Posted on 11/10/2013 9:12:48 AM PST by SoConPubbie
When host Jay Leno suggested Reagan would not fit in today's conservative movement, Cruz said, "I don't think that's right at all."
Cruz told Leno that "Reagan led a grassroots revolution," and the country's economic situation now is awfully like the late 1970s when there was "economic stagnation" and people were "hurting because government policies under Jimmy Carter weren't working."
He noted that Reagan challenged an incumbent Republican president in Gerald Ford for the party's presidential nomination in 1976, coming close to winning the nomination and giving an emphatic address at the party's convention at Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri. That speech endeared him to his grassroots base that ultimately helped him win the 1980 Republican nomination.
Cruz pointed out that Reagan led a grassroots revolution at a time when Americans were saying Carter's polices were not working and wanted to go back to the Constitution and free market principles.
"That same thing is true right now," Cruz told Leno.
Cruz's assessment of Reagan fits in with what those like conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, who supported Reagan in 1976 and worked in his administration, and Craig Shirley, one of the most preeminent Reagan biographers, have said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
The putz leno was having quite the piers morgan moment that night.
I’m not seeking to take Leno to task here, while it may seem like it. What baffles me is how he and other people ask questions about Conservative’s true beliefs, as if we’re a branch of the KKK or something.
Perhaps that’s a poor example, because I’m not referencing a racial overtone to it. It’s more a stigmatic group assessment on his and other people’s part, that leads them to ask questions in a manner that exudes mistrust or an almost impossible to bridge gap in differences of opinion?
What is so hard to grasp about wanting to adhere to the Constitution of the United States and it’s original intent?
We’re not out of line with the founding principles. He is. The group he has aligned himself with are.
It is they that are the pariahs of our nation. They are the enemies of our nation, whether by intent or by innocent misdeed.
Study up Jay. Lend a helping had to your fellow travelers who have fallen and can’t get up.
Help us right the ship of state.
They say a President like Reagan comes along once a century.. it must be karma. clinton and then Obama, ?
Obama could make a big fan out of me by eliminating capital gains and death taxes for a couple years..
that way we can sell off and move to Asia somewhere and just nod off in peace.. and not collapsing in an Obamacare death panel line waiting for our ID number to be verified with BugGub.GovKnowsBest.com
For liberals, government largesse equals charity. It’s unquestionable dogma. So whoever opposes government largesse is opposed to charity.
His eight years in office was our opportunity to learn great important truths.
Now we are faced with the enemy within.
We need to put on the mind of Ronald Reagan and be Ronald Reagan.
When we all realize our strength and Ronald Reagan stands up, the left won't know what hit them.
Hear, hear, DoughtyOne! Eloquently stated!
Reagan would have the Democrats and most of the Republicans in a dungeon.
I don’t disagree. And it’s with a smile on my face that I respond that all indications I have seen, make it clear that Conservatives donate far more to charity on an individual basis, than liberals do.
Yep, they’re very charitable with my money.
Well, except for signing that Amnesty thingy...
Reagan later said that the amnesty "thingy" was an error, which of course fits the Cruz statement that Reagan would fit in perfectly.
:^)
While I thought that amnesty was wrong at the time, if the laws that were passed with it had been enforced, illegal immigration would be a ghost of it’s current reality.
Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.
Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?”
That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want."
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he's on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
True and I'm glad you brought that up.
If I remember correctly Tip and the Dems in Congress defunded most of the enforcement. Yet nowadays, it would be considered an act of "terrorism" for the Republicans to do the same with Obamacare.
Lying isn’t enough any more. Now we have to deliberately and precisely invert the truth. So Reagan would not be accepted by the only true heirs of Reagan.
I agree. It should also be said that Democrats AND REPUBLICANS told Reagan they were only talking about one million foreigners.
Three point five million signed up.
Reagan was attempting to clean up over thirty years worth of illegals, at one million.
Today at 20 to 35 million, we’re trying to clean up 23 years worth.
Reagan was addressing an inflow of about 35,000 per year.
Today we’re addressing in inflow of as much as 1.5 million per year.
Some would claim it was because of Reagan’s actions. I submit it was the in-action of all those who followed him.
In fact, at a Dean Bible Ministries Men’s Prayer Breakfast on June 15, 2013, in a presentation, ""Why Christians Need to be Involved in the Political Arena," at 40:13 into the video, Rafael Cruz stated:
“You know, communism or socialism, whatever you want to call it, what is happening in this country is not different than what happened in Cuba. The procedure might be different; they may be a little slower but it's the same thing. It is about government control of your lives. You got to realize how Marxism, how socialism works. And we need to understand the issues. When you hear all these things about homosexual marriage, this has nothing to do with homosexual rights. Did you know that?...The whole objective is the destruction of the traditional family, it has nothing to do with homosexuals, they could[n't] care less about homosexuals, they want to destroy the family."
The Demonrat talking points are the hell-spawned lies of traitors.
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.