Posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:25 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Was Roosevelt a good president?
Posted: June 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.
Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.
However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.
Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?
If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.
Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.
My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.
Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.
"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.
I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.
He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.
"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.
Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?
Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.
It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.
But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.
FDR for calming fear during the depression which led to a confident public that he could also help defeat the Axis with a little help from his friends, the British and Soviet Union.
HST for using the United Nations to prosecute the Korean conflict and reasserting civilian control of the military by sacking General MacArthur.
RWR for ending the Cold War with a little help from his friends, the British and Soviet Union.
The presence of Mr. Gorbachev and Mrs. Thatcher in the National Cathedral was the only proof anyone needs to agree that RWR is fully deserving of the honors bestowed, but we should always remember that no one achieves greatnest without a little help from his friends...and RWR clearly had more than enough of the right caliber.
As to the article by Fatlip Farah? Using this approach to belittle President Bush is all the proof anyone needs to agree that Farah is an ass.
No question that a great deal of damage was done by Hoover and the Congress at the time. In particular the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed in 1930 was the stupidest piece of legislation passed by Congress in the first half of the 20C.( and it had some strong competition) However FDR ran on a platform that he was going to do a lot of good things and then when elected promptly did all the wrong things in spades. In essence he set up a fascist/socialist state. The FDR administration virtually nationalised most major industries by forcing them into Government cartels. Hoover did a lot of damage but it pales in comparison with what FDR did.
"Rural life provides our most basic need: food. So any 'just monetary regime' should be rooted in a new little world order for the countryside that embraces the needs of sound horticulture and animal husbandry, traditional woodlands management and the provision of family shelter from local materials."
YES!! Of course, socialists do not like independent family farms; so taxes and low commodity prices forced them out of the countryside where they were integrated into a natural society of family and community; to the slums of the industrial cities, where they became cheap labor for the profit-minded big capitalists, adrift as atomized individuals.
Yes, there was some excess labor in the countryside; but it should be possible to economically survive -- even prosper, as immigrant farmer families did here in the mid- nineteenth century. Remember "small town America"? Where small store owners and farmers had large white houses, well-maintained? (Not the double-wides which are now populating rural America).
The depopulation of rural America continues apace. Yes, the children are leaving for "better opportunities" -- some with professional jobs, etc. But why are there no opportunities at home, where they can integrate with a managable society? Because you can't make a living there. When the farmers have no money, the small towns close down. The remaining farmers have to travel 30 miles to the nearest WalMart for a light bulb, because the local hardware on the square of the town a couple miles from them, is no longer in business . . .
You get in rural America factory farms, which are not sustainable because the farmer-husbandman cannot control erosion as well in the large open fields necessary to raise a crop with hopefully enough "efficiency" to pay for the seed and planting costs! You get stinky factory pig and chicken farms, where the waste is too much for the area upon which the animals are confined; and the city people are buying cheap but force fed and not vigorous animals.
Wise up America! Support LOCAL produce, and family farm produced meat. Buy at the county fair auction! Support your local producers! You get what you pay for; and if you buy cheap factory meat, you are buying the future of rural America -- and it won't be picture-postcard pretty.
"thanks to Wilson"
who died a sick and broken man after he violated his own 14 Points in order to buy votes from other countries for his beloved League of Nations -- which failed to pass the US Senate! He played not only socialist, but Utopianist with the map of Europe, which was no small factor in the spiral to WW II.
Playing god with OTHER people's lives, OTHER people's national boundries, OTHER people's money, to FORCE HIS idea of social utopia upon them . . . NO man is wise enough for that. What hubris, what pride (in the sin of pride sense) to think that HE knew better! enough to remake the WORLD, for goodness sake!
Heaven, save us from these "well-intentioned" utopian liberals who think they are entitled to mess with EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY!!
They still do, too . . . Hilary-care is still in her back pocket, waiting to be sprung, etc, etc, etc.
"FDR for calming fear during the depression which led to a confident public that he could also help defeat the Axis with a little help from his friends, the British and Soviet Union."
Calming their fears?? He LIED to the American people. They were RELIEVED when he PROMISED to keep the US OUT of the European War! Which is HOW he was able to be re-elected!! While out of the other side of his face, he was breaking US neutrality laws by giving aid to Britain and "his friend" good old Uncle Joe murderer-of-20-million-by-starvation-with-millions-more-yet-to-come-and-enemy-of-the-free-world-Stalin. It was not until PEARL HARBOR when the US was ATTACKED that the people rallied to the cause of the war.
He was a good President. Books are okay, but for some people still living, FDR is current events.
From House Bill H.R. 4205 (Section 576) (106th Congress)
H.R.4205
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)
SEC. 576. SENIOR OFFICERS IN COMMAND IN HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, formerly the Commander in Chief of the United States Fleet and the Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Navy prior to the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.
(2) Major General Walter C. Short, formerly the Commander of the United States Army Hawaiian Department, had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Army prior to the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.
(3) Numerous investigations following the attack on Pearl Harbor have documented that Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were not provided necessary and critical intelligence that was available, that foretold of war with Japan, that warned of imminent attack, and that would have alerted them to prepare for the attack, including such essential communiques as the Japanese Pearl Harbor Bomb Plot message of September 24, 1941, and the message sent from the Imperial Japanese Foreign Ministry to the Japanese Ambassador in the United States from December 6 to 7, 1941, known as the Fourteen-Part Message.
(4) On December 16, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were relieved of their commands and returned to their permanent ranks of rear admiral and major general. (5) Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of the investigating commission known as the Roberts Commission that accused Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short of `dereliction of duty' only six weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, later disavowed the report maintaining that `these two officers were martyred' and `if they had been brought to trial, both would have been cleared of the charge'.
(6) On October 19, 1944, a Naval Court of Inquiry exonerated Admiral Kimmel on the grounds that his military decisions and the disposition of his forces at the time of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor were proper `by virtue of the information that Admiral Kimmel had at hand which indicated neither the probability nor the imminence of an air attack on Pearl Harbor'; criticized the higher command for not sharing with Admiral Kimmel `during the very critical period of November 26 to December 7, 1941, important information . . . regarding the Japanese situation'; and, concluded that the Japanese attack and its outcome was attributable to no serious fault on the part of anyone in the .
(7) On June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted by Admiral T. C. Hart at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that essential intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war plans was available in Washington but was not shared with Admiral Kimmel.
(8) On October 20, 1944, the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation determined that Lieutenant General Short had not been kept `fully advised of the growing tenseness of the Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity for better preparation for war'; detailed information and intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were available in `abundance' but were not shared with the General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not provided `on the evening of December 6th and the early morning of December 7th, the critical information indicating an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample time to have accomplished this'.
(9) The reports by both the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation were kept secret, and Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short were denied their requests to defend themselves through trial by court-martial.
(10) The joint committee of Congress that was established to investigate the conduct of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short completed, on May 31, 1946, a 1,075-page report which included the conclusions of the committee that the two officers had not been guilty of dereliction of duty.
(11) The then Chief of Naval Personnel, Admiral J. L. Holloway, Jr., on April 27, 1954, recommended that Admiral Kimmel be advanced in rank in accordance with the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
(12) On November 13, 1991, a majority of the members of the Board for the Correction of Military Records of the Department of the Army found that Lieutenant General Short `was unjustly held responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster' and that `it would be equitable and just' to advance him to the rank of lieutenant general on the retired list.
(13) In October 1994, the then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Carlisle Trost, withdrew his 1988 recommendation against the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and recommended that the case of Admiral Kimmel be reopened.
(14) Although the Dorn Report, a report on the results of a Department of Defense study that was issued on December 15, 1995, did not provide support for an advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel or Major General Short in grade, it did set forth as a conclusion of the study that `responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it should be broadly shared'.
(15) The Dorn Report found that `Army and Navy officials in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese diplomatic communications . . . which provided crucial confirmation of the imminence of war'; that `the evidence of the handling of these messages in Washington reveals some ineptitude, some unwarranted assumptions and misestimations, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and followup at higher levels'; and, that `together, these characteristics resulted in failure . . . to appreciate fully and to convey to the commanders in Hawaii the sense of focus and urgency that these intercepts should have engendered'.
(16) On July 21, 1997, Vice Admiral David C. Richardson (United States Navy, retired) responded to the Dorn Report with his own study which confirmed findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation and established, among other facts, that the war effort in 1941 was undermined by a restrictive intelligence distribution policy, and the degree to which the commanders of the United States forces in Hawaii were not alerted about the impending attack on Hawaii was directly attributable to the withholding of intelligence from Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short.
(17) The Officer Personnel Act of 1947, in establishing a promotion system for the Navy and the Army, provided a legal basis for the President to honor any officer of the Armed Forces of the United States who served his country as a senior commander during World War II with a placement of that officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the retired list with the highest grade held while on the active duty list.
(18) Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short are the only two eligible officers from World War II who were excluded from the list of retired officers presented for advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime ranks under the terms of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
(19) This singular exclusion from advancement on the retired list serves only to perpetuate the myth that the senior commanders in Hawaii were derelict in their duty and responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States.
(20) Major General Walter Short died on September 23, 1949, and Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel died on May 14, 1968, without the honor of having been returned to their wartime ranks as were their fellow veterans of World War II.
(21) The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, the Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Retired Officers Association, and the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee, and other associations and numerous retired military officers have called for the rehabilitation of the reputations and honor of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short through their posthumous advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime grades.
(b) ADVANCEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND MAJOR GENERAL SHORT ON RETIRED LISTS- (1) The President is requested--
(A) to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of admiral on the retired list of the Navy; and
(B) to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list of the Army.
(2) Any advancement in grade on a retired list requested under paragraph (1) shall not increase or change the compensation or benefits from the United States to which any person is now or may in the future be entitled based upon the military service of the officer advanced.
(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OF ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL SHORT- It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel performed his duties as Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then Admiral Kimmel; and
(2) the late Major General Walter C. Short performed his duties as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on Hickam Army Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then Lieutenant General Short.
Because Soviet troops were standing on Polish soil, Stalin had a very strong negotiating position at Yalta. Roosevelt had a distrust of colonialism and although he personally liked WSC, he was wary that the Prime Minister might be putting British interests ahead of the aims of the Allies. So he didn't support Churchill's demands for a well defined agreement on Poland.
In the end Roosevelt & Churchill settled on a vague plan for a provisional government for Poland to be followed by free elections. Stalin packed the provisional Lublin government with pro-USSR communists that refused to allow London's Polish government in exile to return and form a political party for the elections.
By the time of the Potsdam conference, Roosevelt was dead, but Truman followed FDR's plan and didn't want to challenge Stalin even though it was clear that "Uncle Joe" had lied and intended to dominate its neighbors. Short of attacking a fully mobilized Soviet Union there was not much the US/UK could do. A week later Churchill lost the election and he left office rather bitter about Stalin's treachery and Truman's weak showing.
Bookmarked for later.
Bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve
and the codification of common law into the Uniform Commercial Code.
FDR was more of an administer of a bankrupt nation than a president. He didn't call the shots.
"FDR was more of an administer of a bankrupt nation than a president. He didn't call the shots."
Well, he jumped and danced to get it further enacted, packing the Supreme Court, etc.
BTW the quote from Jefferson on the site you referenced is profound. IT should be printed on our currency!
My father, in his 80s, fumes to this day about the Federal Reserve and international bankers. So some citizens were aware and horrified by what was happening. I think most people do NOT know that the Fed is a private corporation, reaping profit from the issuance of currency and CREDIT.
What to do? Do you think all this can be overturned by appealing to Congress? Not likely; and you will be branded a conspiracy-nut to boot . . .
My "program of action" is a limited one. Try as best I can to buy from local, family-owned businesses and family farms. I buy products from the Amish, God Bless them, because they are striving mightily to earn a living and live in a real community. And are PRESERVING, for ALL of us, beautiful countryside and lovely small towns.
I do have one hope: that the Internet will make it possible for more people to live in rural areas and small-towns, and still make a living. I have found some treasures from family-operated businesses that way. PROBLEM: why would someone move from the city to a dying small town, which no longer has any operating businesses except an undertaker -- who will also go out of business when the last hangers-on die off?
There is the appeal of "getting away" from the rat race. But people do need a social life and places to shop and go for culture and entertainment . . .
What think ye?
This is like listening to the 911 Commission. Deja Vu all over again.
Yes. He presided over the grave-side services of the Republic, which traded its independence insured by true wealth in return for dependency upon a foreign banking system for survival.
<...snip...>
"My father, in his 80s, fumes to this day about the Federal Reserve and international bankers. So some citizens were aware and horrified by what was happening. I think most people do NOT know that the Fed is a private corporation, reaping profit from the issuance of currency and CREDIT."
Exactly! A private, for profit corporation which foments unrest between nations in order to get its 'currency' system in the door of each nation to finance its war needs. Who was it that said, 'Let me control the currency of a nation and I will care not who its leaders are,' or words to that effect? What better way to control the politics of a nation than by controlling the natural resources and labor force after the nation is bankrupt. No bank lends money unsecured. What happens when you don't make car payments or mortgage payments? In the case of mortgaged nations which go into receivership, everything continues as before with the exception that you no longer own anything outright, but instead pay a 'use fee' through taxation which also pays for the cost of administering the receivership.
Some will say, 'Well, we can pay off the debt and that will be the end of it.' But that's not true, for you cannot pay off debt with an i.o.u. Fed currency is I.O.U.'s. . . a promise to pay in the future, for FRN's are not backed by labor already performed, but by labor to be performed tomorrow. And you know what they say about 'tomorrow? Yup, it never comes. Heh! In the case of our current debt, that labor won't be performed for at least another generation, and even then, the principle is not amortized -- only the interest. When we went for the FRN scam, we agreed to pay the interest on the debt in gold (labor already performed), not FRN's (future labor). When our gold become depleted, we mortgaged everything else in the country there was to mortgage. Then title to our natural resources, property, children, future labor pool passed to the lender.
So FDR waved his magic wand over the ashes of the Republic and resurrected a new nation, conceived in debt and dedicated to the proposition that all Sovereign Citizens will eventually become 14th Amendment federal contract citizens, henceforth forced to pay the federal debt from generation to generation in direct violation of the 'involuntary servitude' clause in the 13th -- an amendment which was relegated to the ash heap along with the 2nd Amendment which died in 1934.
"What to do? Do you think all this can be overturned by appealing to Congress? Not likely; and you will be branded a conspiracy-nut to boot . . .
Congress is only doing what it's hired to do by the lender. Maintain the facade of our original government to avoid another revolution and serve as a control agency to insure that debt payments continue. They get paid pretty good for that, don't they? But there is light at the end of the tunnel. Talk about that another time. Just wanting to define what is today, not what it will be in the future.
"My "program of action" is a limited one. Try as best I can to buy from local, family-owned businesses and family farms. I buy products from the Amish, God Bless them, because they are striving mightily to earn a living and live in a real community. And are PRESERVING, for ALL of us, beautiful countryside and lovely small towns.
You must be from Central Illinois. I'm well-familiar with those folks. Dare I say it here? GREAT CHEESES! -- but not many moose. :>
"I do have one hope: that the Internet will make it possible for more people to live in rural areas and small-towns, and still make a living. I have found some treasures from family-operated businesses that way. PROBLEM: why would someone move from the city to a dying small town, which no longer has any operating businesses except an undertaker -- who will also go out of business when the last hangers-on die off?
Well, it wouldn't be a problem if the reason the towns are dying were eliminated. But again, that would be not in the interests of the lenders who control most land use and need to maximize profits and preserve natural resources at the same time. This is overseen by the UN and the faux treaties enacted under the code name of 'sustainable development,' a rather innocuous phrase on the surface, but it encompasses the agenda of complete control and management of anything you can imagine, and some things you can't imagine.
But all these concerns for restoring our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law are being placed on the back-burner for the most part, as the War on Terror is coming to a head and complete mobilization is necessary during this period. There is a greater threat to civilization than how we pay our debts that requires our energies and participation, IMO.
"There is the appeal of "getting away" from the rat race. But people do need a social life and places to shop and go for culture and entertainment . . .
I think for a brief period, even that may have to be placed on the back-burner. We need to 'sustainably develop' safe streets, safe neighborhoods and safe borders for a while. Yes, we need to grab our shovels and scoop out the garbage that is pervading our nation. And who knows? Maybe some of our other problems will be scooped out in the process.
'Scuse the ping, but I thought you might be interested in this. # 193.
imo not as great as some argue.
like his predecessor, there were measures that he could have taken to lessen the depression but did not.
i think ronald reagan is this country's 3rd greatest president--after washington and lincoln.
reagan tried to clean up some of the fdr, lbj, and jimmy mess, and turned the country away from self-destruction.
This is an amazing sentence.
I am reading (in German) a bio by a German doctor whose mother was of Jewish descent. He quotes a speech he heard Hitler deliver on radio. IF the (Jewish) international bankers insist on another European war, it will lead to the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe.
This statement is amazing, given your observations above. Hitler here clearly blames the international bankers for formenting WWI and II.
In no way does this justify Hitler:
1. He saw the dangers to national sovereignty of the international banking system.
2. He blamed it, however, on the Jewish race. The individual German shopkeeper was just as much a victim as anyone else. (Remember the ruinous inflation of the 20s which allowed Hitler to get a foothold to begin with?). So it doesn't matter what the geneology of the international bankers is or was. The little people are all victims.
3. He threatened the Jewish race in Europe as a CONSEQUENCE of war, not an inevitability. Again, this was a useless threat because the int'l bankers would not care about the individual Jewish person any more than they would about any other individual person.
4. Although Jewish people were unjustifiably harrassed before the war broke out, the Final Solution began AFTER the war started, in 1942. Hitler, unfortunately, tried to keep his part of the threat made in the speech.
I had not read this position of Hitler's worded in this way anywhere else.
BTW the Amish settlements in Ohio are the largest ones in the US. Even larger than PA! They are also in Iowa and Missouri. Once in MO we stopped into their shop. No one was at the counter. There was a note on the counter: write down what your bought and put the money in the bowl.!!
"Well, it wouldn't be a problem if the reason the towns are dying were eliminated." . . .
"We need to 'sustainably develop' safe streets, safe neighborhoods and safe borders for a while. . . . Maybe some of our other problems will be scooped out in the process."
OR maybe some of the other solutions would lead to safer streets and borders. E.G. The move to the cities, where each person is an anonymous atomistic individual, devoid of participation in a true, organic community -- is what ALLOWS terrorists to hide in our midst.
It is not merely that terrorists can hide out in an ethnic enclave; sometimes they don't do even that; it is the presence of ethnic enclaves that allows the majority to assume that this individual plotting terrorism is not a threat, but rather a member of that community: which he is often not. That minority community might know that he is an outsider, but the rest of us would not.
In a small town, if the ethnic newcomer shows himself to be someone who wants merely to work, earn a living, and enjoy the respect of his fellow-men, he will be -- if not totally accepted initially -- at least tolerated and allowed to puruse his legitimate endeavors for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. E.G. in the small town where my parents live, they have Russian physicians; Indian physicians are common in small towns. Their behavior and participation in the community demonstrates that they are immigrants seeking the American dream. True terrorists would likely stand out suspiciously in a small town: how does this dude support himself? he seems to have money, but no visible means of support, etc. Some of the 9/11 hijackers DID arouse suspicion, but the authorities did not take it seriously when they got reports (such as someone taking flying lessons who did not want to learn to take off and land) . . .
Since the government shows no interest whatsoever in controlling our borders . . .
He was a fatheaded leftist looney that I have visions of sitting in his wheelchair while being pushed by his ugly Marxist wife up the ramp to the pits of hell!
He gave Joseph Stalin the Atom Bomb precipataing the "cold war", and literally GAVE Uncle Joe most of Eastern URP and most of Germany.. I would say he was a lame President. He was Stalin's "bitch". Like in dog, or useful "idiot"..
And let us never forget that he died in bed with his mistress......a true Democrat right to the end.
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.