Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Can't Be Trusted
Sierra Times ^ | 09. 14. 03 at 20:24 | By Ray Thomas Copyright 2003

Posted on 09/15/2003 7:30:58 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner

One of the most intelligent comments I've heard lately is when Ann Coulter, in her best-selling book, Treason, wrote, "Democrats can't be trusted to protect us." Actually, they can't be trusted to do anything else good for anybody but Democrats, but that's another article.

One of the stupidest statements I've heard lately is the one an unnamed Democrat made, "We'd have been in better shape after 9/11 if Al Gore had won the 2000 election." (Shudder) It frightens me to think where we'd be now if Al Gore, or any Democrat had been in charge when the terrorists declared war on us. They can be trusted, but only to be Democrats.

Many people I know say Bill Clinton was the worse president in history. I disagree, He was not, although he was right up there at the top of the list. There is not a single Democrat president I'd trust to defend us against any threat, from within or without. For those who don't believe me, let's look at the history of Democrat presidents:

Woodrow Wilson was known as a "conservative Democrat," although according to his biography, "He developed a program of progressive reform and asserted international leadership in building a new world order." [Italics mine -RT] While he was in office, the October Revolution in Russia brought the Communists to power. They soon swallowed Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia while starving about five million people to death. Wilson apparently didn't realize their threat and did nothing. "He was nominated for President at the 1912 Democratic Convention and campaigned on a program called the New Freedom, which stressed individualism and states' rights. In the three-way election he received only 42 percent of the popular vote but an overwhelming electoral vote." [Italics mine. Take that, Democrats who complain about Bush being "appointed! -RT] Many of his programs actually were conservative, b ut many were not.

Then came Calvin Coolidge, who allowed Russia to add Mongolia, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kirgizia to the Soviet Empire er, uh, Union. His biography says: "Coolidge was "distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement," wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. "His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history ... in a time of extravagance and waste...." Which means he really didn't accomplish anything and was known for "correcting" the "excesses" caused by a previous tax cut. This is what the Democrats call a time of good fortune. [But tax cuts don't work, do they? -RT] He took credit for the prosperity (as liberals do), it becoming known as the "Coolidge prosperity" even though at the same time, he was a "do-nothing" president. "The political genius of President Coolidge, Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1926, was his talent for effectively doing nothing: 'This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably.' " Apparently, it's not hard to become a "genius" as a Democrat. Meanwhile, communism rolled on.

While Herbert Hoover was president, the Soviets didn't expand into any new countries. But they did starve another ten to fifteen million people in the Soviet Republic. This led Lady Astor to demand of Stalin in 1931, "When are you going to stop killing people?" Everybody knew the Soviets were a major threat, but nobody in the Democrat(ic) Party would admit it, including Hoover.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and he was right. But he was wrong abut almost everything else. He was a man who wanted naked power and set out to gain it for himself. He understood that in people like Josef Stalin and therefore became "fast friends" with this brutal, murdering dictator. Just one example of his excesses came when he threatened to "pack the Supreme Court" by increasing its numbers, giving himself a chance to appoint a majority who would approve his many unconstitutional projects. He didn't succeed, but this was when they first started using the "Commerce Clause" to claim that federal law superceded local laws, which it did not. The Tenth Amendment says very plainly, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere does it say that "regulating interstate commerce" trumps that. Roosevel t took us off the gold standard and was the first president (in memory) to allow deficit spending. John Maynard Keynes (the father of deficit spending) was one of his heroes.

As his first diplomatic act, he officially recognized the Soviet Union, something previous administrations had (properly) refused to do. He called Josef Stalin "Uncle Joe, and palled around with him on a regular basis. He refused to believe communist agent Alger Hiss was a communist and kept him at his side. He sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta, promised "Uncle Joe" three votes in the U. N. General Assembly plus the right to name the number 2 U. N. official. While he was president, they took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Albania while murdering another 12 to 20 million more people and forcing at least 10 million into slave labor.

Then came Harry S Truman. Under Truman, we lost China to communism and the Red Chinese occupied Tibet. Over the next 40 years, the Communist Chinese murdered between 34 and 64 million people (it's hard to keep track, since they don't announce their murders). Truman was in office for two years before he put in place a program of partial resistance to communism. While he was refusing to believe that his administration was riddled with communist agents, some at the highest levels and was actively fighting Senator Joe McCarthy, the one man who was actively fighting them, the Soviets consolidated their control of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania. Bulgaria, eastern Germany to the Elbe River, Yugoslavia, and North Korea to the 38th parallel.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Democrat who ran as a Republican), ended the Korean War without winning one foot of territory, and with no victory. Cuba fell to communism under Fidel Castro, establishing the first Soviet-backed communist regime in the Western Hemisphere. The communist Viet Cong started a revolution to take over South Viet Nam, the Red Army crushed a popular uprising in Hungary (with the U. S. refusing to intervene).It was during Eisenhower's administration that the Russians launched Sputnik, the first vehicle into outer space, sparking the "space race," and tested the first intercontinental ballistic missile a full year ahead of us. And Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the table and warned, "We will bury you!"

President John F. Kennedy managed to embarrass us twice within his first two years in office, costing many lives. He encouraged Cuban dissidents to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs with the promise of air support, which he "chickened out" and failed to supply, causing them to lose and many to be captured and killed. Kennedy later allowed a "tractors for lives" deal with Castro to get some of them freed. Then he lost a "facedown" with Kruschev over atomic missiles he wanted to put in Cuba. We won that one, you say? Then why did we quietly remove our missiles from Turkey the very next year, with the administration vehemently denying it was under a deal with Kruschev? Then he started the Viet Nam war and in Germany the communists erected the Berlin Wall.

Under Lyndon B. Johnson, communism spread to South Yemen and Congo-Brazzaville, and China exploded its first hydrogen bombs. He is the architect of the War on Poverty, an all-encompassing welfare state scheme that threatens to bankrupt this country. The later administrations continued these policies, which is why we have massive deficits today.

Gerald Ford came to power after the resignation of Richard Nixon and immediately allowed the "Imperial Congress empowered by Watergate" to turn its back on our allies in Southeast Asia. South Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos were lost to communism. Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique also fell. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" risked death at sea to escape communism and the murders committed in its name. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge murdered between one and four million people out of a population of only seven million.

Under Jimmy Carter, communists came to power in Nicaragua, the Seychelles, and Granada. The Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan. Days before Cuba dispatched a military force to Ethiopia, Carter gave a "momentous speech" exhorting Americans to "abandon their inordinate fear of communism."

Under President Ronald Reagan, not a single country was lost to communism. For the first time, Soviet-backed regimes began to crumble and one was taken back outright. By the end of Reagan's presidency, the USSR was on its last legs. Months before Reagan was first elected president, Harvard Sovietologist Adam Ulam ruefully remarked that the Soviets' expanding empire could not be stopped unless faced with "a power strong and determined enough to make Soviet foreign adventurism too risky and expensive." Reagan took that to heart and his administration became that power, and the end of Soviet Russia was near. He called it "an evil empire whose last pages are even now being written." It wasn't too long after that, that Reagan told Gorbachev to "go to hell" when he demanded we drop our missile defense system known derisively (by the Soviets) as "Star Wars." At that time, Gorbachev and his cronies knew the game was up. Soon the Soviet Union began breaking up and the end was announced.

After all those Democrats in the White House over the years lost so much, all it took was one conservative who knew the power we had to affect world events and was not afraid to use it to destroy the Soviet Union, which was thought to be invincible by every liberal Democrat and Republican in the land. After 70 years of Soviet domination of a large part of the world, the Russian government is now reduced to an ineffective, struggling socialist dictatorship that, while they still have nuclear missiles, haven't the means to use them and won't, any time in the future -- that is, unless they can con the next Democrat administration into helping them.

Yes, Clinton was one of the worse presidents we've ever had. But as you can see, he wasn't the worst when it comes to ignoring a major threat until it almost engulfed the world. He did ignore the rise of Islamic terrorism, refusing to recognize its threat, just as earlier presidents did with the communist threat. The result is 9/11, which he could have prevented if he had not refused to allow bin Laden to be caught and imprisoned several times, using flimsy excuses as to why.

Don't let the Democrats con you into thinking that Reagan didn't win the cold war and wasn't single-handedly responsible for the collapse of communism in Russia. But don't think communism is dead in the world, for it isn't. There are more countries today under communism than at any previous time in history Russia just is no longer among them. We must continue to be vigilant about communism, and even more vigilant about Islamic terrorism, which is a much more immediate and violent threat. And if we elect another liberal (from either party) to the presidency, we'll see another round of appeasement resulting in detrimental results for our country and the loss of many lives.

President Bush may be "spending like a liberal" on the home front in order to "appease" the Democrats (a big mistake), while spending more to fight the war on terrorism, but we can only hope we can keep him there until another Ronald Reagan comes along who has the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to once and for all defeat not only Islamic terrorism, but communism, too. I hope he or she comes along soon. But fortunately for me, I may not live long enough to see the result if he/she doesn't.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clinton; communism; conservatism; democrats; presidents; regan; republicans; worstpresident
I found this article scanning the web for Ann Coulter. I thought most FReepers would like it.
1 posted on 09/15/2003 7:30:58 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Didn't Nixon take us off the Gold Standard?
2 posted on 09/15/2003 7:36:15 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Fetch this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Time for the tin foil hats and to ground your fillings so the transmissions can't get through.
3 posted on 09/15/2003 7:38:31 AM PDT by and the horse you rode in on (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
I wonder what the world would be like if Teddy Roosevelt had won in 1912.

4 posted on 09/15/2003 7:39:43 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
EXCELLENT POST!I cannot find ANYTHING in it that I disagree with!!As far as Wilson goes,the only problem I have ever had with T.R.is the election of Wilson.Had Teddy run as a Republican,he would have easily won re-election and spared us Wilson!!!
5 posted on 09/15/2003 7:46:53 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Hoover was a Republican. Indeed, the Democrats have invariably used him as a scapegoat to blame the Great Depression on Republicans.

What is less remembered is that Hoover, too, seems to have been one of those Democrats who switched parties to run for office, or at least that he showed every sign of being a natural-born Democrat, whatever his party affiliation.

This is from his official White House biography:

"After the United States entered the war, President Wilson appointed Hoover head of the Food Administration. He succeeded in cutting consumption of foods needed overseas and avoided rationing at home, yet kept the Allies fed.

"After the Armistice, Hoover, a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, organized shipments of food for starving millions in central Europe. He extended aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921. When a critic inquired if he was not thus helping Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, 'Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!'

"After capably serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Hoover became the Republican Presidential nominee in 1928."

Hmm. Very interesting.
6 posted on 09/15/2003 8:00:29 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
It's good, except it seems to imply presidents like Coolidge and Hoover were Democrats, which they weren't.

For those who want a good look at the Wilson electoral results, here is one of my favorite websites.

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1916.html
7 posted on 09/15/2003 8:10:50 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
By the way, I see some Freepers here know this, but the reason Wilson won with so little of the popular vote was that Teddy Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.
8 posted on 09/15/2003 8:14:37 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care; bandleader; OXENinFLA
Yes, it is too bad that Teddy didn't stay in office. He let Taft take over for him because he promised he would limit his Presidency for two terms. When he saw what a mess Taft had made, he ran against him as a 3rd party, permitting Wilson to take over.

Either Roosevelt or Taft would have been better than Wilson.

I had forgotten that Hoover was appointed by Wilson. He may well have had democratic leanings. He may have switched parties because the Republican were so dominent in the '20s.

I always liked Coolege. This is the first time I've seen a conservative critisize him. His criticisms seem to be 2: 1) He did not stop the Soviet expansion; 2) He did nothing economically. #1 is not a problem--the US has traditionally been non-interventionist in the world. #2 he seemed to hint that Coolige rescinded a tax cut. I've never heard of that. Non-intervention in the economy is often the best policy for the government. We've done that since 1776, with a few exceptions, up to the national income tax in 1916. Yecch.
9 posted on 09/15/2003 8:30:36 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner (Praying for the Kingdom of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
The subject title "Democrats Can't Be Trusted" implies Republicans can be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Both parties have the same goal, control of the population. They only differ on the method. Both parties see the Constitution as a "living document" to be interpreted for the time and purpose. Both parties are beholden to special interests.

Less than 50% of the adult population participates in national elections now. The vast majority of those refusing to participate believe, and rightfully so, there is little difference in these two parties.

Nothing will change the course of our nation with parties at the helm. Until a real independent movement asserts itself, by the people, we will continue to court tyranny. Any independent movement must not limit the goal to simply electing an independent President, but an independent Congress that supports an independent President.
10 posted on 09/15/2003 12:30:42 PM PDT by becounted (Half truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: becounted; Congressman Billybob
"The subject title "Democrats Can't Be Trusted" implies Republicans can be trusted."

Logically it doesn't. This is not a recommendation to trust Republicans. But some people would read it that way. They would be wrong.

" Nothing could be further from the truth. "

I agree with this, but in a different way. No person should trust another person--trust should only be placed in God.

"Both parties have the same goal, control of the population. They only differ on the method. "

This is tinfoil hat baloney.

"Both parties see the Constitution as a "living document" to be interpreted for the time and purpose. "

I am not aware of any evidence to support this statement for the Republican party as a whole. Certainly some individual Republicans subscribe to this--sadly, some are Supreme Court justices.

"Both parties are beholden to special interests. "

That is generally true. This really means that bribery works for some individual politicians.


"Less than 50% of the adult population participates in national elections now. The vast majority of those refusing to participate believe, and rightfully so, there is little difference in these two parties. "

I agree with your first statement. I am not aware of evidence to support your second statement. I have heard this chiefly from Libertarian party members who use this to support their own party. A cursory comparison of Al Gore's tax policy and George Bush's would show they were substantially different. A list of their judicial nominations would confirm it.


"Nothing will change the course of our nation with parties at the helm. Until a real independent movement asserts itself, by the people, we will continue to court tyranny. Any independent movement must not limit the goal to simply electing an independent President, but an independent Congress that supports an independent President."

Interesting goals, but they are at odds with the will of the American people. We control the political parties, not the other way around. I speak not just of voting, but of volunteering, which is critical for any candidate. See Cong. BillyBob/John Armor. The candidate must sell himself/herself to volunteers first, then they must sell the voters, as well as the candidate. Parties provide the volunteers, based upon underlying philosophy. The Democrats want the government to look after the little guy and solve his problem. The Republicans want the market to abound and solve problems. The Libertarians want individual freedom.

The American people have not been sold on another political party beside Republican and Democrat. What do you have in mind?
11 posted on 09/15/2003 3:34:51 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner (Praying for the Kingdom of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
>>" Nothing could be further from the truth."

I agree with this, but in a different way. No person should trust another person--trust should only be placed in God.<<

I agree.

>>"Both parties have the same goal, control of the population. They only differ on the method."

This is tinfoil hat baloney.<<

Not so much baloney! Examples can best illustrate the point.

The economy is a good place to start. While Democrats tinker with the economy by direct government grant and monetary allotments to individuals, Republicans tinker with the economy with large government contracts to corporations. Both approaches are to get money into the economy. Both parties rely heavily on government borrowing (note: both parties have been solidly Keynesian since the Hoover Administration.) Both approaches, direct to the people and distribution via corporations are socialist in nature.

Another area is taxation. Democrats rely heavily on income taxes, which are direct and visible. Republicans rely less on income taxes, but more on corporate taxes. The corporations pass along the tax burden to consumers. This particular form of taxation blossomed during the Nixon Administration with the introduction of the "value added tax". Both forms of taxes are nonetheless taxes, and ultimately paid by the citizens. What differs is visibility.

>>The American people have not been sold on another political party beside Republican and Democrat. What do you have in mind?<<

Certainly not another political party. A more informed population, aware of our Constitution would be a good start. That may even be a good goal of this site. Start with the Constitution, one segment at a time, and let people post what they believe was intended, and how it relates to other segments. A consensus would be found.

An example: I do not believe the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press were intended for commercial entities. While absent at the time the Constitution was written, these would include television, movies and recordings. I believe, with the sole exception of the press, once money enters the equation, it becomes an issue of commerce (Sec 8:3), and is thus the responsibility of Congress to regulate. I'm certain nearly everyone in the business of producing and distributing titillating programming, movies, recordings and porn would surely disagree with me. The present liberal application of the 1st Amendment just doesn't set well with me.

I'd also like to see the people, not government decree a day of recognition of Freedom. My thoughts on this are posted at: http://www.becounted.org/rights/freedom.htm
12 posted on 09/16/2003 7:55:44 AM PDT by becounted (Half truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson