Enough of the Ronald Reagan Praise B.S... - Page 5
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 101

Thread: Enough of the Ronald Reagan Praise B.S...

  1. #41
    Sometimes our enemies come as wolves sometimes they come as wolves in sheeps clothing.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Sometimes our enemies come as wolves sometimes they come as wolves in sheeps clothing.
    And it's the latter that is the more sinister and dangerous!
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  4. #43
    Reagan was the best president in my 52 years. But then that's stacked up against Johnson (ick), Nixon (oy), Ford (OMG), Carter (jeez!), Clinton (duh), Bush 1 (RINO exemplar), Bush 2 (better n most of em) and Barry (the worst, just in front of the traitor Carter). I was too young to know much about JFK but he seemed like a fiscal conservative and would probably be a Republican today, although I'm appalled by his personal conduct. In my opinion all that time the Democrats have become the Communist party and the Republicans have become the Socialist party. Both parties have us on the road to Hell, it's just that the Democrats use the diamond lane.

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    Reagan was the best president in my 52 years. But then that's stacked up against Johnson (ick), Nixon (oy), Ford (OMG), Carter (jeez!), Clinton (duh), Bush 1 (RINO exemplar), Bush 2 (better n most of em) and Barry (the worst, just in front of the traitor Carter). I was too young to know much about JFK but he seemed like a fiscal conservative and would probably be a Republican today, although I'm appalled by his personal conduct. In my opinion all that time the Democrats have become the Communist party and the Republicans have become the Socialist party. Both parties have us on the road to Hell, it's just that the Democrats use the diamond lane.
    Are we as a Society this fricking A.D.D. on history?


    "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." (Or Allow It To Be Repeated) - Edmund Burke

    I don't disagree that Reagan was better than those you have itemized herein, or probably any President since Grover Cleveland; my point has been the RNC and those that consider themselves strict Constitutionalists, and die hard Conservatives need to cease & desist with putting Ronald Reagan on a fricking pedestal for being a model Conservative and a staunch defender of the Constitution & the Second Amendment; because he was NOT, by the farthest stretch of the imagination; and he was the worst kind of RINO a hypocrite whom made inspirational speeches about his stellar support of the Constitution & Second Amendment and literally did the opposite...

    Much like the current charismatic orator in chief...

    Not withstanding, his tax hikes & amnesty and entitlement double-talk, and back-room deals with Tip O'Neil...

    If the term "Reagan Democrat" or "I am a Ronald Reagan Conservative" does not scare the crap out of people it should...

    The fundamental issue IS either the Constitution matters or it does not...

    You simply in good conscience cannot praise Hitler for being better then Mao because he killed less people...
    And you can't Praise Ronald Reagan because he trampled the Constitution less then FDR or Lincoln or the current Usurper in Chief...

    If one wants to split hairs; Ronald Reagan's constitutional infringements were worse than any President or branch of the Government in U.S. History...

    To reiterate for the bazillionith time The Second Amendment is the Keystone of the entire Constitution, and the founding documents; without the Unabridged Second Amendment the rest of the Constitution and founding documents have no value, and are unenforceable...

    IF the Constitution matters, then true Conservatives need to stop fricking praising somebody that trampled it...

    Conservatives, need to stop being pessimists and compromiser's when it comes to the Constitution and taking our rights back; believe it or not WE THE PEOPLE often need to educate our Political representatives on the Constitution, because they like us are victims of biased school books that have taken liberties with history & interpretation of the Constitution; take some time & snail-mail a pocket copy of the Constitution & the founding documents to your 2 U.S. Senators, Representative in U.S. House, and State & Local representatives...

    Ask them to introduce legislation to repeal 18 USC 922(o), the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, NICS, Brady Bill(s) ad nauseam, in short restored the Unabridged Second Amendment...

    Make a difference...

    The Time For Closet Conservatism IS OVER...

    To concede that we have no hope of restoring the Republic in our lifetime is spineless...

    It has been said that Rome was not built or destroyed in a day...
    Our way of life as we know it (or knew it as children) if we do not do something is on borrowed time, if we do not take our Country back to the tenets it was founded on; our form of government is the longest surviving in recorded world history, we passed the Romans long ago...

    Rome nor America was built in a day, but both were Created & Founded in a day...

    IT took a long day in Pennsylvania for 56 Patriots to create what would become the most prosperous country in recorded world history...

    It took 8 years (1775–1783) to give the Tax & Spend, Gun Banning Brits the beat-down they had coming...

    Freedom is not free...

    Step Up...

    WTFU SHEEPLE...

    Bill of Rights...
    God-Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    VOTE FREEDOM FIRST








    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. Bohemian ***Are you fricking daft?

    Maybe I am.....and your mama wears combat boots. Now that we got that out ofthe way...

    *** Just what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

    Seems pretty clear to me. However, with every Right, comes an equal or greater responsibility. When an individual demonstraits he is not capable of using his rights with responsibility, it is the duty of the state to suspend the rights of that individual. ie We have the inalienable rights of Life (deprived by the state with the death penalty), Liberty (jail??) and the pursuit of happiness (once again, unless what makes you happy violates the rights of others, ie rapists)

    ***It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the ***carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law ***was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    I sitll haven't seen the full text of this. Unfotunately, from what I can tell, it was a reaction to a specific situation. Unfortunately, they couldn't write the law (because of the way our legal system has come to be interpreted) to just apply to the Black Panthers, or they probably would have done that. When you have large quantities of agressive people running around saying they are going to kill you, what do you do? And as a politician, you sometimes do things you do not agree with so you can continue to do the good things you want to.

    ***In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the (NRA BACKED) so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act; which ***contained the first (Federal) de facto Gun Ban By Law-Abiding Private Citizens in U.S. History! AKA: ***Hughes Amendment - 18 USC 922(o)

    Yep, the same act that guaranteed we would not be arrested for transporting firearms, the same act that eliminated many of the abuses of BATFE, especially against FLLs, the same act that prevented registration, the same act that eliminated arbitrary denial by clarifiy exactly who could be denied. It basically overturned the firearms control act of 1968.
    The only thing it does that you do not like, I presume, is outlway full auto weapons (Hughes Amendment)? So we should live with the old regualtions instead of passing what we can? All or nothing, is that it? Sometimes you have to lose 1 to gain 3.

    ***Twenty-four years later after the Mulford Act of 1967, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support ***the (NRA BACKED) Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it ***without further delay."

    So what does the Brady Bill do??? It makes you wait 5 min while your dealer check the NICS to verify you are not psycho or a felon. Considering Reagan was shot by a wacko, I can understand why he would be for a law that prevents wackos from owning guns. Or do you want the violent insane sex offender living down the street to own 12 machine guns? Sometimes pragmatism has to win.

    ***Ronald Reagan was a Constitution Trampling Anti-Second Amendment Gun Banning RINO as a California ***Governor & as a sitting & ex-President...

    Flat out WRONG

    ***No Amount of good can wash away one single unconstitutional act or endorsement or support thereof...

    So, you will not accept the repeal of 3 Unconstitutional acts at the cost of 1? Guess what, you stand no chance in this world. This is exactly how the liberal establishment works, they will lose 3 and gain 1, and call it a victory. They nibble and nibble until the elephant has been eaten. We ahve to work the same way if we ever hope to accomplish anything. The all or nothing attitude will result in nothing.
    Never comprimise you beliefs, but take what victories you can, no matter how little. You must sometimes lose to win.

    Reagan was not perfect, neither is anyone else on this board. But he was GREAT.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfling68 View Post
    Bohemian ***Are you fricking daft?

    Maybe I am.....and your mama wears combat boots. Now that we got that out ofthe way...

    *** Just what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

    Seems pretty clear to me. However, with every Right, comes an equal or greater responsibility. When an individual demonstraits he is not capable of using his rights with responsibility, it is the duty of the state to suspend the rights of that individual. ie We have the inalienable rights of Life (deprived by the state with the death penalty), Liberty (jail??) and the pursuit of happiness (once again, unless what makes you happy violates the rights of others, ie rapists)

    ***It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the ***carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law ***was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    I sitll haven't seen the full text of this. Unfotunately, from what I can tell, it was a reaction to a specific situation. Unfortunately, they couldn't write the law (because of the way our legal system has come to be interpreted) to just apply to the Black Panthers, or they probably would have done that. When you have large quantities of agressive people running around saying they are going to kill you, what do you do? And as a politician, you sometimes do things you do not agree with so you can continue to do the good things you want to.

    ***In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the (NRA BACKED) so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act; which ***contained the first (Federal) de facto Gun Ban By Law-Abiding Private Citizens in U.S. History! AKA: ***Hughes Amendment - 18 USC 922(o)

    Yep, the same act that guaranteed we would not be arrested for transporting firearms, the same act that eliminated many of the abuses of BATFE, especially against FLLs, the same act that prevented registration, the same act that eliminated arbitrary denial by clarifiy exactly who could be denied. It basically overturned the firearms control act of 1968.
    The only thing it does that you do not like, I presume, is outlway full auto weapons (Hughes Amendment)? So we should live with the old regualtions instead of passing what we can? All or nothing, is that it? Sometimes you have to lose 1 to gain 3.

    ***Twenty-four years later after the Mulford Act of 1967, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support ***the (NRA BACKED) Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it ***without further delay."

    So what does the Brady Bill do??? It makes you wait 5 min while your dealer check the NICS to verify you are not psycho or a felon. Considering Reagan was shot by a wacko, I can understand why he would be for a law that prevents wackos from owning guns. Or do you want the violent insane sex offender living down the street to own 12 machine guns? Sometimes pragmatism has to win.

    ***Ronald Reagan was a Constitution Trampling Anti-Second Amendment Gun Banning RINO as a California ***Governor & as a sitting & ex-President...

    Flat out WRONG

    ***No Amount of good can wash away one single unconstitutional act or endorsement or support thereof...

    So, you will not accept the repeal of 3 Unconstitutional acts at the cost of 1? Guess what, you stand no chance in this world. This is exactly how the liberal establishment works, they will lose 3 and gain 1, and call it a victory. They nibble and nibble until the elephant has been eaten. We ahve to work the same way if we ever hope to accomplish anything. The all or nothing attitude will result in nothing.
    Never comprimise you beliefs, but take what victories you can, no matter how little. You must sometimes lose to win.

    Reagan was not perfect, neither is anyone else on this board. But he was GREAT.
    As a matter of fact my mother did wear combat boots... during WWII.

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, lacking any factual basis whatsoever; not withstanding you have no fundamental grasp of the Constitution or the Second Amendment or Case Law...

    The Fact Remains Ronald Reagan is personally responsible for creating NEW Unconstitutional Laws...

    There is no acceptable justification for violating the constitution...

    Ronald Regan remains a Constitution Trampling, Anti-Second Amendment Gun Banner, a granter of Amnesty, Tax Hikes and Entitlements just for starters...

    RONALD REAGAN WAS NO CONSERVATIVE...

    Leave Ronald Reagan DEAD & BURIED...



    "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." (Or Allow It To Be Repeated) - Edmund Burke

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #47
    The following article written in 2008 is a little long but throws some light on why even though we change presidents the long term goals of the elitist puppet masters move ever forward.


    Apples to Oranges PDF | Print |
    Written by Charles Scaliger
    Sunday, 13 July 2008 19:23

    How the front-running candidates compare when the rhetoric is peeled away.



    Every four years, the American presidential electoral burlesque gets underway with a flock of candidates vying to be anointed the Democratic or Republican standard-bearer, all the way to the Oval Office. Every one of those candidates promises change. Yet by the time the primary dust clears, the two candidates left standing seldom exhibit more than cosmetic differences in policy, either between themselves or in contrast to any president or major-party presidential nominee within living memory.

    Since the Great Depression, the American presidential race has almost always featured two major candidates with, to use former presidential candidate George Wallace’s pungent terminology, “not a dime’s worth of difference” between them. In particular, in matters of foreign policy, finance, and federal subsidies of every stripe — the three activities of the federal government that determine our political and economic destiny — no president or major-party presidential nominee since Calvin Coolidge, except Barry Goldwater, has strayed outside strictly observed lines of orthodoxy. The occasional candidate willing to challenge this bipartisan orthodoxy, and who manages to attract enough of a following to launch a viable campaign — a Congressman Ron Paul or a Pat Buchanan, or in a former generation, a Senator Robert Taft — always finds himself vilified and attacked by the so-called mainstream media and assailed by leadership within his own party.

    This electoral cycle is proving no different. A crowded field of presidential aspirants that included, on the Republican side, the principled Tom Tancredo and the impeccable libertarian constitutionalist Ron Paul, and on the Democratic, strident anti-establishment types like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, has been winnowed down to two polished posers who offer the American public, yet again, not a choice but an echo.
    Similar Script

    As with presidential tilts past, this one promises to be long on tawdry melodrama but short on substance. Obama’s skin color or bowling ability have nothing to do with his performance in office, any more than McCain’s alleged bad temper is a reliable indicator of his willingness to uphold the U.S. Constitution if elected. In fact, aside from age, race, and rhetorical style, Obama and McCain are remarkably similar in almost every area where their views really matter, despite the perception that one is a candidate of change and the other a candidate of the status quo.

    For example, neither candidate has uttered a peep against the United Nations or against the general internationalist cant of American foreign policy. Obama is widely viewed as the candidate more likely to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq, but he has made unmistakably clear, in his pledge to defend Israel and his tough talk on Iran, that he regards U.S. foreign aid and military involvement in the Middle East in some form as non-negotiable. As for American troops still deployed in around 130 countries, presumptive candidate Obama has given no indication he would consider bringing them home.

    Presumptive candidate McCain’s support of the Iraq War and other acts of U.S. military interventionism are well known. Council on Foreign Relations Director of Studies Gary Samore recently described McCain as an “interesting mix of neoconservative, for lack of a better term, and traditional, middle-of-the road internationalist.” He went on to note that U.S. military interventionism is a matter of bipartisan consensus: “There has been an element in American foreign policy, which has been expressed in both liberal Democratic administrations and conservative Republican administrations, for making the world in our image. That’s American. It’s just that the latest manifestation has been by a conservative Republican administration [i.e., the Bush presidency].”

    On issues related to the economy, both candidates follow a similar script. John McCain, the alleged conservative, proposes on his website to cut a wide range of taxes (especially on behalf of the middle class) and to reduce burdensome giveaways like the ethanol subsidy. Conveniently unspecified “broken” government programs are to be shut down. Social Security and Medicare, however, are not to be phased out but reformed along with federal unemployment benefits and subsidized home and student loans. His much-publicized hostility to budgetary earmarks is selective, to say the least; a McCain presidency certainly has no intention of challenging the overall premise of welfarism.

    In international trade, McCain supports “multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level[ing] the global playing field and build[ing] effective enforcement of global trading rules” — that is to say, continual participation in pet internationalist projects like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization designed to hijack our sovereign decision-making authority over trade.

    Tellingly, the McCain plan makes no mention whatsoever of dealing with the real culprit for the ongoing economic crisis, the noxious Federal Reserve System that has destroyed the worth of the dollar over decades of inflationary activity.

    As for Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, like his rival, favors cutting taxes for the middle class, reforming NAFTA and strengthening the World Trade Organization, and retooling the federal government’s role in the mortgage industry. He also supports raising the minimum wage, giving new vigor to labor unions, and investing in technology R&D, among many other things. Like McCain, Obama makes no mention of the Federal Reserve and targets no specific federal programs for elimination.

    On another prominent issue, the environment, both candidates are pledging to fight the supposed scourge of man-made global warming. Candidate Obama intends to use the power of the federal government, via a so-called “market-based cap-and-trade system,” to force American industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. Candidate McCain, by trivial contrast, proposes to use a market-based cap-and-trade system to compel industry to reduce carbon emissions by 60 percent by the year 2050.
    The American Establishment

    How does the modern American two-party political system so successfully exclude presidential candidates with genuinely contrasting programs, or with views sympathetic to limited, constitutional government? The answer lies in the way that the system has come under the control of a cadre of powerful elites, who have learned to control access to the Republican and Democratic presidential nominating process and to set the terms of political debate by manipulating public opinion.

    “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” wrote Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley, describing modern American political parties in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.” According to Quigley, who expended an extraordinary amount of ink detailing the rise of the modern international financial and political establishment (an “international network” whose secret records Quigley had been permitted to examine, but that “wished to remain unknown,” as the Georgetown historian characterized it), “the chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two … parties more national and international.” Bipartisan agreement on essential features of foreign policy, economics, and social engineering is a must, Quigley insisted:

    The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method: we must remain strong, continue to function as a great world Power in cooperation with other Powers, avoid high-level war, keep the economy moving without significant slump, help other countries do the same, provide the basic social necessities for all our citizens, open up opportunities for social shifts for those willing to work to achieve them, and defend the basic Western outlook of diversity, pluralism, cooperation, and the rest of it, as already described. These things any national American party hoping to win a presidential election must accept. But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

    Quigley’s language is vague, perhaps purposely so, but we can fill in a few of the blanks. “Function[ing] as a great world Power in cooperation with other Powers” means, among other things, maintaining American membership in the United Nations and other international organizations. “Keeping the economy moving” means using all manner of government interference to “stimulate” the economy, including manipulation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. “Help[ing] other countries do the same” is code for foreign aid as well as international financial collusion. “Provid[ing] the basic social necessities for all our citizens” is an open-ended reference to a range of welfarist sacred cows, quite likely ranging from agricultural subsidies to unemployment benefits to Social Security. Such policies outlined by Quigley (and borne out by the historical record, as we shall see) are calculated to ensure control by a few elites over the nation’s finances and international relations, and to fundamentally alter our entire system of government, jettisoning constitutional federalism in favor of oligarchical socialism.

    Accordingly, major presidential candidates for several generations have been permitted to propose varying degrees and differing allocations of foreign aid — but not to challenge the constitutionality of foreign aid in the first place. Our degree of participation in United Nations programs and UN-affiliated treaties like the Law of the Sea and the Kyoto Accord may be questioned, but not membership in the international body. Subsidies for agriculture, industry, education, welfare recipients, the arts, housing, and a wealth of other sectors, may be raised or lowered, but never abolished. Whether the Federal Reserve, together with the Treasury Department, chooses to pursue “tight” or “loose” monetary policy is fodder for debate; abolition of the entire Federal Reserve System is not. America has been saddled with a Federal Reserve System since 1913, with agricultural subsidies and Social Security since the Great Depression, with membership in the United Nations since the end of World War II, and with massive annual outflows of foreign aid since the post-World War II Marshall Plan, yet not once has any U.S. president questioned the viability of such programs.

    Quigley’s “network” of elites — in government, finance, business, the news media, and the academy — has managed to thwart since World War II nearly every attempt by a genuine conservative or constitutionalist to crash the presidential electoral party. In 1940, 1948, and 1952, conservative Ohio Senator Robert Taft (known as “Mr. Republican”) tried repeatedly to secure the GOP presidential nomination and, in spite of running three strong campaigns, was stymied thrice, in each case by a “mainstream” establishment-approved candidate.

    The GOP primary race between Taft and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 was a particularly close and bitterly contested affair that lasted right up to the convention. Once the convention opened, the Eisenhower camp, unsure of its chances of winning fair and square, persuaded the convention to replace pro-Taft delegates from a number of states with pro-Eisenhower delegates, alleging that the Taft camp had unfairly stolen them (echoes of more recent treatment of Ron Paul supporters in several state conventions). In spite of the Taft camp’s angry denials, the convention voted in favor of this so-called “Fair Play” proposal, and Eisenhower, by convention-floor sleight of hand, wrested the nomination from Robert Taft.

    Only once in modern times has a candidate in violation of establishment orthodoxy secured the presidential nomination. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative who did not fit the establishment mold, managed to get the GOP presidential nomination. Comments Quigley, “The capture of the Republican National Party by the extremist elements of the Republican Congressional Party in 1964, and their effort to elect Barry Goldwater to the Presidency with the petty-bourgeois extremists [note the Marxist terminology] alone, was only a temporary aberration on the American political scene.” Indeed, Goldwater soon found not only the Democratic Party but the leadership of his own party working against him. Nelson Rockefeller, a New York governor and leader of the liberal establishment wing of the GOP, helped to sabotage Goldwater’s campaign. The Arizona Senator was smeared as a war-monger, and an infamous anti-Goldwater campaign commercial showed a small child picking a daisy right before an atomic bomb detonated. The implication was that the fiery Goldwater would start a nuclear war, and it helped sink the GOP standard-bearer’s campaign. Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson, another big-government liberal who plunged America into the Vietnam War and whose Great Society welfare program of the sixties was surpassed only by the New Deal in scope and cost.

    Since the Goldwater campaign, America’s ruling establishment has successfully denied non-housetrained candidates a realistic shot at the presidency. Ronald Reagan talked a good talk, but his pick of arch-insider George Bush as his veep signaled his intention not to rock the boat. As president, Reagan continued to give lip service to limited government, but supported business as usual — bigger government, more favors to special interests, refusal to abolish programs he campaigned against — with his signing pen.

    Apples to Oranges

    To forestall the risk of a Goldwater ever again coming within an election of the presidency, genuine would-be agents of change — the occasional Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan who manages to stir the fancy of the GOP’s conservative base — are ruthlessly kneecapped in the primaries. The establishment elites usually accomplish this by persuading voters that the candidate in question, whatever his virtues, cannot win, and a ballot cast for him is a wasted vote. This technique was used against Taft in 1952, and has more recently been deployed against Ron Paul. To the degree that the American public allows itself to be lulled by such propaganda, the “can’t win” pronouncement becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    CFR Influence

    The American establishment, far from being a vague, loosely knit entity, is represented by a number of front organizations in the United States, of which the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is by far the most prominent.

    The importance of the CFR is difficult to overstate. Since its founding in 1921, the CFR has included in its membership many of America’s most influential men and women in government, finance, industry, the media, and the academy. CFR founder Edward Mandell (“Colonel”) House, for example, was President Woodrow Wilson’s closest adviser and the chief architect of the League of Nations. John Foster Dulles, another original CFR member, was one of America’s most important 20th-century foreign-policy architects. Yet another CFR co-founder, journalist Walter Lippmann, founded the influential political journal The New Republic and, as evidenced in his book Public Opinion, was among the first to promote the idea of major news networks controlled by America’s elites to manipulate public opinion in favor of big government (“manufacturing consent,” Lippmann termed it). The goals of the CFR’s founders were to create conditions in finance, in politics, and in public opinion under which the American system of limited government — a system Lippmann, House, and the others were dissatisfied with — could be fundamentally changed, and a new international order based on a truly global system of governance would eventually be accepted.

    Over the decades, CFR membership has grown to more than 4,000. CFR members have dominated every administration since Eisenhower, who was himself a member. Presidents Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. Bush, and Bill Clinton were all CFR members; so were vice presidents Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Every Secretary of State between Dean Acheson in 1953 and the present Condoleezza Rice except James Baker were CFR members; so was every Secretary of Defense from Eisenhower’s Neil H. McElroy through the present Michael Gates except Lyndon Johnson’s Clark Clifford (but Johnson’s other Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, was) and Donald Rumsfeld (who was a CFR member prior to joining the Bush administration).

    Every Federal Reserve chairman since Marriner Eccles under Truman has been a CFR member. Numerous prominent members of Congress and of the so-called “mainstream news media” are also CFR veterans. Truly, as Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood admitted in 1993, the Council on Foreign Relations is “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” The CFR is not, Harwood added, “a retinue of people who ‘look like America,’ as [President Bill Clinton] once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.”

    And what was true back in 1993 is even more the case now. The latest version of the American establishment’s quadrennial dog-and-pony show is underway, with two not-so-different presidential candidates backed by some wearily familiar faces.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, a veteran CFR member who was Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, has signed on as a foreign-policy adviser for Barack Obama (after serving presidential aspirant John McCain in the 2000 campaign in a similar capacity!). George Soros, the flamboyant billionaire hedge-fund manager and left-wing agitator — and also a CFR member — is another prominent Obama adviser. Of the 13 members of Obama’s Senior Working Group on National Security, eight (Madeleine Albright, David Boren, Warren Christopher, Lee Hamilton, Sam Nunn, William Perry, Susan Rice, and James Steinberg) are CFR members and one (Anthony Lake) is a former member. Former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, yet another prominent Obama adviser, is CFR; so is Penny Pritzker, Obama’s national finance chair. Obama’s economic advisers include CFR members Daniel Tarullo and Michael Froman.

    In the McCain camp, the picture is little different. McCain’s advisers on foreign policy and national security include Robert Kagan, Henry Kissinger, Peter Rodman, James Woolsey, Richard Williamson, and Stephen E. Biegun, some of whom are household names, and all of whom belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Among McCain’s economic advisers are numbered Peter G. Peterson, a former CFR chairman, as well as Gerald Parsky, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Kenneth Rogoff, Joseph Wright, and Anne Krueger, CFR members all.

    As for the mainstream news media in charge of conditioning the American public for yet another presidential Hobson’s choice, expect the likes of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Barbara Walters (all CFR members) not to rock the boat.

    Stylistic differences aside, an Obama or a McCain presidency would differ little. We may expect that, thanks to the stranglehold of the American establishment on the presidency, either man would — as their predecessors have done for several generations — continue to advance the internationalist/socialist agenda of their puppet masters and predecessors. Informed voters must understand that, until the CFR-centered establishment’s control over the executive branch is broken, genuine reforms restoring constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government will not be forthcoming from any American president. Other portions of the federal government less under the control of establishment insiders — the House of Representatives, most prominently — are still susceptible to genuine reform.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. Bohemian***As a matter of fact my mother did wear combat boots... during WWII.

    ***You are certainly entitled to your opinion, lacking any factual basis whatsoever; not withstanding you ***have no fundamental grasp of the Constitution or the Second Amendment or Case Law...

    err, I seem to have have laid out my factual basis quite well, you just seem to be taking things out of context, and have no flexibility at all. And I probably have as good an understanding of the Constitution and anyone, but I also seem to have a grasp of the way the world works as well. Ideals are wonderful things that we should strive to achieve, however, where the rubber meets the road, pragmatism wins out every time.

    ***The Fact Remains Ronald Reagan is personally responsible for creating NEW Unconstitutional Laws...

    OK, so he did it all by himself? He wrote the laws? Lets go down your list, As governor, he signed a law to restrict the display (NOT ownership) of guns in public as an emergency respons to the Black Panthers (I'm sure they were all just misunderstood, fine young gentlemen) terrorizing people (If you cannot use your rights wisely, you will lose them, one way or another) Consatitutionally, does the Second Amendment 100% apply to the states? It didn't originally, it was added through the 14th amendment, sort of, with the caveat "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" So we have a man who SIGNED, not authored a STATE law that had unfortunate side effects. Do you have the text of the original law???
    Next, you have the law that repeals most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, it didn't do 100% of what you liked, so you are against it.
    then you have a law requiring a background check to verify the people who shouldn't legally have guns don't buy them. Sorry, the Second Amendment does not say thou shalt not run backroud checks, it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" It is acceptable, under certains circumstances, to deprive an individual his Constitutional rights, with due process. Such as one who has been convicted by a court of law of a crime, or has been found to be insane.

    ***There is no acceptable justification for violating the constitution...

    Oh, I don't know about that, I can think of many times I would deprive certain people of their Constitutional rights. I don't think the GITMO terrorist deserve Constitutional rights, illegal aliens should just be deported,no trial necessary, etc. Where the rubber meets the road, pragmatism always wins eventually (oryou die).

    ***Ronald Regan remains a Constitution Trampling, Anti-Second Amendment Gun Banner, a granter of ***Amnesty, Tax Hikes and Entitlements just for starters...

    Now we move on to other areas, if you wish to discuss those, we should probably start a new thread so everyone can ignore us easier.

    ***RONALD REAGAN WAS NO CONSERVATIVE...

    Wrong

    ***Leave Ronald Reagan DEAD & BURIED...

    You are the one who brought him up and attacked.

    I understand where you are comming from. I just disagree. When you interact with others, you must sometimes comprimise, otherwise society cannot function.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  10. I jsut want to be clear about something, I am not saying compramise your principles and ideals, just act in a way that has the best chance of realizing them. In the real world, that means accepting things you do not like so you can get the things you do. The object is to keep pursuing your ideals to the best of your ability. Always keep your eyes on the goal, so when you take a step back, you still know where you are going. Lose 1 to gain 2.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  11. #50
    How's this for triangulating: I agree with Bohemian, Wolfling, and HK4U.

    I am certainly in the camp where HK resides as I believe in "puppetmasters", no doubt. There are things going on behind the scenes, the surface of which has only been scratched.

    Wolfling is correct, IMO, that fighting within the system means that only incremental gains can be had. I, too, have stated that restoring this country to a Constittuional republic will not happen in our lifetimes. We must stay in the game, all the while knowing that the rules which govern the game will be slow to change and our unabridged rights slow to be restored.

    And, as time goes on, I'm starting to develop Bohemian's focused 2A mindset. It seems to me that given the constant stripping away of our rights and freedom, we had better be FIGHTING for our 2A rights and candidates who support them wholeheartedly. Our 2A RKBA is the foundation upon which all of our other rights rest. We best not lose it.

    Going forward, I will vote for the candidate who unequivocally supports the 2A. Period. At this point, I'm much less concerned about their position is on jobs, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. as long as the 2A is strengthened. I'm slowly becoming a "single issue" voter and that issue is the 2A. It is the bedrock upon which we all stand. Lose it and it's game over.

    (This ongoing argument about R. Reagan serves no useful purpose other than stirring up passion which could be put to better use elsewhere. He did what he did and he's dead and gone. Move forward.)

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reagan on Socialism - Through Socialized Medicine
    By rocknrod in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 10:07 AM
  2. President Reagan
    By surfcc in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 09:01 PM
  3. Palin = Reagan & Thacher
    By Grumpy in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 03:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast