Posted on 03/19/2016 10:44:06 PM PDT by monkapotamus
The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?
"Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes..."
(Excerpt) Read more at m.csmonitor.com ...
Personally, I am not against forming economic partnerships with geographic neighbors whom we might have common interests with, and assuming the partnerships are beneficial to the USA. But these are economic issues in my book that I don’t discount, not political ones.
It is the political ones that I find disturbing, especially the ones the directly affect our sovereignty.
On issues of international law, NWO, the United Nations, and so on, no. I don’t buy into it even a smidgen. And anyone who does is suspect to me.
Like many Americans, I didn’t really have any negative feelings about Walter Cronkite, up until I realized what he had done during the Tet Offensive.
And then, when I read for the first time his speech below when accepting the Norman Cousins award, viewed him for exactly what he was during his lifetime: an enemy of this country. And I am certain there are a lot more like him out there, serving in the government in high offices.
**************************************************************************
WALTER CRONKITE PROMOTES DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL WORLD GOVERNMENT
Received W.F.A.’s Norman Cousins Global Governance Award on 19 October 1999
I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.
I chose instead to continue in the world of journalism. For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience. Now, however, my circumstances are different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And that is what I propose to do.
Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.
For most of this fairly long life I have been an optimist harboring a belief that as our globe shrank, as our communication miracles brought us closer together, we would begin to appreciate the commonality of our universal desire to live in peace and that we would do something to satisfy that yearning of all peoples. Today I find it harder to cling to that hope. For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling “civilized”? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.
While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile, emphasizing the sloth in this regard, those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those “impractical dreamers” are entitled to ask their critics, “what is so practical about war?”
It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen. The circumstances were vastly different, obviously. Yet just because the task appears forbiddingly hard, we should not shirk it. We cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic U.N. federation.
Let’s focus on a few specifics of what the leadership of the World Federalist movement believe must be done now to advance the rule of world law. For starters, we can draw on the wisdom of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. The differences among the American states then were as bitter as differences among nation-states in the world today. In their almost miraculous insight, the Founders of our country invented ‘federalism,’ a concept that is rooted in the rights of the individual. Our federal system guarantees a maximum of freedom but provides it in a framework of law and justice. Our forefathers believed that the closer the laws are to the people, the better. Cities legislate on local matters; states make decisions on matters within their borders; and the national government deals with issues that transcend the states, such as interstate commerce and foreign relations. That is federalism.
Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law —a democratic federal world government— to deal with world problems. What Alexander Hamilton wrote about the need for law among the 13 states applies today to the approximately 200 sovereignties in our global village: “To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.” Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.
Ours will neither be a perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the vast majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, and those who won’t will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law. We will never have a city without crime, but we would never want to live in a city that had no system of law to deal with criminals.
Let me make three suggestions for immediate action that would move us in a direction firmly in the American tradition of law and democracy.
1. Keep our promises: We helped create the U.N. and to develop the U.N. assessment formula. Americans overwhelmingly want us to pay our U.N. dues, with no crippling limitations. We owe it to the world. In fact, we owe it as well to our national self-esteem.
2. Ratify the Treaty to Ban Land Mines, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most important, we should sign and ratify the Treaty for a permanent International Criminal Court. That Court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity.
3. Consider, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson’s Binding Triad proposal. George Soros, in “The Crisis of Global Capitalism,” has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget. Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law. Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing, a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment and human rights.
Some of you may ask why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties and why the Congress is not paying our U.N. dues. As with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a few willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Attempts for world order before that time are the work of the Devil! This small but well-organized group has intimidated both the Republican Party and the Clinton administration. It has attacked presidents since F.D.R. for supporting the U.N. Robertson explains that these presidents are the unwitting agents of Lucifer.
The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community. That is the vision and program of the World Federalist Association. The strength of the World Federalist program would serve an important auxiliary purpose at this particular point in our history. There would be immediate diplomatic advantages if the world knew that this country was even beginning to explore the prospect of strengthening the U.N. We would appear before the peoples of the world as the champion of peace for all by the equitable sharing of power. This in sharp contrast to the growing concern that we intend to use our current dominant military power to enforce a sort of pax Americana.
Our country today is at a stage in our foreign policy similar to that crucial point in our nation’s early history when our Constitution was produced in Philadelphia. Let us hear the peal of a new international liberty bell that calls us all to the creation of a system of enforceable world law in which the universal desire for peace can place its hope and prayers. As Carl Van Doren has written, “History is now choosing the founders of the World Federation. Any person who can be among that number and fails to do so has lost the noblest opportunity of a lifetime.”
I hear you.
Letter To The Editor - 1976
Reagan Rightest in Talk But Liberal in Action
The Evening News (Newburgh, NY) - Feb 12, 1976
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZCdHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AzQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4286%2C1580368
“To the Editor,
Daniel Mahoney, (NY) state chairman of the Conservative Party, recently stated, “Ronald Reagan ... running for president is the best news conservatives have heard in years.” I can remember him saying the same thing about Richard Nixon in 1972.
A little research will show that Reagan is a colossal fraud. Like every presidential candidate since Woodrow Wilson except Barry Goldwater. Reagan, should he be nominated, will give the rhetoric to middle America and the action to the liberals.
As Governor of California, Reagan promised economy, but in fact the state tax budget doubled and taxes increased accordingly. He supported the Berianson law, which legalized abortion.
Reagan belonged to the United World Federalists for 13 years. This group promotes the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.
Reagan, along with Hubert Humphrey, was a charter member of the Americans for Democratic Action, an offshoot of the English socialist Fabian Society.
Reagan signed the Mulford anti-gun law, which infringes upon California citizens right to bear arms.
Reagan promotes large regional government planning with results like MTA illegal land take-overs.
Reagan supports sexual education in schools and their takeover by the federal government.
Reagan supported the liberal policies of Nixon and Henry Kissinger.
Reagan betrayed and abandoned outstanding educator Dr Max Rafferty.
Reagan is supported by the large eastern establishment power brokers, just like Nixon was.
The American Party will have a candidate this year who will represent the best in America. You will have to watch closely because the invisible power brokers will make sure the American Party candidate is ignored. They do not want a political change which would remove their hands from every American’s pocket book.
Raymond L. Shideler
Town of Newburgh” (NY)
Reagan Signs Gun Control Law
The Spokesman-Review - Jul 29, 1967
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mb5YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DukDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3707%2C4065407
“Everybody get ready to unload their guns now”,
said the Republican governor jokingly as he signed the bill into law.
At an earlier date he had said, “Americans don’t go around carrying guns with the idea they’re using them to influence other Americans. There’s no reason why on the street today
a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
The Free Lance-Star - May 3, 1967
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LAFOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7069%2C170050
—”You Cruzbots are so damn brainwashed. Don’t you ever get tired of fantasyland? Where somehow your stupidity is superior intelligence over all?”
Cruzbot?? Not me.
Your post showed how inferior your intelligence is to mine. Where my post was thoughtful, analytical, objective, your’s was primitive and you misunderstood me completely.
Read my last sentence in which I state that Trump will be a battering ram to destroy the PC Gestapo, but that he won’t have Reagan’s sophistication.
...Reading Comprehension 101 remedial class needed for your inferior mind.
The fact is, Trump is no Reagan, but we have to live with what choices we have today. I’m just disappointed we don’t have someone better than Trump, that’s all. He will, however, make mincemeat out of Hitlery in the debates.
Btw, I met Reagan in his office for 30 minutes and have a signed picture of him shaking my hand. Do you?
Go crawl back into your hole.
Thanks all, this was one of the most interesting threads I’ve read in a long time. Reagan was no conservative saint, that’s for sure. He was a tower of conservativism only in context, and stood far above the liberal rot and treachery of his day. While different in many ways, I see Trump doing the same thing now. But we live in a much cruder and more vulger time than Reagan, and I don’t see Donald as being at that level himself, but rather showing that he’s not afraid to meet the enemy where they actually are. To many people just want things to be comfy, even political fights. That’s why the Left has taught young people that their comfort is the highest priority - to teach them to exclude themselves from the world of power. Trump rejects that, and is proving it every day. That’s why the Left had gone wild over him. And they won’t stop.
Good points! Trump sure pulled an “end run” around the Chicago protestors by canceling on the MF’ers.
I hope he continues to expose Leftwingers for what they are are: SOCIOECONOMIC FASCISTS who become thugs when they get their way.
I have also realized we are sitting on a time bomb of hatred of both sides (for each other, Left/Right).
Summer will be very interesting, perhaps as dramatic as the 1960’s war protests.
The Left’s PC Gestapo is so entrenched (and comfortable), that it won’t be easy restoring freedom and INDIVIDUAL rights instead of COLLECTIVE rights. They’ll fight to keep their upper hand and it won’t be pretty.
—”I see Donald Trump as a very humble man. People say the same things about Rush Limbaugh, too but again he is a very humble man.”
Yes, there’s a part of Trump’s personality that is humble, for example, when he says he feels he wants to give back to this great country...
However, consider all the times he does this chatter about how “I’m winning in the polls here and I’m wealthier than Romney...” WTF? That’s like junior high school.
Much of Trump’s speech intros consist of 5-10 minutes of bland chatter about how he’s winning here and winning there. Remember Reagan’s speeches were all about substance and he never talked about his campaign as if it was some high-school popularity contest.
Those are the attributes that I’m saying are NOT humble and Trump would do well to eliminate from his persona.
Again, I’ll pull the lever for Trump because I know he will make mincemeat out of Hitlery when he goes head-to-head with her. Just wish he’d learn more from Reagan’s style.
Reagan lost the illegal gay Muslim vote that year.
Trump is no Reagan
BUT what we need in today’s situation is exactly Trump.
Cruz is no Reagan in many ways.
Of course, neither is Trump.
But right now we need Trump, not Reagan, nor Cruz.
Trump just as much of a gentleman as Reagan was...Reagan much more of a politician in regards to the speeches he gave, but at the end of the day both have the same message,IMHO.
Look at it this way, DT is THIS generation’s Reagan. DT is a great actor and a con. He is making the deal of his life with his supporters and I hope that he doesn’t abandon them the way he abandoned Scotland.
He talked the government into letting him build the greatest golf course in the world, on PROTECTED seaside dunes. He then built hills and put in trees to block the Scottish redneck homes that had been there for 40 years because he didn’t want to be able to see them from the course.
What does he do later? He sues the Scottish government when they want to put up windmills within view from the course because it would take away from the pleasure of the view from his course.
“He alleged in the judicial review that his own human rights had been breached, because the windfarm, which is funded by the European commission and supported by many local organisations which had also backed Trump’s golf resort, interfered with his “peaceful enjoyment of his property”.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/11/donald-trump-irish-golf-scotland-windfarm#comments
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13806500.Trump_s___2_million_losses_at_Scottish_golf_courses/
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/02/157609870/in-the-scottish-dunes-its-david-versus-the-donald
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/11/donald-trump-irish-golf-scotland-windfarm
So because he lost his lawsuit and it no longer appealed to him, he abandoned Scotland. He did employ 200 people. Personally I think if he was no longer going to keep it up then they should bulldoze it and revert it to the way it was.
“Today; we have Caitlyn.”
But, on the other hand Caitlyn is actually a Republican!
Are you comparing Trump to Reagan? Sheesh! Reagan was a gentleman. Trump is the most thin-skinned politician out there on the national scene. He has petty, childish reactions to virtually everything. (The exception that proves the rule is a couple of nice sentences he said about Rubio when he dropped out last week.)
“Yes, but he made a deal with a Dem Congress, expecting they would live up to their end of the bargain.”
Thinking democrats will live up to their end of anything was stupid then and it’s stupid now.
This is why it’s imperative that we make utter fools of them.
Their credibility must be destroyed for us to move forward as a country. It is time for Trump.
IMHO yes. And we rolled them.
I recall reading, just after the ‘76 election, someone did an interview with Roselyn Carter.
She said (in so may words - I don’t have the exact quote at hand), “Jimmy and I hosted many of the Democratic hopefuls leading up to the election, and after a time, we felt Jimmy was as qualified as any of them to run for President.”
That was very true, because even at the time, I felt NONE of them were qualified.
At the time, many old-line Democrats had a hankering for Hubert Humphrey to run and unite the Democrats, but he declined, mainly, I suspect, because he knew his life was drawing to a close.
Many of those old line Democrats, like Humphrey and Scoop Jackson, were also ardent anti-Communists. Alas, they all died out after the party putsch of 1968 cleaned them out.
That era’s atmosphere for discourse was vastly different than today’s. The total embrace by the Left of the works of Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci, which raised the level of political discourse to shouting, has pretty much guaranteed that.
Reagan was a product of his times. Trump is a product of his. The contributions of both men will be measured only by history, and while some complain Trump is no conservative, I would argue that the times, and the accompanying decay and decline of the political environment has seriously blurred the effects of Russell Kirk’s definition, wide ranging as it is, of just what Conservatism is and means.
No, today’s atmosphere for these things is a lot more toxic, and Trump is right - we need to fix things first and foremost. Everyone knows (or should know) that today’s “democrat”, in another generation, would have been called a communist.
The time is past for the labels of old to apply - Democrats vs Republicans, Conservatives vs Liberals, and what-not. Today, it’s Americans vs Progressives, or, at it’s most basic level, Us vs Them.
You can try and close your eyes to reality, but reality will still be there.
This, for better or worse, is the way things are today!
WE NEED DONALD TRUMP!!!!
CA....
Great Find!!!!!
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.