withdrawal this time, Russia will take measures, including military measures to respond, according to Ryabkov.

Head of the Russian Federation Council's International Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev said that the INF Treaty stipulates a unilateral pullout is only possible under "exceptional circumstances" with their substantiation within six months.

Kosachev warned that Washington's possible withdrawal from the treaty might cause its Western allies to take the same path, which could trigger a war.

Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, said the statement from the US again shows its intention to start an arms race. If the US persists in the withdrawal from the treaty, it will totally destroy the arms control and nuclear non-proliferation mechanism.

Yuri Shvytkin, deputy head of State Duma's Defense Committee, said the US words and deeds are based on double standards; Russia has been fulfilling its due responsibilities under the INF treaty. It is the United States that is doing everything possible to violently undermine this treaty and to blame Russia.

Russian daily newspaper Kommersant also pointed out on Sunday that if the US leaves the INF treaty, the rest of the world may see a new wave of missile research and development, and the US may also deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, which means an intensified arms race and geopolitical game between major powers, as well as an undermined stability of the global security structure.

US President Donald Trump said Saturday that Washington will withdraw from the INF Treaty because Russia is violating the terms of the agreement.

The INF Treaty was signed in 1987 by then Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and former US President Ronald Reagan to ban the development, deployment and testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges between 483 and 5,472 km.

The United States has first accused Russia of violating the conditions of the INF Treaty in July 2014. Moscow denied the allegations, calling them part of an anti-Russian campaign launched by Washington over the Ukrainian crisis. Since then, Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of violating the treaty.

The United States' statement on its intention to withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces(INF) Treaty received criticism from Russian officials on Sunday.

The United States' statement on its intention to withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces(INF) Treaty received criticism from Russian officials on Sunday. Russian Deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty would be a very dangerous step, and condemned by the international community. He said that the US has unilaterally pulled out of a series of international agreements and mechanisms, including the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue. The country's international policies have aroused growing international opposition, he added. In the case of US withdrawal this time, Russia will take measures, including military measures to respond, according to Ryabkov. Head of the Russian Federation Council's International Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev said that the INF Treaty stipulates a unilateral pullout is only possible under "exceptional circumstances" with their substantiation within six months. Kosachev warned that Washington's possible withdrawal from the treaty might cause its Western allies to take the same path, which could trigger a war. Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, said the statement from the US again shows its intention to start an arms race. If the US persists in the withdrawal from the treaty, it will totally destroy the arms control and nuclear non-proliferation mechanism. Yuri Shvytkin, deputy head of State Duma's Defense Committee, said the US words and deeds are based on double standards; Russia has been fulfilling its due responsibilities under the INF treaty. It is the United States that is doing everything possible to violently undermine this treaty and to blame Russia. Russian daily newspaper Kommersant also pointed out on Sunday that if the US leaves the INF treaty, the rest of the world may see a new wave of missile research and development, and the US may also deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, which means an intensified arms race and geopolitical game between major powers, as well as an undermined stability of the global security structure. US President Donald Trump said Saturday that Washington will withdraw from the INF Treaty because Russia is violating the terms of the agreement. The INF Treaty was signed in 1987 by then Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and former US President Ronald Reagan to ban the development, deployment and testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges between 483 and 5,472 km. The United States has first accused Russia of violating the conditions of the INF Treaty in July 2014. Moscow denied the allegations, calling them part of an anti-Russian campaign launched by Washington over the Ukrainian crisis. Since then, Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of violating the treaty.

US withdrawal from INF Treaty very dangerous step: Russia

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on Sunday slammed as unwise a decision by US President Donald Trump to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-pulls-out-of-nuclear-treaty-russia-says-it-will-retaliate-172639">quit a nuclear arms treaty</a> he signed with the late Ronald Reagan in 1987.

"Is it really so hard to understand that dropping these agreements... shows a lack of wisdom?" 87-year-old Gorbachev said in an interview with Interfax news agency.

"Getting rid of the treaty is a mistake," he said, stressing that officials "absolutely must not tear up old agreements on disarmament."

"All the agreements aimed at nuclear disarmament and limitation of nuclear arms must be preserved to save life on Earth," he said.

Trump confirmed Saturday that the United States plans to leave the three-decade-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the INF.

Gorbachev warned that Trump's move would "undermine all the efforts put in by the Soviet leadership and by the US itself to reach nuclear disarmament."

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on Sunday slammed as unwise a decision by US President Donald Trump to quit a nuclear arms treaty he signed with the late Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on Sunday slammed as unwise a decision by US President Donald Trump to quit a nuclear arms treaty he signed with the late Ronald Reagan in 1987. "Is it really so hard to understand that dropping these agreements... shows a lack of wisdom?" 87-year-old Gorbachev said in an interview with Interfax news agency. "Getting rid of the treaty is a mistake," he said, stressing that officials "absolutely must not tear up old agreements on disarmament." "All the agreements aimed at nuclear disarmament and limitation of nuclear arms must be preserved to save life on Earth," he said. Trump confirmed Saturday that the United States plans to leave the three-decade-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the INF. Gorbachev warned that Trump's move would "undermine all the efforts put in by the Soviet leadership and by the US itself to reach nuclear disarmament."

Shows a lack of wisdom: Gorbachev slams Trump for pulling out of nuclear treaty

Ronald Reagan was America&#39;s president when Philipos Melaku-Bello first began protesting in front of the White House.

Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace, against the nuclear industry, and in support of human rights.

He says the site is a living demonstration of America&#39;s right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by a Constitution which the activist says is being tested under Donald Trump, a president he describes as &quot;unlike any other.&quot;

&quot;Our federal judges, not only the Supreme Court, have tried to keep Donald Trump in check but I tell you, he has them working very hard,&quot; Melaku-Bello says, referring to the numerous court challenges faced by Trump -- on everything from immigration to birth control to potential conflicts of interest.

Opposite the front lawn of the president&#39;s home, Melaku-Bello greets passersby with a gentle manner.

&quot;How do you do, sir?&quot; he asks. &quot;Peace be with you.&quot;

Hour after hour, local residents and tourists stop to chat or to snap photographs of the orderly protest site where he sits behind a box of pamphlets about uranium and nuclear weapons, drone warfare, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some drop donations into a plastic container which says &quot;Free Leonard Peltier,&quot; a member of the American Indian Movement jailed for the 1975 killings of two FBI agents, and whom most people will have long forgotten.

Not Melaku-Bello.

He speaks articulately, knowledgeably -- and at length -- about Peltier&#39;s case and a range of other domestic and global political issues.

They call this &#39;democracy&#39;?

Melaku-Bello dismisses suggestions he himself has become an attraction.

&quot;I&#39;d always want it to be the message more than me,&quot; he says, flanked by signs, large and small.

&quot;Free Tibet,&quot; says one.

&quot;Make a peace treaty with North Korea,&quot; demands another, dwarfed by the biggest placard that calls for &quot;wisdom and honesty.&quot;

Other signs address topical issues including the fate of hundreds of thousands of &quot;Dreamers,&quot; immigrants brought to the country illegally as children whose protections Trump has vowed to end.

A California native in his mid-50s, who describes his personal politics as anarchistic, Melaku-Bello began protesting in the 1970s.

He belonged to a punk rock band which was touring the Washington area when he first came into contact with the protest site and &quot;helped out.&quot;

That was in the summer of 1981.

The vigil was founded earlier that year by activist William Thomas, joined by Concepcion Picciotto who remained until her death in 2016. Thomas died in 2009.

For the first decade of his involvement, Melaku-Bello says he split his time between protesting and working for Amha Selassie, the exiled son of late Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie.

In the course of that work, which involved preparing human rights reports, Melaku-Bello recounts being wounded by a landmine blast in Ramallah in 1987, leaving him in a wheelchair.

For the past seven years, the protest site has been his life, taking 90 to 100 hours a week.

Melaku-Bello, who tucks his hair up Rasta-style in a red and white toque above his untrimmed sideburns and graying beard, has reliable support from only two other activists, Neil Cousins and Craig Thompson, who rotate shifts with him.

On the pedestrian mall in front of the White House, activists for various causes come and go but the peace vigil remains, unique because it is manned day and night, a right Melaku-Bello says has been won through court fights.

Healthy debate

Melaku-Bello&#39;s passion is undiminished.

&quot;How dare they call this a democracy when it&#39;s not government for the people by the people but by an oligarchy government controlled by the few,&quot; he says, complaining that the wealthy are able to buy political influence in the United States.

His devotion earns praise even from those who disagree with him, such as passerby Eric Meek, 47, an Ohio school teacher who describes himself as &quot;more right wing.&quot;

&quot;I think that&#39;s what makes our country great,&quot; Meek says, &quot;if two people who have different philosophies can talk in a sensible way&quot; and listen to each other.

Melaku-Bello says he will keep talking, and listening, as long as he physically can.

&quot;Maybe loving all the civilians of the planet, some people would call it madness,&quot; he says. &quot;So how long will I do it? Maybe till my last breath.&quot;

Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace

Ronald Reagan was America's president when Philipos Melaku-Bello first began protesting in front of the White House. Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace, against the nuclear industry, and in support of human rights. He says the site is a living demonstration of America's right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by a Constitution which the activist says is being tested under Donald Trump, a president he describes as "unlike any other." "Our federal judges, not only the Supreme Court, have tried to keep Donald Trump in check but I tell you, he has them working very hard," Melaku-Bello says, referring to the numerous court challenges faced by Trump -- on everything from immigration to birth control to potential conflicts of interest. Opposite the front lawn of the president's home, Melaku-Bello greets passersby with a gentle manner. "How do you do, sir?" he asks. "Peace be with you." Hour after hour, local residents and tourists stop to chat or to snap photographs of the orderly protest site where he sits behind a box of pamphlets about uranium and nuclear weapons, drone warfare, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some drop donations into a plastic container which says "Free Leonard Peltier," a member of the American Indian Movement jailed for the 1975 killings of two FBI agents, and whom most people will have long forgotten. Not Melaku-Bello. He speaks articulately, knowledgeably -- and at length -- about Peltier's case and a range of other domestic and global political issues. They call this 'democracy'? Melaku-Bello dismisses suggestions he himself has become an attraction. "I'd always want it to be the message more than me," he says, flanked by signs, large and small. "Free Tibet," says one. "Make a peace treaty with North Korea," demands another, dwarfed by the biggest placard that calls for "wisdom and honesty." Other signs address topical issues including the fate of hundreds of thousands of "Dreamers," immigrants brought to the country illegally as children whose protections Trump has vowed to end. A California native in his mid-50s, who describes his personal politics as anarchistic, Melaku-Bello began protesting in the 1970s. He belonged to a punk rock band which was touring the Washington area when he first came into contact with the protest site and "helped out." That was in the summer of 1981. The vigil was founded earlier that year by activist William Thomas, joined by Concepcion Picciotto who remained until her death in 2016. Thomas died in 2009. For the first decade of his involvement, Melaku-Bello says he split his time between protesting and working for Amha Selassie, the exiled son of late Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie. In the course of that work, which involved preparing human rights reports, Melaku-Bello recounts being wounded by a landmine blast in Ramallah in 1987, leaving him in a wheelchair. For the past seven years, the protest site has been his life, taking 90 to 100 hours a week. Melaku-Bello, who tucks his hair up Rasta-style in a red and white toque above his untrimmed sideburns and graying beard, has reliable support from only two other activists, Neil Cousins and Craig Thompson, who rotate shifts with him. On the pedestrian mall in front of the White House, activists for various causes come and go but the peace vigil remains, unique because it is manned day and night, a right Melaku-Bello says has been won through court fights. Healthy debate Melaku-Bello's passion is undiminished. "How dare they call this a democracy when it's not government for the people by the people but by an oligarchy government controlled by the few," he says, complaining that the wealthy are able to buy political influence in the United States. His devotion earns praise even from those who disagree with him, such as passerby Eric Meek, 47, an Ohio school teacher who describes himself as "more right wing." "I think that's what makes our country great," Meek says, "if two people who have different philosophies can talk in a sensible way" and listen to each other. Melaku-Bello says he will keep talking, and listening, as long as he physically can. "Maybe loving all the civilians of the planet, some people would call it madness," he says. "So how long will I do it? Maybe till my last breath."

Longtime White House protester has passion for peace

ronald-reagan

Ronald Reagan, News on Ronald Reagan, stories on Ronald Reagan, articles on Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan stories at Wion, Ronald Reagan news, Ronald Reagan latest news

ronald reagan