” Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive, [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.”
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals. If we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
” If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”
Here is the audio of President Reagan’s full quote :
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”
And this clip … just because
” “I think we are going to get plus 70 votes,” he said. “I’ve never been more optimistic about it.”
Graham said passing the bill is a political necessity for the GOP.
“If we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who we run in 2016,” he said. “We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party.”
As the graph above clearly demonstrates the GOP share of the Hispanic vote will not be significantly affected by pandering to the illegals with an amnesty . Reagan’s amnesty gave the GOP nothing and the GOP presidential share versus Obama in 2008 was nearly as high as it has ever gotten without an amnesty .
Hispanics , just like everyone else , want jobs and a sound economy not political pandering . Sound policies and adherence to principles is more effective than attempted bribery . But then again , it’s not called the “stupid party” for nothing .
And by the way , could you South Carolinians please primary Senator Grahamnesty into retirement ?
” The legendary British prime minister Margaret Thatcher has died, and the national media tried to pay their respects, not only for breaking Britain’s “glass ceiling” with a “bruising” political style, but for transforming Britain and helping wind down the Cold War.
Still, Thatcher was a conservative and one of Ronald Reagan’s staunchest friends in the world, so you can be sure these journalists were Thatcher-bashers when she was in power. Some of them were American anchors and reporters.
Let’s start with a few quotes from long after she left 10 Downing Street. On November 19, 1999, NBC reporter Jim Avila brought the liberal contempt in a story on a sex scandal in higher education: “Hillsdale College is supposed to be different: a liberal arts college where liberals are unwanted, where Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are regarded as heroic deep thinkers, prayer is encouraged and morality is taught alongside grammar.”
That knock on “heroic deep thinkers” shows that Avila wrote the story before he showed up at Hillsdale. Reagan and Thatcher were great leaders, and certainly great combatants in the war on ideas. But Hillsdale teaches Locke and Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville. One wonders if TV reporters have heard of those philosophers before they mock conservative “deep thinkers.” Obviously, if a Fox News reporter mocked college students viewing Obama and Bill Clinton as “heroic deep thinkers,” they would be dismissed as street rabble who’d never opened a book.
In 2000, Time magazine and CBS News picked the most important people of the 20th century. On CBS on Christmas Eve, Bryant Gumbel and Dan Rather took turns suggesting Thatcher wasn’t worthy. Gumbel began: “On the women’s front, Eleanor Roosevelt is obviously a given. Do we agree with the Margaret Thatcher pick?” Rather replied: “I don’t, to be perfectly honest.”
Gumbel agreed: “I don’t either.” Rather demeaned her: “My guess, Margaret Thatcher is there, as much as any reason, because she is a woman.” “
” Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female prime minister and uncompromisingly conservative “Iron Lady” of the 1980s, has died. She was 87.
She died following a stroke.
“We’ve lost a great leader, a great prime minister and a great Briton,” Prime Minister David Cameron said.
Thatcher suffered a series of minor strokes in recent years. She rarely appeared in public after doctors forbade her from talking to large groups in 2002 for health reasons. But she continued to meet and dine privately with old friends in recent years who guarded details of her health and condition.
Thatcher was one of the most recognizable political figures of the second half of the 20th century. She was a political soulmate of conservative U.S. President Ronald Reagan, with whom she stood shoulder to shoulder against communism in the twilight decade of the Cold War.
Her free-market policies rolled back decades of state socialism in Britain and ushered in what her fellow “Thatcherite” conservatives say was an era of prosperity that endured until recently.”
” History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”
” As Pyongyang threatens a nuclear strike, the administration says our missile defenses can handle anything they can throw against us or our allies. If so it’s not because of anything the president did.
‘I can tell you that the United States is fully capable of defending against any North Korean ballistic missile attack,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Thursday after North Korea’s raging runt, Kim Jong-un, said Pyongyang was scrapping the 1953 armistice deal that ended the Korean War. He threatened a “preemptive” nuclear strike against the U.S.
If we can handle the North Korean missile threat, it is thanks to President Ronald Reagan’s derided “Star Wars” dream and the Strategic Defense Initiative he refused to surrender to Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, who met Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, and to President George W. Bush, who made missile defense a priority, not a target for budget cuts.
We thank you both.”
” Recent history has demonstrated the bias of liberal historians; rewriting Reagan (or defaming him), downplaying the anti-Semitism of FDR (his support for Harvard’s Jewish quota of 15 percent in 1927 and anti-Jewish immigration policies as president) the racism of Woodrow Wilson (his Executive Order creating “separate but equal” in the federal government) the anti-Indian bigotry of Andrew Jackson (“Trail of Tears”).
Should liberals be allowed to record history? Of course. But should the political views of some historians be taken into consideration, especially when liberals record conservative history? Dr. Edwards points out that while Matthew Dallek and Douglas Brinkley “have written balanced, objective books about the life and career of Ronald Reagan” others have been less dedicated to the truth and more interested in pushing an agenda.
Turn on any cable show and one sees history mangled all the time. As a Reagan Scholar at the Gipper’s alma mater, Eureka College, having spoken at the Reagan Library and the Ranch on a number of occasions, having written books about his campaigns (and am now working on a book about his post presidency) and innumerable articles, it can be maddening to see all the disinformation about Reagan routinely put out in the media.
Liberal historians have existed for many years and often can be good at their trade. Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s “A Thousand Days” is too romanticized because of his deep affection for John Kennedy but his other works, especially on Jackson, were excellent.”
” If someone had woken you from a dead sleep 20 years ago and asked what the Republican Party stood for, you would’ve had no trouble answering: Fiscal restraint, a strong national defense and lower taxes. Those were the three pillars of the GOP. The party’s brand was clear. Voters understood it, and many approved. In the days before Obama, Republicans won seven out of ten presidential elections.
Things have changed for the muddier. Scratch the surface and you’ll find there is no longer a consensus among Republicans on foreign policy. Fiscal restraint? Years of earmarks, record deficits and at least one new federal entitlement under Republican congresses make that idea a bitter joke.
Of the three principles that have united the party since Reagan, only taxes remain. Republicans have been able to claim — sincerely, and with continuing success at the ballot box — that they are for lower taxes.
Here’s what happened: For reasons that aren’t entirely clear but are probably related to panic and a basic lack of principle, the Speaker of the House and other Republicans in Congress signed on to Democratic calls for “balance” between tax hikes and spending cuts — this despite the overwhelming evidence that spending is the real problem. “
So, even before the negotiation began, they abandoned decades of principle on taxes. The result: Two months later, we have a deal, but no balance. It’s all tax hikes. Zero spending cuts. Nice job.
Illustration By Michael Ramirez
” Movement conservatives, Reagan conservatives, and tea partiers did not back Gov. Romney in the Republican primaries. Despite misgivings, when the GOP establishment chose Romney, these patriotic conservatives did not sulk or stay home. They walked through fire for Romney and formed the backbone of his base and ground game. They gave their all to their country, they volunteered their time, they donated what they could to a candidate they did not choose, and they voted for him. Why? Because they put the future of the country ahead of their own personal interests.
Which is something Ann Coulter may want to try. “
” The most successful Republican presidential candidate of the past half century– Ronald Reagan, who was elected and reelected with landslide victories– bore little resemblance to the moderate candidates that Republican conventional wisdom depicts as the key to victory, even though most of these moderate candidates have in fact gone down to defeat.
One of the biggest differences between Reagan and these latter-day losers was that Reagan paid great attention to explaining his policies and values. He was called “the great communicator,” but much more than a gift for words was involved. The issues that defined Reagan’s vision were things he had thought about, written about and debated for years before he reached the White House.
Reagan was like a veteran quarterback who comes up to the line of scrimmage, takes a glance at how the other team is deployed against him, and knows automatically what he needs to do. There is not enough time to figure it out from scratch, while waiting for the ball to be snapped. You have to have figured out such things long before the game began, and now just need to execute.”
33 Years ago under the leadership of another clueless appeaser America started the long 444 day ordeal that even now ranks as one of the most humiliating national moments in history . We are destined to a similar fate unless we can pull our heads out of our collected ” a**es ” and rid ourselves once and for all of the man who believes that we can negotiate with the ruling theocracy that controls Iran .
Does anyone in the photo look familiar ?
Our current ‘Leader” would have us believe that if we only give a little more , talk a little more , listen a little more to the ravings of this man and his unconcealed plans to bring about a world-wide caliphate that we could achieve a reasonable settlement with these “Holocaust Deniers “
Lest anyone fails to grasp exactly what appeasement , indecision and weakness gain us in the world we have this stark reminder from a time when the US was saddled with an equally ineffectual , narcissistic administration .
” For better than a month, the Obama administration has been dodging and weaving over what actually transpired in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11-12. Questions have been posed about why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was there and not at his embassy post in Tripoli.
Congressional investigators have asked why he had no security detail, why the State Department decided not to send in U.S. Marine embassy security guards when they were offered months before, why contingency plans were not in place on the anniversary of 9/11 and why the O-Team insisted for so long that the attack on our U.S. diplomatic post was a “spontaneous event” and not an act of terrorism.
By now, all should realize that truthful answers to these inquiries will not be furnished by the White House or State Department until after the presidential election on Nov. 6. But there is an even more important question that should be asked and answered now: Once the White House knew about the attack in Benghazi, what action did the president take to protect or save the lives of Americans?
“We the People” need to know the answer because we are about to hire — or rehire — a commander in chief. The response is crucial to determining whether the incumbent is competent enough to fulfill the responsibilities of the job or whether he should be replaced. Fortunately, we have a standard of behavior for a commander in chief in a previous well-documented terror event: Ronald Reagan during the Achille Lauro incident. “