Update from Ukraine | Ruzzia Attacks Again and Fails Again | The most stupid way to attack

Youtube.com ^ | 10-14-2023 | Denys Davydov

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

Update from Ukraine | Ruzzia Attacks Again and Fails Again | The most stupid way to attack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gil7i1Aj3t4

The summary of the situation of Russian re-invasion to Ukraine covering the recent developments on the battlefield, as of 11th October 2023 – 22:00 (Kyiv time). [NOTE: two summaries per week, released on Wednesday and Sunday]

https://militaryland.net/news/invasion-day-595-summary/

*** Great interactive maps with viewer controlled Map magnification tool to use for each Front!

https://militaryland.net/maps/

[JonPreston]

BroJoeK: "The claim that Soros organized Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution is standard Russian agit-prop"

LINK

Soros-affiliated organizations across the world are deeply connected to various color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other political uprisings across the globe. According to a report, the totality of what is revealed in three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth.

[Allegra]

You are NOT to ping me. Ever. I have asked you and told you countless times.

I do not read your long, tired gobbledegook and I do not want it polluting my pings page.

Do NOT ping me. STOP.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I mean, look at Canada for an example of failure. But not because of some dramatically different racial groups, but something as simple as English vs. French. Quebec being given special status and able to be the proverbial fly in the ointment to the rest of the nation, it’s absurd. The bilingual business is ludicrous. In English-speaking areas requiring signage and the like in both French and English. BUT, when you’re in Quebec itself (and I’ve visited there), if you want ANY signage in English to accommodate the millions of English speakers, forget it. Everything is in French, no exceptions.

Double standards like this is a premier example of why multiculturalism doesn’t work. Quebec should’ve either been let go to be its own nation, or English should’ve been imposed back in the 19th century, which would’ve allowed its full assimilation into the Canadian culture. Just imagine if we had let such a mess of languages and distinct cultures in the 18th and 19th century, German, French, Dutch, Swedish, Italian, Spanish, et al, without assimilation into the English-speaking culture ? The country would’ve come apart over 100 years ago. The fact we’ve never been able to come together to officially declare English as the official language is yet another example of what will be our undoing.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I just hear sounds of flatulence to accompany the stink of your derping.

[Reverend Wright]

Agreed.

A Constitution can’t work unless you have a relatively homogenous population that agrees with the basic premises.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec rejected the 1982 (Trudeau) Constitution and continues to do so.

In addition to language, the legal system of Quebec is based on the Code Napoleon, not the Common Law of England.

Multi-National Empires with national differences have existed, and can be stable. But even those require relatively homogenous Nations.

But the modern mass immigration western nations are just a mass of incompatible factions with existential conflicts - Palestinian vs Jew is just one example of a hundred conflicts imported into every Western country.

[BroJoeK]

Reverend Wright: "California has been spiralling into self-destructive leftist insanity.
And the rest of the country only a few years behind.
If you were right, California would be the first to reject leftism, since they have the greatest level of leftist misrule."

With the notable exception of Ronald Reagan, and even he governed more moderately than his speeches suggest, all of California's Republicans were "moderates" if not RINOs, consider:

1. Earl Warren 1943 - 1953
2. Goodwin Knight 1953 - 1959
3. Ronald Reagan 1967 - 1975
4. George Deukmejian 1983 - 1991
5. Pete Wilson 1991 - 1999
6. Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003 - 2011

I post this list to show that California Republicans were almost never very conservative, and pointedly, because the list begins with Earl Warren and ends in Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Of course, I well remember, in 1964 conservative Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater defeated more moderate New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller in the California Primary, but then Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson by over 18 points, with Johnson carrying all but a small handful of California counties.

My point is, going all the way back to Earl Warren, California Republicans were seldom seriously conservative and with Arnold Schwarzenegger California Republicans more or less committed Japanese ritual seppuku.

Impossible to say now if or when California Republicans can ever recover their mojo, or who might lead them, especially since demographic trends are replacing conservative citizen voters with illegal aliens voting for Democrats.

But at some point even the most "oppressed intersectional minorities" must look around them at the results of one-party Democrat top-down rule and begin to look for something better from their elected leaders.

Not all Hispanics, Asians or blacks are brain-dead lock-step die-hard corruption-tolerant Democrats.
Some will want a better life for themselves and their communities.

Out of somewhere there will come the Republican leadership to inspire voters to change course.

Where & when is impossible to say now, but it will happen, when God wills it, I believe.

Reverend Wright: "Cf. the supposed Biblical basis of all this.
In the Bible it specifically endorses the legitimacy of tribal/clan leadership, Judgeship, Monarchy, Empire.
Nowhere does it endorse Republic or Democracy as legitimate government forms."

Seriously? Here you are, yet again, on conservative Free Republic, defending values which have nothing to do with American conservatism??

Well, you can burn in heck if you try to pit the Bible against the Constitution, FRiend, that does not work on Free Republic.
We consider the two documents closely related and tied together.
And if you seriously wish to debate this, we certainly can, at great length if necessary.
How about if we begin here:

1. Adam & Eve had no king
   
2. Noah had a large family and no king.
   
3. Abraham lead his family and tribe and had no king.
   
4. Moses was God's chosen leader of 12 tribes, but he was not their king.
   
5. Samuel was God's prophet and God did not want him to anoint a king, because God well knew that kings were often more problems than solutions.

Are you beginning to see what the Bible really thinks about kings and other such rulers?
They are at best necessary evils and at worst can lead to total destruction.

Do we need to go on with this debate, or are you starting to see my point?

[JonPreston]

Stop supporting Soros

LINK

"Soros-affiliated organizations across the world are deeply connected to various color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other political uprisings across the globe. According to a report, the totality of what is revealed in three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Still hearing flatulence.

[fieldmarshaldj]

They’ve already lost countless Conservative donors because of these globalist trolls. If not just the Zelenskybots, but for all the Kevin the Turd McCarthy/Lizard Cheney supporter-whiners. All this trash needs to be taken out. They have plenty of places on Derp State message boards to massage each other.

[Reverend Wright]

“Well, you can burn in heck if you try to pit the Bible against the Constitution, FRiend, that does not work on Free Republic.
We consider the two documents closely related and tied together.
And if you seriously wish to debate this, we certainly can, at great length if necessary. “

---

We don’t need an endless debate. You just show me in the Bible where it defines Republic as a legitimate government form.

Because I can show you where Christ Himself acknowledged Empire as legitimate.

“Well, you can burn in heck [what kind of goofy bowdlerism is this?] if you try to pit the Bible against the Constitution, FRiend, that does not work on Free Republic.
We consider the two documents closely related and tied together.”

Well, “Constitutional Conservatives” have a one hundred year record of failure and defeat.

I suggest part of the problem is that “Bible + Constitution” became “Constitution + Bible”, and eventually just Constitution.

“The Constitution” has become an idol for many American conservatives. They even speak of “reverence” for the constitution and that its principles are “sacred”.

America is being destroyed as if it was run by Idol worshippers. And American “Conservatives” who worship the Constitution are part of the problem.

[fieldmarshaldj]

There was even an original Star Trek episode where the founding documents were “worshipped.”

[Reverend Wright]

The Constitution does incorporate Biblical principles such as the requirement to have an honest and impartial legal system.

(Of course the Constitution is failing to maintain that principle, along with everything else).

But the Constitution is based on flawed Enlightenment premises, and was bound for failure.

An enduring nation can only be built by a unified God-fearing population.

The Constitution is a failed secular substitute for that.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup. If the people are rotten heathens, so will be their nation. As we now see.

[Reverend Wright]

Even if the nation is divided into partly God-fearing, and partly heathen / Pagan.

The Pagan part will dominate, as the historyof Israel in the Old Testament shows.

[BroJoeK]

fieldmarshaldj: "Still hearing flatulence."

Your word "flatulence" defines you fieldmarshaldj, it is your essence, your mental level, your raison d'etre, it's what you live and breath onto Free Republic.

When you post, everyone else groans & holds our noses.

[BroJoeK]

Allegra: "If that faggot pings me again with his malodorous nonsense that I never read, I’m cutting off my donations.
Let it be on BroJerK that FR has lost another donor."

And there it is, yet another insanely insulting threat from someone who has no serious facts, reasons or arguments to offer.

I'd say that such nonsense is a certain admission by you of defeat in any serious discussion.

[BroJoeK]

Reverend Wright: "We don’t need an endless debate.
You just show me in the Bible where it defines Republic as a legitimate government form.
Because I can show you where Christ Himself acknowledged Empire as legitimate."

The Bible has no definition of a republic at all, for good or evil.
But it does acknowledge a role for people in selecting their own leaders, beginning in

Deuteronomy 1:13 - "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you."

In the early Christian church, bishops were often elected by their congregations and confirmed by their peers.
That is the Christian ideal of building heaven on earth, while kings and other such rulers are well understood to be, at best, necessary mundane evils.

Reverend Wright: "Well, “Constitutional Conservatives” have a one-hundred-year record of failure and defeat.
I suggest part of the problem is that “Bible + Constitution” became “Constitution + Bible”, and eventually just Constitution."

The new US Constitution was under assault from anti-Federalists and Democratics since Day One in 1787.
They opposed its ratification, they sought to defeat its authority with unconstitutional doctrines like "nullification", and once themselves elected to power, they expanded its powers unconstitutionally, an early example being the Louisiana Purchase, which even Jefferson admitted should require a constitutional amendment to authorize.

In 1830 Democrats threatened secession over the "Tariff of Abominations" and in 1860 began to declare secession over the election of a "Black Republican" president and to wage war against the United States.
Democrats have always been deadly serious in their opposition to the United States, and today are just as serious and just as deadly as ever.

So the US Constitution exists today at all only because, since Day One, the old Federalists, Whigs and Republicans rose to the occasion and defeated the anti-Federalist Democrats in elections and in civil warfare when necessary.

Today Republicans are weak, but we have always been weak, ever since the election of 1800, when Jefferson's Southern Democratics allied with New York's Tammany Hall immigrant bosses to defeat Federalist John Adams for reelection, Democrats have almost always been the majority party.

Whig and Republican victories only ever came when the majority Democrats thoroughly screwed up or split up themselves as they did for the election of 1860.

Still, Republicans in 1860 were not a majority, but only a large enough minority to elect a President and Congress willing, for the first time, to stand up to insanely anti-American Democrats, to wage war against them and to defeat them thoroughly enough to keep them from serious political power for many years after.

But the era of relative conservative Republican political dominance ended with the Great Depression and the 1932 election, ever since which Republicans have been a struggling oppressed minority, barely holding onto basic Constitutional values against the anti-Constitution Democrat juggernaut election machine.

Today the political skys seem dark, the future looks grim and bleak, but I think we've been here before and much worse in the past.
Always before a miracle from God has brought us a majority and leaders worthy of the times, worthy enough to preserve our Constitution to live on and fight another day.

Anyway, that's how I see it.
Your results may differ.

[JonPreston]