Posted on 07/13/2017 4:19:28 AM PDT by SJackson
Accurate.
Kerry (Vietnam and Nicaragua) AND Bill Clinton (Russia and Red China and Indonesia and India) AND Hillary Cliton (Russia and all of the Muslim oil lands and Muslim north African countries) AND Gore (South American family money and international oil and enviromental money and intrests) were the democrat candidates for President.
Their actual power and money and support were from overseas. Each has been negotiating FOR the enemies of the United States AGAINST the interests of the US. Add Podesta’s international funding links.....
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself?
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling — which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes — can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society.
/Bastiat - “The Law”
Enemies within. National socialists colluding with socialists.
Law and order BUMP!
The entanglement of the Democrat party as a whole, and the more liberal members in particular, with the former Soviet Union goes back DECADES, to the time of the New Deal and FDR. FDR was a willing dupe when it came to allowing Communists full access to the seats of power in the US all during the Depression and through the Second World War, resulting in the division of Europe in the aftermath of the war into zones of Soviet hegemony, and the zones which were subject to further expansion of that hegemony.
The rise and relative popularity of Eisenhower, then later Nixon, was largely because of the anti-Communist stance, and the Kennedy-Johnson years were a lulling of the senses of the American people in regards to the “Soviet menace”. It is interesting that during the years of Democrat majority rule and administrations, the US got engaged in wars that seemed interminable at the time (Korea under Truman, Viet Nam under the Kennedy-Johnson years) and only during Republican administrations did the hostilities and open warfare cease (Eisenhower in Korea, Nixon in Viet Nam).
History has changed things somewhat, in that the “Soviet menace” no longer exists, and its ideology, Communism is in the shadows, replaced by another ideology that is disguised as a religion, Islam and Sharia Law. The similarities between Communism, in fact, all kinds of socialist ideology, and Islam are striking, in that the concept of individual liberty and initiative are stifled and there is a strict hierarchy supported by force of threat of death for non-compliance. Even the economics of both ideologies is similar, in that capitalism is thwarted, or the flow of capital is strictly limited to the “reliable” people, the only ones allowed to prosper under this sort of regime. Everybody else is just one of a vast number of pawns, to be pushed any direction the ruling elite chooses to further the consolidation of the immense power they already have.
This is just the kind of power that the Democrats are attracted to, as it gives some meaning to their own strategies and tactics. Except that the Democrats, knowingly or otherwise, become just another army of pawns to be pushed about as the even more powerful elites thrust them into compromising positions.
Putin, the successor head of government that itself displaced the old Soviet Union, is in large part also resistant to the spread of Islam and Sharia Law, and for this, the Democrats are in the odd position of opposing Putin in theory, but supportive of him and the objectives of the Russian Federation in practice. While the Russians are no longer Communist, they are still Russians, and as such, have great affinity for gaming theory based on the keen appreciation of various forms of chess.
And the Democrats have not advanced much beyond playing checkers. So the Russians, whether Communistic or the newer form of crony capitalism as practiced in the Russian Federation today, are still running circles around the poor benighted liberals throughout the world.
Soviet citizens knew they weren’t getting the whole story through Pravda and had to be content with what they got and reading between the lines to discern the truth.
I liken it to astronomers who deduce the presence of something by not actually seeing it, but by seeing a blank area where something should be.
Well, Swimmer Ted Kennedy, that reprehensible piece of crap is dead, and good on him.
I mentioned to another Freeper recently that I have had a degree of suspicion, when Free Republic is on the fritz (particularly around election time) that the “enemy” may be involved in those troubles.
When that Freeper came back and said something like “Why would the Russians be interested in sabotaging Free Republic, I said “The Russians, Chicoms, Korcoms, or ISIS aren’t the “Enemy” I had in mind...”
Just so. Our government has a greater interest in misleading the US populace, than any other country's government does. Our government has the most to lose.
I agree that this goes back to FDR, and some even say, to Woodrow Wilson’s administration.
I believe it is true though, that the total degradation and degeneration of the American Left we see today is due to the leftist radicals of the Sixties who fully came to control the levers of power, beginning with the Clintons, resulting in a Ayers-terrorist loving, Marxist, socialist, racist scumbag like Obama and all those like him who held power for eight years.
The last real American liberal Democrat I recall was Zell Miller. People like to say Scoop Jackson, but I am fairly well read on the McCarthy era, and Scoop Jackson, while very junior at the time, fully, willingly, deliberately, and knowingly participated in outright lies to protect people McCarthy was trying to nail.
Even Truman, who was a supposed “Cold Warrior” that I used to respect, but his behavior towards communists in the US Government during the 1945-1952 time frame has made me lose nearly all respect for him. He chose, in the most partisan of ways, Party over Country and national security, and I cannot forgive him for that.
This is why the presence of Ted Kennedy’s body resting in Arlington, a national place of honor, is an issue that must be addressed.
Kennedy must be relocated out of Arlington.
We would not allow Benedict Arnold’s body to be placed there for the same reasons Kennedy’s body cannot be allowed to remain.
At least Arnold did some good for America, winning the Battles of Saratoga in 1777.
I don’t see the government itself as our intrinsic enemy. In the wrong hands (as it was during the last eight years specifically) and due to the simple inherent mass and oppressive weight of government, it is. But I think that can be modified or changed.
I view the Left (and implicitly, the Media since it is ideologically hand-in-hand with them, part and parcel) as our greatest enemy and biggest threat. Even bigger than a Chinese economy, an overbearing, headless, and oppressive bureaucratic government, or even terrorists taking out skyscrapers.
We can make a robust economy that works, change government, and rebuild skyscrapers.
Like concrete that is eaten from within by fractures that break it up and moisture that eats at rebar, the Left is corroding our country in ways that are far more difficult to resolve.
My dad, and thousands of other real Americans are buried there, and the symbol and concept of his fat, corrupted body in the ground there, like a barrel of toxic waste deliberately dumped in a small pond (by the Left) that seeps out and pollutes everything around it, is a slap in the face of real Americans and the respect of those interred there.
It is appalling, I agree.
Neither do I, per se. My point was that our government has more to lose, and hence a greater interest in managing the messaging to "its populace."
I do see the government as akin to a parasite, and parasites tend to grow and feed on their hosts. The prime directive of any government is to grow and protect itself.
The left and the right might be an artificial conflict, because conflict is necessary. Follow the money. The so-called "right" side of our government is not honest either.
McCarthy Part 4--Annie Lee Moss, VOA, and history insulted...
Here is a reprint of that account of the Annie Lee Moss episode:
Markward testified that she knew of Moss's Communist Party membership because of her dues records — to which Markward had had access — and she added Annie Lee Moss was on the list of subscribers to the Communist Party's Daily Worker. Markward added that for a time, Mrs. Moss had been dropped from the formal party rolls when she went to work for the General Accounting office (GAO) — the investigating arm of Congress. This was in line with party policy to treat members holding official jobs on a separate, more confidential basis.
When Moss testified, she seemed distracted and frail "not fitting the usual picture of a party apparatchik," says Evans. The Democrat senators at the hearing were totally condescending to Moss, who suggested her new notoriety was the result of mistaken identity — that other Annie Lee Mosses were in the D.C. phone book.
Again, bear in mind that before the hearing, these same three Democrat senators — John McClellan (Ark.), Stuart Symington (Mo.), and Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Wash.) — had been fully briefed by the FBI, which had thorough documentation that the Annie Lee Moss subpoenaed to testify was the person in question and that she was a Communist. Nonetheless committee Dems treated her case as mistaken identity, strongly hinting that McCarthy was bullying a poor black woman. At the end of the hearing, Symington offered to find her a job — a knee-jerk histrionic for which the Missourian would later privately — and sheepishly — express regret.
They knew...McClellan, Symington (who was a full snake anyway) and...the poster boy of the leftist "anti-communists"...Scoop Jackson. They saw the evidence in private, incontrovertible evidence that this woman was a communist, and all agreed with it. Then, when they went in front of the audience and the cameras...they all became very sympathetic to her as described above, to cement the meme they were presenting of McCarthy as an ignorant bully.
The left likes to portray Scoop Jackson as a staunch cold warrior and anti-communist, as if to say "See? We care about our country too!"
But they don't, at least not the way real Americans do.
I think we are in full agreement. We aren’t anarchists, we believe in having a government, not just a bloated, giant, headless one that crushes through its weight all it is supposed to help, and grows ever fatter by eating out more and more of “our substance” (to use Jefferson’s phrase in his grievances against The Crown in The Declaration of Independence...
The Swimmer’s grave will remain in Arlington as long as Scotch fumes continue to rise from it.
If you read the opening paragraphs of Common SenseSOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.enough times (I’m thick, and didn’t grasp it at first) it becomes clear that skepticism toward government varies inversely with skepticism toward society. And naïveté toward government corresponds to cynicism toward society, and the institutions which promote civil society.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
Hi, CIC...how are you? Yes...it is a necessary evil, because men, who are flawed by their very nature, are likely (in some number) not to be part of a society that contributes to its blessings! There must be a government to restrain that.
I have never thought about it that way. I am skeptical about government, but am also skeptical the society will work together harmoniously to be a blessing...and liberals are not skeptical about government, but are also not skeptical that society will work together harmoniously to be a blessing.
Doesn't seem inversely related, but I might be thinking or interpreting wrongly.
I could be “thick” here too...
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.