That is because they are abject marxist ideologues, and that is their fundamental change.
OBAMA IS A MARXIST IDEOLOGUE
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
Posted on 09/12/2009 10:41:12 AM PDT by neverdem
America might refuse to honor the upcoming election results of another democratic nation. But our State Department has taken this hostile posture not toward Venezuela or Iran -- where dictatorships thrive through doubtful and fraudulent elections -- but toward Honduras, which removed a usurping president this summer in an action supported by the letter of its own constitution. Nothing has changed about the upcoming election in Honduras. The candidates are the same ones who were running before President Manuel Zelaya was ousted, with the approval of the nation's Congress and Supreme Court. The only difference now is the United States is demanding that the rapacious Zelaya be returned to power. This would punish self-governance and discourage free and credible elections.
Zelaya was not removed from power for his alleged corruption or his alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or his bullying of the Honduran news media. Rather, by simply campaigning in favor of presidential re-election in Honduras, Zelaya had committed a crime punishable under the constitution by loss of citizenship. A strange law, perhaps, but the law of the land nonetheless in a nation and a region that has suffered bad experiences under previous presidents-for-life like Chavez.
Roberto Micheletti, who replaced Zelaya for the waning months of his term, took power with a promise not to interfere with upcoming elections - a positive, constructive gesture that evinced respect for democratic institutions in Honduras. Unfortunately, our State Department does not share such respect. Spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters this week that "[a]t this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections." In other words, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is forcing Honduras to choose between reinstalling a rogue leader or becoming a rogue nation.
Interestingly, Clinton still does not consider Zelaya's ouster a "military coup" under U.S. law because it involved "the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military," as her spokesman put it. Despite this, Honduras is receiving the same funding cutoff from Washington that federal law requires for nations whose democracy is genuinely snuffed out. And Clinton is doing her own part to snuff it out, as well.
In The Audacity of Hope, President Obama recalls his own youthful outrage at bygone U.S. anti-communist policies in Latin America - of supporting Nicaraguan Contras, liberating Grenada from Fidel Castro's clutches, and backing the Pinochet regime. Perhaps the president should take a page from his own book and stop interfering in Hondura's business before he strikes a death-blow to the democracy and rule of law in a small, struggling nation.
The clear and present danger facing the survival of freedom in the United States is the Democrat Party.
That is because they are abject marxist ideologues, and that is their fundamental change.
Obama thinks impeaching and removing presidents is a really bad precedent. Not something we should be encouraging.
I cannot imagine why. /sarc
Did you notice that even when the Left took over Congress back in ‘06, they didn’t even try to impeach President Bush.
OK! Can we impeach him for telling multiple LIES to a joint session of Congress?
A week ago I sent the Honduran embassy an email of encouragement and telling them that not all Americans are as insane as the current regime...
The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble and their ideological issue (children)-cum-Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) includes one Barrak H. Obama.
After forty years of effort, coast-to-coast and border-to-border, the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble and their ideological issue are arguably "the Establishment."
(That ain't name calling. The Sixties Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble really have taken over the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party. Under the hail of "neo-con" taunts many Democrats fled the Party.)
That's beyond dispute. The task at hand is how to convince the moderates and independents that by voting for moderate or so called "conservative" rats is just enabling the left in D.C. IIRC, there are 49 rat Congressional Districts that voted for McCain. Add in rat Congressional Districts that also voted for Bush and that number is over 60.
I would dispute that. As far I can tell the RAT party has been controlled (certainly at the national level) by 'Blame American First' demagogue socialists since at least the 1890s. And when it comes to moral issues, the RAT party has been on the wrong side of history ever since the pro-slavery crowd seized control of it nationally in the 1860s. I don't think there was anything "traditional, patriotic" about the RAT party during the Wilson, FDR, and LBJ era, sorry. Traditional & Patriotic doesn't belong in the same sentence with those RATs. I'm pretty sure my family had good reason for voting Republican back then.
Of course this thread mentions democracy is under attack. Some freepers claim all democracy is bad and automatically results in "mob rule", therefore by their twisted logic, democracy under attack must be a good thing. Can't allow the dreaded democracy into our Republic!
I do not remember the Wilson era but I do remember some of FDR, all of Truman and all of LBJ.
I am trying to distinguish between today's leaders / stalwarts and the apolitical FDR, yellow-dog Democrat rank-and-file.
Democrat patriots filled the ranks of the "Greatest Generation," Korean, and Viet Nam war troops as much as Republicans.
They even served as Reagan Democrats.
They do not yet fully recognize, it seems to me, that their grandfathers and fathers Democratic Party ain't no more.
Why alienate them as they begin to "wake up?" Keep them separate from the bad guys, I say.
The Dems may have been "demagogue socialists since at least the 1890s" but they were our demagogue socialists.
I'm no where close to a historian but except for the most radical I do not believe that the Dems were 'Blame American First' until the Sixties Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble took over the Party.
Since Democrats do not support Republican foreign policy when it’s NOT left-wing, WHY don’t Republicans speak out and give their support to the Honduran Supreme Court and their valient attempt to preserve Democracy in their own country. Slapping Obama in the face at the same time wouldn’t hurt either.
Democrats sure wanted to hurt Bush alot.
It's still here and still socialist since the late 19th century! What a great "tradition". It's just even worse now.
90% tax brackets and playing footsie with the Soviet Union sure was "patriotic".
What is wrong with welcoming them to "our side" as they become aware of what our Nation faces?
RE: "90% tax brackets and playing footsie with the Soviet Union sure was 'patriotic'."
I was no fan of Party leader JFK but he got a lot of Dem votes with his "missile gap" and started the initiative to lower taxes. There were Republicans who wanted to trade with the U.S.S.R. just like those today who have no problem "free tradin'" away our technology and production to Red China.
I got no use for a Republican Party either that has creatures like Nelson Rockefeller.
He told his staff that, in the words of his public relations head, Stuart Spencer, "We had to destroy Barry Goldwater as a member of the human race." I've been angry since 1964 about how Goldwater was maligned by both Dems and "moderate" Republicans like Rockefeller and Scranton. I remember columns following the election asking, "Did we go too far destroying Goldwater."
I loathe both parties.
There was a bit of sunshine during the Reagan years but you got Republicans who seem to want to forget those years and now say of Sarah Palin, "We have to destroy Sarah Palin as a member of the human race."
I see little difference with today’s Democrats. Just as many southern yellow-dog RATs were much more conservative than their party as a whole, yet still blindly voted for FDR, today there’s many blue-collar suburban families who are pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, anti-illegal alien, etc., yet loyally support Obama. I live in a community like that so I know. I don’t see how heaping praise on yesterday’s demagogue socialists and falsely claiming they were “decent, honorable, patriotic” people is going to get these people to switch sides. Obama heaps praise on Abraham Lincoln, that doesn’t make today’s Republicans go “gee whiz, if Obama’s praising one of our past leaders, Obama must be for our side!”
>> Democrat patriots filled the ranks of the "Greatest Generation," Korean, and Viet Nam war troops as much as Republicans. <<
And this is different from today how? I can find boatloads of Democrats who “served honorably” in the first and second Gulf War and have unblemished military credentials. So can Rahm Emanuel, in fact he recruited many of them to run for Congress. I personally know someone from my H.S. class who became a top marine corp. intelligence officer during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He’s also an Obamabot and hates Palin with a passion. >>
They even served as Reagan Democrats. <<
Here’s the funny thing about “Reagan Democrats” and the freepers hailing the JFK era as a great conservative role model: Ronald Reagan was the ORIGINAL “Reagan Democrat” and in 1960 he was STILL a registered Democrat Party member. Guess who he supported that November? It wasn’t the “decent, honorable, patriotic” nominee of the RAT party. Reagan was a Democrat for Nixon. Reagan certainly disagreed that the pre-hippie RATs were great patriotic leaders, that’s why he switched to the GOP in 1964. Too bad “today’s Republicans” who swoon over JFK don’t follow Reagan’s beliefs about yesterday’s Democrats.
>> They do not yet fully recognize, it seems to me, that their grandfathers and fathers Democratic Party ain't no more. <<
They’re not alone. Many of us refuse to recognize the mainstream media fairy tale about how JFK’s presidency was Camelot and FDR saved America from the depression, etc. We don’t see these people as great patriots and role models. My father and grandfather’s party was Republican. If the Democrats had been the “honorable, patriotic” party back then, my family would have supported them. We didn’t support socialists then and we don’t support them now.
>> Why alienate them as they begin to "wake up?"
No need to alienate them at all. If any of TODAY’S Democrat’s are upset with what Obama’s doing and want to switch to the Republican Party for ideological reasons, I welcome them. Come on in. I just won’t repeat media fairy tales about how a bunch of crooked leftist scumbags from decades ago were “decent, honorable, patriotic” leaders. Since these guys are long dead I don’t think we have to worry about losing any votes over the matter.
Zell Miller and others are just plain wrong when they claim “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me”. The opposite is true. The RAT party didn’t change their views at all – Zell changed his. The RAT party was all for abortion on demand, gun control, envirowackoism, big spending, higher taxes, sucking up to dictators, gutting the military, being weak on crime, loose on illegal immigration, federal control of education, etc., etc., and Zell was more than happy to go along with it at the time. Zell had no problem standing with the likes of Carter and Clinton when they were popular. Yet now he’s supposedly pro-life, pro-family, limited government, and anti-Kerry and anti-Obama? Zell if you want to know who’s “changed”, look in the mirror. It certainly ain’t the RAT party platform over the last 40 years.
>> The Dems may have been "demagogue socialists since at least the 1890s" but they were our demagogue socialists. <<
Oh please. That’s like saying “Al Capone may have been a racketeering mobster, but he was OUR racketeering mobster. Today’s mafia just don’t make decent honorable people like Capone anymore. Gotta remind today’s mafia figures of how the mafia lost its greatness and they might leave and join our side” FACT: The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise and has been on the WRONG side of history on every major issue for at least a century. I have no interest in helping the lamestream media attempts to rehabilitate their past failed leaders.
>> except for the most radical I do not believe that the Dems were 'Blame American First' until the Sixties Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble took over the Party. <<
I disagree. Pre-hippie era, one of the biggest strengths of the Republican Party was pointing out the Democrat Party of the 30s, 40s, and 50s was crawling with communist sympathizers and anti-American types. Ike won in ’52 by bashing the Dems as the party of “Communism, Corruption, and Korea” Nixon frequently took swipes at “Red Dean Dean Acheson’s state department”. One of the most unhinged, venomous and outright pro-third world dictator in “today’s Democrat Party” is Ramsey Clark, who was openly working to acquit Saddam and try America for war crimes in 2003. He’s so far left he makes Howard Dean look sane. Far from being an “anti-establishment” street hippie in the 60s, this guy was the ULTIMATE Democrat Party insider at the time – Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, son of Truman Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark. Another infamous outright communist sympathizer was Henry Wallace, who under FDR was Secretary of Agriculture (1933–1940),Secretary of Commerce (1945–1946) AND Vice President of the United States (1941–1945). There’s a long list of anti-American slime who reached the highest levels of power in yesterday’s “honorable” Democrat Party – Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet members, Supreme Court Judges, and so on. They weren’t “the most radical street rabblers” glaring away at the outside, they were the ones who ran the Democrat Party at the federal level.
If were we to believe that the pre-hippie era Democrat Party was mostly a “decent honorable, patriotic Party” with only a few “rabble rousers” outside of the power structure, then we accept the mainstream media talking points that all the Alger Hiss stuff of that era was simply a “witch hunt” brought on by a “red scare” of mean nasty paranoid Republicans. Most conservatives today will tell you that while Joe McCarthy was a nasty alcoholic and egomaniac, he WAS right about some communist infiltration in government.
Simply put, there’s a clear reason why the media wants you to accept their talking about how great all these dead Democrat politicians were, and wants you to believe that all the Democrat opposition to civil rights can be explained away by the fact the two parties “switched sides” and the Republicans for civil rights back then were supposedly “liberal” and the Democrats against civil rights of that era were supposedly “conservative”. Trust me, when the media promotes this stuff it’s not to “welcome today’s Democrats into becoming Republican because their party has changed”. The media has an agenda to whitewash the RAT party’s decades of criminal actions so voters will see them in a better light. It’s unfortunate so many of “today Republicans” are happy to go along with the media’s history revision of past events.
I leave you with author Don Capron’s information about yesterday’s so-called “honorable, decent, patriotic, pro-American Democrats” of his father’s era:
=================================================
From the earliest years of the New Deal until the late 1940's the government was deeply infiltrated with Communists and their supporters. There was no shortage of either messages to the President or evidence to support such infiltration. Yet, Roosevelt then Truman chose to ignore such evidence.
Adolph Berle, Undersecretary of State for internal security at State, went to Roosevelt in 1940 with a list of Communists in government provided by Whittaker Chambers, a party member who'd defected. Roosevelt, according to all accounts laughed it off and refused to deal with it.
J. Edgar Hoover, in 1943, informed Roosevelt of Soviet spying both within the government and at the Russian Embassy. On this occasion Roosevelt not only disregarded the evidence, he sent Harry Hopkins, his Domestic Affairs advisor, to warn the Soviet embassy that their phones were tapped.
In 1946 Hoover again went to the White House, this time providing Harry Truman with a list of known Communists and sympathizers still in the government. Truman's response was: "What am I going to do? Give those @#%&* Republicans up on the Hill something to bash me with?"
Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed. Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R. Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.
William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the 1930's. Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs. Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior. Finally, William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency. This is just a very few, the most prominent or household names one might say.
======================================================================
I was talking about rat politicians. Rat voters? Sure it was good how some of them served in the military and fought the Nazis. They sure screwed their progeny but voting for commies like FDR and HST though.
What is wrong with welcoming them to "our side" as they become aware of what our Nation faces?
Nothing at all.
But I'm remember once such freeper, a school teacher from Ohio who hated Obama but defended FDR. I'm not about to agree with any former democrat that Roosevelt and the rat leaders of his day were any more noble than Obama just because he's even more radical. They were swine and it was as wrong to vote for them 60 years ago as it is today.
You mean that crazy lady moonbat who maintained that Hoover starved to death 10,000,000 people or some such lunacy, despite being repeatedly debunked ? The lefty kooks we get on this website... at least Parsifal “Parsy” is funny.
Indeed.
As a kid I went to the Chicago Historical Society one time, I think I told DJ about this once. Some guide was talking about Republican Lincoln and Democrat Douglas and how one was against slavery expanding and how the other thought it should be voted on and either the guide or someone from the peanut gallery added something like "of course that would the opposite today". (referring to the parties).
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.