The 20th century has been a bummer for a lot of people.
Posted on 04/05/2015 1:40:14 PM PDT by Marcus
The new deal extended the Great Depression by a decade.
Ted Cruz is a biggest threat to the “oh noes” conspiracy crowd......until anyone else comes along.
Just repeal Obama’s term and give us back America.
Heather Cox Richardson — Professor of revisionist history
Heather Cox Richardson is a young twit at Boston College http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/history/people/faculty/alphabetical/richardson_heather.html
The 20th century has been a bummer for a lot of people.
And?
the rest of the story:
“...Cruz’s evil plan would involve abolishing social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. States would be allowed to reinstitute Jim Crow laws that mandated discrimination on the basis of race. Since Cruz favors abolishing the IRS in favor of a flat tax, the government would not have enough money to fund social programs, though apparently it will be able to fund the military, Homeland Security, NASA, and other government programs Cruz favors.
Cruz is in favor of shrinking the size and scope of the federal government, including abolishing agencies and cabinet departments such as the IRS and the Department of Education as well as programs like Obamacare. However, one can search high and low and not find anything passing his lips regarding getting rid of social security, Medicare, or Medicaid. He would likely favor reforming these programs to make them viable and more efficient, but that is a far cry from abolishment.
Richardson’s article constitutes a tried and true strategy from the left that accuses conservatives of wanting to “repeal the 20th Century.” Considering that the last century gave rise to malignancies such as fascism, Nazism, and Communism, repealing some parts of it may not be a bad idea. Even the New Deal, as Amity Shlaes so artfully proved, was less than met the eye and likely prolonged and worsened the Great Depression.
The bottom line is that Cruz is about to receive the full fury of the left’s opposition, the hope being that he can be destroyed before he gains traction. However, Cruz is a skilled debater and orator and is likely the most intelligent candidate to run for president in a long time. The odds are he will be equal to the attack and will respond in kind and with relish.
Senator Cruz is hopefully going to encourage the states to recover the 20th century, the century that USA citizens and their states lost to unconstitutionally big federal government.
I would like to see the liberal democrats become as extinct as the dodo bird.
The Professor’s main complaint is that Cruz is not a leftist and wants to undo the damage they have done and are currently doing.
If repealing the 20th century means repealing an ideology that has been the world's most catastrophic failure, then I say LET'S REPEAL!!!
Government killed 100 million people last century. Bet all of them would like a do over.
There’s areason why Congres has far exceeded the enumerated powers: the wealthy in this country want them to. After the Civil Warm, the powers of the Supreme Court increased greatly because the new rich needed it to stop the states from regulating their activities. To be sure, they were right that much of the regulation slowed industrial expansion. Nonetheless it increased the role of the Federal Government significantly.
The Professor is just venting. aka, blowing hit air.
Communism was not the only thing wrong with the 20th Century. The Great War showed that.
This Marxist wants to take us to 1940 Soviet Union. Ted Cruz wants to take us to the 21st century.
Pray America is waking
The success of America has been firmly built on the recognition of natural rights and the protection of individual rights against the juggernaut of the majority in order to maximize freedom. Since FDR inserted the notion of American “democracy” into every school room, we have been marching toward European socialism where the individual is sacrificed to the interests of the whole. We have lost our soul along with our liberty.
Read these words of the Essex Result of 1778, thought to have been penned by Sam Adams. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s8.html Does this sound like the American compact individuals have today?
“All men are born equally free. The rights they possess at their births are equal, and of the same kind. Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange. Sometimes we shall mention the surrendering of a power to controul our natural rights, which perhaps is speaking with more precision, than when we use the expression of parting with natural rights—but the same thing is intended. Those rights which are unalienable, and of that importance, are called the rights of conscience. We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a controul over it, is an usurper; for no consent can be pleaded to justify the controul, as any consent in this case is void. The alienation of some rights, in themselves alienable, may be also void, if the bargain is of that nature, that no equivalent can be received. Thus, if a man surrender all his alienable rights, without reserving a controul over the supreme power, or a right to resume in certain cases, the surrender is void, for he becomes a slave; and a slave can receive no equivalent. Common equity would set aside this bargain.
“When men form themselves into society, and erect a body politic or State, they are to be considered as one moral whole, which is in possession of the supreme power of the State. This supreme power is composed of the powers of each individual collected together, and VOLUNTARILY parted with by him. No individual, in this case, parts with his unalienable rights, the supreme power therefore cannot controul them. Each individual also surrenders the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, ONLY WHEN THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE REQUIRES it. The supreme power therefore can do nothing but what is for the good of the whole; and when it goes beyond this line, it is a power usurped. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of controul he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power as it respects him is an usurper. If the supreme power is so directed and executed that he does not enjoy political liberty, it is an illegal power, and he is not bound to obey. Political liberty is by some defined, a liberty of doing whatever is not prohibited by law. The definition is erroneous. A tyrant may govern by laws. The republic’s of Venice and Holland govern by laws, yet those republic’s have degenerated into insupportable tyrannies. Let it be thus defined; political liberty is the right every man in the state has, to do whatever is not prohibited by laws, TO WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS CONSENT. This definition is in unison with the feelings of a free people. But to return—If a fundamental principle on which each individual enters into society is, that he shall be bound by no laws but those to which he has consented, he cannot be considered as consenting to any law enacted by a minority: for he parts with the power of controuling his natural rights, only when the good of the whole requires it; and of this there can be but one absolute judge in the State. If the minority can assume the right of judging, there may then be two judges; for however large the minority may be, there must be another body still larger, who have the same claim, if not a better, to the right of absolute determination. If therefore the supreme power should be so modelled and exerted, that a law may be enacted by a minority, the inforcing of that law upon an individual who is opposed to it, is an act of tyranny. Further, as every individual, in entering into the society, parted with a power of controuling his natural rights equal to that parted with by any other, or in other words, as all the members of the society contributed an equal portion of their natural rights, towards the forming of the supreme power, so every member ought to receive equal benefit from, have equal influence in forming, and retain an equal controul over, the supreme power.
“It has been observed, that each individual parts with the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it, he therefore has remaining, after entering into political society, all his unalienable natural rights, and a part also of his alienable natural rights, provided the good of the whole does not require the sacrifice of them. Over the class of unalienable rights the supreme power hath no controul, and they ought to be clearly defined and ascertained in a BILL OF RIGHTS, previous to the ratification of any constitution. The bill of rights should also contain the equivalent every man receives, as a consideration for the rights he has surrendered. This equivalent consists principally in the security of his person and property, and is also unassailable by the supreme power: for if the equivalent is taken back, those natural rights which were parted with to purchase it, return to the original proprietor, as nothing is more true, than that Allegiance and protection are reciprocal.”
“Ted Cruz accused of wanting to repeal the 20th Century”
Good. Where do I send the check?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.