The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment
And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....
T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
Reagan became president when the United States was in a period of great stress, just after the tenure of Jimmy Carter. Inflation and interest rates were in double digits and unemployment was close to 7%, taxes were at an all time high, America's foreign policy and international prestige were reeling from the Iranian hostage crisis, severe cutbacks in defense and successful Soviet penetration all over the world.
Worse than that, Americans seemed to have lost confidence in themselves and in the country's greatness.
Reagan squared his shoulders, rolled up his sleeves and got to work. He cut government, cut taxes, and oversaw the creation of 16 million new jobs and economic growth at 3.5 % per year. He rebuilt America's military. He was unafraid to call the Soviet Union an evil empire, or to challenge them directly so that their evil empire crumpled into the dust of history.
He left America safer, stronger and wealthier than it was when he came, which is the most you can ask of a president. In simple terms, he was a singularly decent man who honored both himself and the nation he served.
He gave us confidence in ourselves again, reminded us of who we are and that we are a country singularly blessed by G-d's providence. He inspired us as a nation. And he did it with grace, charm, wit and style, and with a sunny optimism that reached out to the best in us.
If ever a president deserved a national holiday to honor him, President Reagan does.
He was by no means perfect, as he would doubtless be the first to say. But in Ronald Reagan, we have an example of what real leadership is, an example especially needed today.
Happy Birthday, Mr. President...We Miss You!!!
** And let us remember this conservative yet practical leader in the upcoming elections of 2014 and 2016. Reagan's old and proven formula was to unite behind the most conservative and principled candidate(s) available, and to make sure he or she knew that 2-years, let alone 10-months, isn't that far away. It won't be perfect, but it will even put RINO’s who survive on notice that times have changed!!
You’ve taken a great story about a real person and real events and twisted it into a bunch of lies.
You took the true story of Eugene Allen, the White House butler who served eight presidents from 1952 to 1986, and turned it into a clichéd “message movie.”
“Lee Daniels’ The Butler’” stars Forest Whitaker as Cecil Gaines, a fictional character supposedly based on Eugene Allen’s real life.
But let’s compare the two White House butlers.
Guess which one grew up in segregated Virginia, got a job at the White House and rose to become maître d’hôtel, the highest position in White House service?
Guess which one had a happy, quiet life and was married to the same woman for 65 years? And who had one son who served honorably in Vietnam and never made a peep of protest through the pre- and post-civil rights era?
Now guess which butler grew up on a Georgia farm, watched the boss rape his mother and then, when his father protested the rape, watched the boss put a bullet through his father’s head?
Guess which butler feels the pain of America’s racial injustices so deeply that he quits his White House job and joins his son in a protest movement?
And guess which butler has a wife (Oprah Winfrey) who becomes an alcoholic and has a cheap affair with the guy next door? (I’m surprised it wasn’t the vice president.)
After comparing Hollywood’s absurd version of Eugene Allen’s life story with the truth, you wonder why the producers didn’t just call it “The Butler from Another Planet.”
Screenwriter Danny Strong says he was trying to present a “backstage kind of view of the White House” that portrayed presidents and first ladies as they really were in everyday life.
Well, I was backstage at the White House -- a few hundred times. I met and knew the real butler, Mr. Allen, and I knew a little about my father.
Portraying Ronald Reagan as a racist because he was in favor of lifting economic sanctions against South Africa is simplistic and dishonest.
If you knew my father, you’d know he was the last person on Earth you would call a racist.
If Strong had gotten his “facts” from the Reagan biographies, he’d have learned that when my father was playing football at Eureka College one of his best friends was a black teammate.
Strong also would have learned that my father invited black players home for dinner and once, when two players were not allowed to stay in the local hotel, he invited them to stay overnight at his house.
Screenwriter Strong also might have found out that when my father was governor of California he appointed more blacks to positions of power than any of predecessors -- combined.
It’s appalling to me that someone is trying to imply my father was a racist. He and Nancy and the rest of the Reagan family treated Mr. Allen with the utmost respect.
It was Nancy Reagan who invited the butler to dinner – not to work but as guest. And it was my father who promoted Mr. Allen to maître d’hôtel.
The real story of the White House butler doesn’t imply racism at all. It’s simply Hollywood liberals wanting to believe something about my father that was never there.
My father’s position on lifting the South African sanctions in the ‘80s had nothing to do with the narrow issue of race. It had to do with the geopolitics of the Cold War.
But facts don’t matter to Hollywood’s creative propagandists. Truth is too complicated and not dramatic enough for scriptwriters, who think in minute terms, not the big picture, when it comes to a conservative.
Despite what Hollywood’s liberal hacks believe, my father didn’t see people in colors. He saw them as individual Americans. If the liberals in Hollywood -- and Washington -- ever start looking at people the way he did, the country will be a lot better off.
In a story published on The US Report, about the casting of ‘Hanoi’ Jane as Nancy Reagan, the director acknowledges his political activism and admitted the insult was intentional…
The Butler (Kindle) is (would be) a terrific story that deserves to be told. Too bad it wasn’t told by honest people without political agendas who felt it necessary to use a traitor to portray one of our most beloved first ladies (insulting Vietnam Vets of all colors) and to distort much of history. Perhaps reading Wes Haygood’s book The Butler: A Witness to History would be a better option!?! Or at least wait until the movie comes to (free) TV, if you watch it knowing the slant and bias the movie is based on.
Mark Levin appeared on Hannity (on 08.16.13) along with a great expert conservative panel for a full hour special to discuss his new bestseller, The Liberty Amendments (Kindle), and the solutions for America covered therein. For anyone who is not familiar with Mark Levin, he is an attorney, radio talk show host, Constitutional expert and served as part of Ronald Reagan’s team. Great questions from the panel and a great discussion with Levin.
Levin said, “We are living in a ‘Post Constitutional World’”, but reminded us that the Founders of our country and writers of the Constitution gave us article 5… for just such a time. Many conservatives have been afraid to go move forward with a Constitutional Convention to reclaim the Republic, but as Levin pointed out… what is there to be afraid of? The other side already has and does what they want. He said there are, of course no guarantees of the outcome, but he said he does know what the outcome will be if we continue going down the road we are now on. Mark offers what he call the Liberty Amendments and a pathway for Americans to take to save the Republic.
Only 20% of America consider themselves to be liberals or Progressives. 40% consider themselves to be Conservatives. And the other 40% are pretty much disengaged. Yet the 20% are wagging the dog…
Watch highlights below:
Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 1
Human Events: Radio host Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, is one of the most focused, accessible, and aggressive political books you’ll ever find. Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair. After all, if the power of the legislature has been diminished relative to the executive, the executive has dispersed its disproportionate power into unelected bureaucracies, and the states are increasingly powerless vassals of Washington, then there is no way for the peoples’ representatives in Congress or state houses to draft laws that would correct the situation. The entire point of this century-long quest to centralize power was to remove it from the clumsy hands of foolish American citizens. We are spectators to a game show in Washington. We might be able to vote a few of the contestants off the show, but we have no control over the rules of the game.
Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.
A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever. The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process. One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.
Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.
Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.
Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.
I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.
The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?
If you want to bring the ship of state into drydock, instead of slightly adjusting its course,The Liberty Amendmentsprovides an excellent set of schematics. Levin’s strategy is the only way for the American people to have a say on all the things we’ve been told we don’t get to vote on any more. Reading this book will help you appreciate the terrible magnitude of what we have lost, and the intractable nature of an arrogant system that dictates to us instead of representing us, appropriating the language of “democracy” to dignify what really amounts to quelling dissent against whatever the ruling class wants to do next. And if you’re not already a Constitutional scholar of Mark Levin’s caliber, you might be surprised to learn just how accurately the supposedly out-of-touch and obsolete Founders predicted everything happening today. Why, reading Chapter Eight ofThe Liberty Amendments, you’d think John Adams was taking daily delivery of the New York Times through a time warp. I suspect he and his peers would have little argument with Levin’s recommendations.
Saturday, August 17, 12pm - Book Revue - Huntington, NY
Sunday, August 18, 11am - Bookends - Ridgewood, NJ
Saturday, August 24, 10am - Barnes & Noble - Tysons Corner, VA
Saturday, September 7, 1:30pm - Reagan Library - Simi Valley, CA - Mark Levin to give a lecture and book signing at the Reagan Library on September 7th.
I posted this video once before, but this week, with the death of Ronald Reagan’s good friend and ally Lady Thatcher, has brought back many memories from that era in history and it seemed only fitting to post it again for those who have not heard it.
Ronald Reagan's church put this together to commemorate the birthday of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately the war against the evil of liberalism is still alive and well, and we fight it even at Bel Air Presbyterian. The liberal Presbyterians are doing all they can to pervert the church from the inside out. Fortunately the conservative Christians are strong at Bel Air. (Those Presbyterians from Reagan’s era might be very surprised at the direction their church has chosen.) Ronald Reagan loved Bel Air Presbyterian as I do...Enjoy!
Below is a quick transcript of the narration from the video above.
“Someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the president and I had to say, “Yes, I am”. I’ve felt it…..I believe inintercessionary prayer, but I couldn’t help but say to that questioner after - that sometimes when he was praying if he got a busy signal – it was just me in there [praying] ahead of him.
I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming convictions I have that have nowhere else to go.”
Now I realize it is fashionable in some circles, to believe that no one in government should encourage others to read the Bible. That we are told that will violate the constitutional separation of church and state, established by the founding fathers in the first amendment. The first amendment was NOT written to protect people and their laws from religious values, it was written to protect those [ religious] values from government tyranny.
I’ve said that we must be cautious in claiming God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is “Are we are on His side?”
No matter where we live, we have a promise that can make all the difference. A promise from Jesus to soothe our sorrows heal our hearts and drive away our fears.
He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning
He promised if our hearts are true, His love will be as sure as sunlight.
And by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go – all the way.
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Inaudible [Spanish]
Americans yearn to explore life’s deepest truths. To say their entertainment ….their idea of entertainment - is sex and violence and crime is an insult to their goodness and intelligence.
We are people who believe love can triumph over hate - creativity over destruction and hope over despair.
That’s why so many millions hunger for God’s good News. I have always believed that we were ….each of us put here for a reason we were put here for a reason that there is a plan.
Somehow A divine plan for all of us
I know now that whatever days are left to me - belong to Him.
I also believe this blessed land was set apart in a very special way.
Our forebearers came not for gold, but mainly in search of God and the freedom to worship in their own way. We have been a free people living under the law with faith in our maker and our future. I have said before that the most sublime picture in American history is of George Washington on his knees in the snow at Valley Forge. That image personifies a people who know it is not enough to depend on our own courage and goodness, we must also seek help from God our Father and preserver.
We’ll never find every answer, solve every problem or heal every wound, but we can do a lot if we walk together down that one path that we know provides real hope.
The morality and values such faith implies are deeply embedded in our national character. Our country embraces those principles by design and we abandon them at our peril.
My experience in this office I hold has only deepened the belief I have held for many years.
Within the covers of that single Book are all the answers to all the problems that face us today, if we would only read and believe.
President Ronald Reagan, Blessed (Pope) John Paul II, Prime Minister (Baroness) Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev (the General Secretary Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) ended the Cold War and changed the face of the world. Reagan and Thatcher were political soul mates, making our countries even closer allies than they had been before.
Sadly like relations with our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, The Obama Administration was conspicuous by its absence, at the Thatcher funeral. It would have greatly surprised, saddened and disappointed President Reagan. Obama and his administration said it was ‘too busy’ to send anyone just now, and this was before the Boston bombings. There was no official American envoy sent to Thatcher’s funeral. It was a disgrace! America was (unofficially) represented by former Secretaries of State James Baker III, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, all of whom attended as private persons. And by a small private, mostly Republican delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives, including former Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn and Tim Holden. Senator John McCain and former V.P Dick Cheney also attended as private citizens because there was no official American envoy sent.
Obama and company, as well as the Clintons and all the Bushes, all stayed home. Shameful.
*First Lady Nancy Reagan and President George H.W. Bush were too ill to travel.
And they still hate her for it… Evil always despises strength and Baroness Margaret Thatcher was holy water to the vampiric Progressive Left. The Lioness of the British Isles roared onto the scene with Ronald Reagan and John Paul II to fight Communism and oppression. The Iron Lady, depicted here by Meryl Streep from the movie ‘The Iron Lady’ [Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Combo), was a warrior for freedom and she will forever be admired by me and millions of others.
Some people call it a coincidence — I think it’s more than that — that at the same time in the world we had Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. During those years were the only time in my lifetime where the left was actually turned back. Not just stopped, but defeated and turned back. It was the only time in my life. Poland, Berlin, Moscow, the United States. Wherever. Those three leaders on the political stage, the world stage at the same time, did more for freedom and liberty for people all over this world than any three people since the founding of this country — and they all served at the same time, overlapping.
Today we say goodbye to a towering figure of the 20th century. With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we’ve sadly lost the last living member of that great triumvirate that included Ronald Reagan and John Paul II – those giants who defeated the evil empire of Soviet Communism and allowed the liberation of its captive nations. We’ve also lost one of the great champions of economic freedom and democratic ideals.
The Grocer’s Daughter was indeed iconic and one of the greatest leaders of our time. She was not afraid to voice her opinions and go toe to toe with the Leftists – summarily wiping the political floor with them time and again. A debater that had no equal, she used facts and logic as her weapons of choice, burnishing their mortal impact with eloquent prose and stunning delivery. Thatcher was a titan spearheading accomplishment, while dragging Progressives kicking and screaming into the light of capitalistic success and growth:
She put those beliefs into action. Like Reagan, she was a leader for whom word and deed were one and the same. A leader of a conservative think tank behind the Thatcher revolution famously said, “We were not interested in political office for the Conservative party. We were interested in power for them to get things done.” And that’s exactly what Thatcher did. While others in her party were interested in holding on to political office and overseeing “the orderly management of [Britain's] decline,” she actually radically reformed a broken system and brought it back to free-market principles, leaving her country stronger, wealthier, and a leader in the world when just a decade before it had been dismissed as “the sick man of Europe.” Her push to privatize British industry and lower tax rates led to a substantial economic expansion and became a model for other countries shrugging off the yoke of socialism.
She knew what Ronald Reagan knew. That free markets and a free people are the best defense against tyranny and that peace comes through strength, not accommodation.
Prophetic in her vision for a stronger Britain as well as a freer world, Thatcher diagnosed the Socialist disease that plagues the globe and offered the cure of smaller government, lower taxation and economic expansion. Her enemies put forth wealth redistribution and equal misery for all with more taxation, regulation and government rule. It is small wonder her enemies celebrate her death in the streets, but all Americans and the world should reflect and hold in wonder the ideals of Margaret Thatcher, while reimplementing them before it is too late. Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Progressivism never succeed, they always fail. They end in massive death, poverty and misery. The world cries out for another Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher to deliver us from One World rule.
Will America once again follow the vision of Reagan and Thatcher? We do indeed stand at the crossroads of history — a choice between what the Founding Fathers saw in smaller government, less regulation, less taxation and the power lying with the States and the people vs. the horrific future of the Progressive Left with an all-encompassing Nanny State, never-ending regulation and government control, crony capitalism and dictatorial rule.
What can you say about Margaret Thatcher’s accomplishments? She was a green grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s Prime Minister, who did her best to reverse what she clearly saw as her country’s decline, who led Britain in war and peace, who survived a terrorist assassination by the IRA that killed five people.This was someone who put principle first, who informed the people who wanted business as usual that this lady was not for turning. She literally scared Britain’s Socialist establishment witless by pointing out loudly and clearly what they were doing to her country and where it would ultimately lead.
I identify with Baroness Thatcher. I consider her my role model and I grieve her passing. Her legacy, however, will live on and so will our fight for conservative ideals and individual liberty. The fight will never end while Communism lives. While Constitutional Conservatives fight to regain America’s freedoms, Democrats are blocking a resolution to honor Lady Thatcher. How sick and twisted is that? It shows a dearth of character and a lack of morality. I guess they only honor commies these days. The death of morality presages the death of a country. Always.
Free societies demand more care and devotion than any others. They are, moreover, the only societies with moral foundations, and those foundations are evident in their political, economic, legal, cultural, and, most importantly, spiritual life.
We who are living in the West today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. Others before us have done so. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the wider world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom.
Heritage’s Nile Gardiner on the Passing of Margaret Thatcher
I intend to honor Margaret Thatcher by continuing the research into and the hunt for Progressives on both sides of the political aisle. You can see my research and work with Trevor Loudon over at KeyWiki.org. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, “Our job is to stop America from going Red.”
To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.
I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
My job is to stop Britain from going red.
There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.
They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.
Socialists cry “Power to the people,” and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State.
Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. … In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.
Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.
I owe nothing to Women’s Lib.
Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.
Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.
Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people’s bills.
Let us never forget this fundamental truth: The State has no source of money other than the money people themselves earn.
Let me give you my vision: A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master.
All corporatism – even when practised in societies where hard work, enterprise and cooperation are as highly valued as in Korea – encourages inflexibility, discourages individual accountability, and risks magnifying errors by concealing them.
Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper.
It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake.
No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.
Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.
People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.
When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality – other than equality before the law – that government poses a threat to liberty.
Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.
Socialism’s results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic – poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people. Against that doctrine was set a contrary, conservative belief in a law-governed liberty. It was this view which triumphed with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Since then, the Left has sought rehabilitation by distancing itself from its past.
Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.
“Margaret Thatcher was a freedom fighter, a lover of capitalism and promoter of free societies and the rights of the people; a symbol of strength for the world!! You either loved her or hated her, but nobody ignored her!! Had she not been suffering from dementia (caused by a series of strokes… and a stroke ultimately killed her) the past several years, like her good friend Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s the last years of his life, she would not have believed what has happened to America and the West and would certainly have been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration and many of the policies in her own country! ”
“Margaret Thatcher was a freedom fighter, a lover of capitalism and promoter of free societies and the rights of the people; a symbol of strength for the world!! You either loved her or hated her, but nobody ignored her!! Had she not been suffering from dementia (caused by a series of strokes… and a stroke ultimately killed her) the past several years, like her good friend Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s the last years of his life, she would not have believed what has happened to America and the West and would certainly have been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration and many of the policies in her own country ” …Marion Algier - Ask Marion~
British Prime Minister Cameron said Margaret Thatcher not only led Great Britain, she saved Her. Thatcher took on the unions, turned her country around and helped change the course of the world. She was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th Century. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thatcher’s global influence was immense.
RUSH/EIB: She was purely formal and sophisticated. I don't mean boring and dull and old-fashioned. She carried herself with a dignity and a self-respect and a seriousness that led no one to question who she really was. If you ever had the chance to be around her, you would know that she was in person as you saw her on television. She was committed, she was serious. She was formal. She was great woman, a great human being…
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Margaret Thatcher has passed away, and that will be the first thing we get into when we come back from the break. We've got some audio sound bites from Lady Thatcher. Lady Thatcher, I was very fortunate to know. Because of some friends of mine who knew her, I was often invited to social occasions with her. I must have spent quality time with Lady Thatcher on 10 to 15 different occasions, all in the 1990s. I've regaled you with some of the stories.
In every one of those instances -- every one -- she was identically the same. She was purely formal and sophisticated. I don't mean boring and dull and old-fashioned. She carried herself with a dignity and a self-respect and a seriousness that led no one to question who she really was. If you ever had the chance to be around her, you would know that she was in person as you saw her on television. She was committed, she was serious. She was formal. She was great woman, a great human being.
Some people call it a coincidence -- I think it's more than that -- that at the same time in the world we had Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. During those years were the only time in my lifetime where the left was actually turned back. Not just stopped, but defeated and turned back. It was the only time in my life. Poland, Berlin, Moscow, the United States. Wherever. Those three leaders on the political stage, the world stage at the same time, did more for freedom and liberty for people all over this world than any three people since the founding of this country -- and they all served at the same time, overlapping.
Lady Thatcher is the only one of the three that I met, and I got to know her very well.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's a little trivia question. Does anybody out there know who it was that decided to call Margaret Thatcher "the Iron Lady"? Any idea who it was? It was not Neil Kinnock, and therefore not Joe Biden. It was not a British politician. It was not an American politician. It was no one in the media, at least in the Western media. It was the Soviet news agency Tass that called her, that dubbed Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady, and the West's Drive-By Media gleefully picked up on that.
Tass did not mean it to be a compliment, neither did the American Drive-By Media, but of course it turned out to be one. Margaret Thatcher reminded me of my grandfather. My grandfather was serious all the time. He wore a jacket and tie every day of the year -- Saturday, Sunday, no matter what -- because he worked every day. Lady Thatcher was serious. She was funny, but she was serious. Everything mattered. One of the many things she said that I've never forgotten -- and there were a lot of them, but this one has always stuck with me -- was "Consensus is the absence of leadership."
Consensus is now the objective in this country.
To her, it meant no leadership.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, don't misunderstand when I say that Lady Thatcher was serious. I don't mean that she was boring and constantly talking about weighty things that only a few people were interested in. Quite the opposite. She was filled with self-respect and dignity. And she knew who she was. She's the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, this during the time I knew her. She was proud of that, but that meant something, that had requirements that she was never, ever going to lapse. She was always going to fulfill. She had a great sense of humor, and it was a very dry wit.
The friends of mine who made it possible for me to know her are great people here in Palm Beach, Gay and Stanley Gaines, and they'd known her for many, many years, and Lady Thatcher was entirely willing to attend dinner parties with their friends. Many people would beg off something like that. "Please, I don't want to hang around a bunch of people I don't know. Please, Gay, I came to see you." No, there would be dinner parties with ten people, 25, 30 people. And whatever was asked of her, she attempted to comply, every question. Everybody that wanted to ask her about something was given her full attention. I remember one particular evening, it was the end of the week, it had been a long week for me, and I showed up, cocktail party, dinner. I sit down at dinner and Gay immediately says, "Okay, Rush, what's the latest in..."
I said, "Gay, I'm tired. I just don't want to talk about politics right now." Of course the table looked, "You don't want to talk politics? Do you understand who's sitting here?" She was seated next to me. And I said, "No." At the time I just didn't want to be on stage. I was exhausted, I was worn out, and I just wanted to listen. And Gay kept trying to urge me, and Lady Thatcher said, "Gay, he doesn't wish to speak about politics. So let's talk of the rule of law," and, bam, there we are off on a discussion, the rule of law. She loved the founders. She absolutely thought they were the most brilliant people, 'cause they were Brits, don't forget. Our founders were British. She loved them.
She loved Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was it. But she loved them all. She knew the history of this country better than most people in this country do, and she revered it. She was one of the greatest Americans, quote, unquote, that I've ever met.
Let's go to the some audio sound bites. First up, we have her appearing with William Buckley on Firing Line, 1977. At the time she's a member of parliament, Conservative Party leader. She's not the Prime Minister yet. Buckley said, "What is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism?" This is important. At the time, British socialism was in the process of crumbling, 1977. Of course today it's back with a vengeance, with its tentacles more deeply hooked than ever. But in 1977 it was collapsing. It was on the way. She finished the job.
"What is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism; and what, in fact, has been learned from the failure of British socialism? In a recent speech, Mrs. Thatcher said, 'We observe what happens elsewhere and draw lessons from it, but we are aware that different national traditions, experience, and religious values affect the total political and economic situation.' Question: Does the failure of British socialism have the same meaning for the United States as, say, for Venezuela?"
THATCHER: There are two ways in which any government can proceed. One is a way based on what you and I would call a free society, which is enshrined right at the heart of the American Constitution. The other one is a way which allows only one view both of economics and politics and which almost everything is either owned or controlled by the state, including the media, including the ideas, including freedom of discussion and everything. There is no freedom of discussion. Now, between those two ways, the free society and the totally controlled society, there are, of course, variations. I think what we've learned in Britain is that we've gradually, over the last certainly 12 or 13 years, with perhaps a little interruption, gone slowly further and further away from the free society towards something else.
RUSH: So she was in a way disagreeing with Buckley, who was asking about the failure of -- well, not really disagreeing. He was talking about the failure, but not the demise that had yet to happen, and it didn't begin to happen until she became Prime Minister. So after pointing out that Britain had moved further away from a free society in 1977, she continued with this.
THATCHER: At the same time we've found -- I don't find it strange, but some other people do -- that we have stopped creating wealth. We've had a large number of increasing restrictions. And you've been finding two things: First, that we are more and more concentrating on redistributing the wealth we've got, rather than creating any more. To create more, you need a slightly freer society, and you need an incentive society. Naturally when I see that happening, I look with very great alarm to societies which have gone even further left. That is, they've tried to redistribute even more and haven't had the incentives for people working hard on their own account, doing well for their families and often then being able to create jobs for others, they've produced a much more prosperous society than we have. But by and large you've got the two broad, different economic and political approaches.
RUSH: Here we are, 1977, and again, the value here, not just an illustration of who Lady Thatcher was, for those who don't know, but rather in 1977 it was known what is known today. And it was being executed then, as it's being executed now. And in 1977 it failed, i.e., the redistribution of wealth, the stoppage and the creation of wealth, which happens at the same time. The moment a society becomes redistributive, it stops creating wealth. She was cataloging current circumstances in Britain in 1977. And this was, of course, to set up her eventual triumph as prime minister.
But, you see, it serves to illustrate that the left is always what it is. There's nothing new about it. Its failure is commonplace. It has never worked. It has never succeeded. The left, after destroying one free society after another, has to keep finding another to run their experiments on because each time they try, they destroy. They destroy the creation of wealth. They disincentivize the creation of wealth with the redistribution of wealth by creating more and more recipients for having done nothing. And so they create a vicious cycle, spinning in onto itself, which is self-destructive, and it's happening here now. It's happening throughout the world. The thing that is most difficult for me to understand is it's never succeeded. And yet people turn to it still with as much hope as they ever have.
So what's the allure? It's never worked. It never will work. But in the short term, it does work for those who don't wish to work. That's the problem. It does work temporarily for those who are the beneficiaries of all this. In America today, 90 million people aren't working, 90 million. Last month, folks, talked about this on Friday, 633,000 people stopped looking for work. The labor force participation rate grew by over half a million people, in one month. Those are jobs that have vanished. Every one of those people is eating, and pretty much what they want to eat. Every one of them has a cell phone, and every one of them has no trouble getting around. They all live somewhere. And so to them, you say, "Well, it's not working."
"Well, it is for me; I don't have a job, and I'm doing well. It's working fine for me."
And this is how they sell it, catalog it, success. They're never around when the total implosion takes place. And while a society is crumbling and imploding, an implosion and crumbling that they are causing, the people on the left, they succeed in blaming their opponents for it, which is where we are now. Republicans are responsible for everything rotten happening in the country. It's all part of the left's tactics. The thing is, my friends, the people on the left know it's going to fail always, too. They are not -- I mean, you've got maybe some young leftists coming out of college with rosy scenarios of their future, rose-colored glasses, and they think they're onto something here, utopia.
But the left, the adults know it isn't gonna work, never has worked, that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to enshrine them as elites. Its purpose is to gain them power. But in terms of a workable way of governing a country, it fails, has failed, every time it's tried. Brief time-out. More Margaret Thatcher sound bites when we come back.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: November 22nd, 1900, House of Commons in London, Margaret Thatcher delivering her final speech as prime minister. During the speech, she yielded time to a member of Parliament, Mr. Simon Hughes, who said, "There is no doubt the Prime Minister has in many ways achieved substantial success. But there is one statistic that I understand has not, however, challenged you, and that is that over her 11 years, the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in this country has widened substantially.
"How can she say at the end of her chapter of British policies that she can justify many people in the constituency such as mine being relatively poorer, much less well housed, much less well provided than it was in 1979? Surely the gentlelady accepts that it is not a record that she or any prime minister can be proud of," and of course there were the hoots and hollers, and this is what she said, again, delivering her final speech as PM...
THATCHER: He would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That was the liberal policy! Yes, it came out! He didn't intend it to, but he did. I give way to the honorable gentleman.
MAN: The prime minister is aware but I detest every single one of her domestic policies and I have never hidden that fact..
THATCHER: And I think that the honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who have experienced them. I think I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies are they'd rather have the poor poorer. Once they start to talk about "the gap," they'd rather the gap was that, down there. That. Not there. But that. So long as the gap is smaller -- so long as the gap is smaller -- they'd rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, that's called push-back. That's called standing up for what you believe. That's called standing up for your principles. It's called not being shouted down, not being a coward, not being afraid, not worrying about what is said about you. Which, by the way, she also detested: People who were consumed with what other people thought about them. She said, "They will never amount to anything, and we will never know who they truly are," but she called these people out.
The same argument here.
"Under your policies the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer." No, under your policies the poor are getting poorer and everybody's getting poorer and that's all you care about. If the poor get poorer, that's fine with you as long as the rich do! That's what she was shouting back at this liberal. One woman against all these liberals in the House of Commons. There is no such leader in America today. There is no such push-back. There is no one defending the founding, conservatism, whatever. The concept of private property, wealth creation. Not publicly, not defiantly, not pushing back. It doesn't happen.
Here is her tribute to Ronald Reagan, February 3rd, 2004, Simi Valley, California.
THATCHER: You strode into our midst at a time when America needed you most. This great country had been through a period of national malaise bereft of any sense of moral direction. Through it all, throughout eight of the fastest-moving years in memory, you were unflappable and unyielding. You were not only America's president, important as that is, you were a great leader. In a time of average men, you have stood taller than anyone else.
RUSH: Margaret Thatcher, Simi Valley, California, February 3rd, 1994. This was at a birthday gala for Reagan. Here she wraps it up, praising Reagan's toughness...
THATCHER: With a toughness unseen for the long time, you stood face-to-face with the Evil Empire, and with an unexpected diplomacy which confused your foes -- and even some of your friends --
AUDIENCE: (rippling laughter)
THATCHER: -- you reached out to that empire, perhaps no longer evil but still formidable. You met its leaders on their turf, but on your terms.
RUSH: That's Reagan's 83rd birthday gala in Simi Valley, California.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Lady Thatcher really was transformative in the true sense of the word. She transformed the UK, during her time, from socialist left to a free market, wealth-creating free society -- and she is hated and reviled today in her own country, by the media, much as conservatives in this country are, but there's the no denying what she accomplished, what she achieved, and how she did it.
END TRANSCRIPT
Margaret Thatcher Bio
Thatcher was born on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England, Margaret Thatcher became Britain's Conservative Party leader and in 1979 was elected prime minister, the first woman to hold the position. During her three terms, she cut social welfare programs, reduced trade union power and privatized certain industries. Thatcher resigned in 1991 due to unpopular policy and power struggles in her party. She died on April 8, 2013, at age 87.
Politician and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was born as Margaret Hilda Roberts on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England. Nicknamed the "Iron Lady," Thatcher served as the prime minister of England from 1979 to 1990. The daughter of a local businessman, she was educated at a local grammar school, Grantham Girls' High School. Her family operated a grocery store and they all lived in an apartment above the store. In her early years, Thatcher was introduced to conservative politics by her father, who was a member of the town's council.
A good student, Thatcher was accepted to Oxford University, where she studied chemistry at Somerville College. One of her instructors was the Dorothy Hodgkin, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Politically active in her youth, Thatcher served as president of the Conservative Association at the university. She earned a degree in chemistry in 1947, and went on to work as a research chemist in Colchester. Later, she worked as a research chemist in Dartford.
Two years after graduating from college, Thatcher made her first bid for public office. She ran as the conservative candidate for a Dartford parliamentary seat in the 1950 elections. Thatcher knew from the start that it would be nearly impossible to win the position away from the liberal Labour Party. Still she earned the respect of her political party peers with her speeches. Defeated, Thatcher remained undaunted, trying again the following year, but once more her efforts were unsuccessful. Two months after her loss, she married Denis Thatcher.
In 1952, Thatcher put politics aside for a time to study law. She and her husband welcomed twins Carol and Mark the next year. After completing her training, Thatcher qualified as a barrister, a type of lawyer, in 1953. But she didn't stay away from the political arena for too long. Thatcher won a seat in the House of Commons in 1959, representing Finchley.
Clearly a woman on the rise, Thatcher was appointed parliamentary under secretary for pensions and national insurance in 1961. When the Labour Party assumed control of the government, she became a member of what is called the Shadow Cabinet, a group of political leaders who would hold Cabinet-level posts if their party was in power.
When Conservatives returned to office in June 1970, Thatcher was appointed secretary of state for education and science, and dubbed "Thatcher, milk snatcher," after her abolition of the universal free school milk scheme. She found her position frustrating, not because of all the bad press around her actions, but because she had difficulty getting Prime Minister Edward Heath to listen to her ideas. Read Full Bio HERE
Cold Warriors: President Roland Reagan, Blessed John Paul II, & Baroness Margaret Thatcher (The Blaze)
There must be a great reunion going on in Heaven right now!!
Thatcher, Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Gorbachev ended the Cold War
Daniel Janin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images - Prime Minister Thatcher greeted residents who gathered to see her in Moscow during a visit in 1987. More Photos »
We’re deeply saddened at the loss of Margaret Thatcher. While the Iron Lady is sadly gone, her iron will, her unfailing trust in what is right and just, and her lessons to all of us will live on forever. She was a trailblazer like no other. We lost an icon, but her legacy, as solid as iron, will live on in perpetuity. ~ Sarah Palin
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." ~ Margaret Thatcher Hmmm… Sound like anyone we know?
thecommunists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, I did not protest; I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Election 2014 - What Is Really At Stake
Help Stop Voter Fraud!! Stand for the Constitution and God
Time to remember that: "We Surround Them", not the other way!
Stand Up Against Voter Fraud... Demand Re-Counts and Verification Until It is Right!! A Little Ink Goes a Long Way Toward Honesty... 1 Person 1 Vote... No More Mickey Mouse or Dead People Voting
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about IT! --Albert Einstein
Call Congress Today and Tell Them To Vote Against Cap and Trade
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain
Thanks for calling the Congressional switchboard. Keep up the pressure: "NO on Cap and Trade"!!! "NO Vote on Obamacare", NO on another Stimulus Bill, NO to the never ending parade of "Power Grab Bills", and ABSOLUTELY NO on the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen!!
"No" on Cap and Trade and "No" on Government Controlled Healthcare!!! And Keep up the good fight! Keep up the Pressure on both the House and Senate! These are 2-fights the American People cannot afford to lose!!!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
We apologize in advance for any Videos or links that are not functioning in these or other older posts. Internet information... like 'true' history in our student's textbooks are under constant attack by the Progressive Movement and even more so under the present administration. Try to save what you can to your own computer.
"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly
Updated:If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.
l Kinnock, and therefore not Joe Biden. It was not a British politician. It was not an American politician. It was no one in the media, at least in the Western media. It was the Soviet news agency Tass that called her, that dubbed Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady, and the West's Drive-By Media gleefully picked up on that.
Thatcher was born on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England, Margaret Thatcher became Britain's Conservative Party leader and in 1979 was elected prime minister, the first woman to hold the position. During her three terms, she cut social welfare programs, reduced trade union power and privatized certain industries. Thatcher resigned in 1991 due to unpopular policy and power struggles in her party. She died on April 8, 2013, at age 87.
