U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS SHOW

The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.

In a three-page memo, members of the National Security Council wrote, "There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention."

The memo shows that the department, along with the CIA, considered buying Soviet aircraft to stage the attacks, even getting estimates from the Air Force on how long it would take and how much it would cost to produce the planes domestically and covertly. Costs ranged from $3.5 million to $44 million per plane, depending on the model, most taking several months to build.

"If he were opportunist regarding Joe McCarthy, they would have sided against McCarthy and made sure he came out tarred and feathered, since that’s EXACTLY what the Democrat Party did at the time, made sure he ended up with a destroyed reputation."

McCarthy was an Irish Catholic. Until not long before his Senate runs, he was still a Democrat as most Irish Catholics were. The Wisconsin Democrat party had generally been the weak party. The state was dominated by the Socialist La Follettes who used the Republican Party as a vehicle for their agenda. In the 1930s, the La Follettes split entirely from the Republicans to form the WI Progressive Party. It was during that period that a young McCarthy was a Democrat. With the rise of the WI Republicans again by the late '30s and early '40s over the Progressives, McCarthy then switched to the GOP. The Democrats had reason to worry that if one of their most valuable bloc voters, Catholics, left the party for the GOP, this could have disastrous consequences nationally.

When McCarthy, on his second try for the Senate in 1946, managed to upend Sen. Robert La Follette, Jr. after he returned to the GOP in the Senate primary, it was nothing short of a revolution in WI. Junior La Follette didn't take losing very well and ended up committing suicide not long after. McCarthy was a dangerous figure to the Democrats on a number of fronts: he was very popular to the working class Catholics, and secondly when he began to take on the cause of the Soviet infiltration of the government and their sympathizers. He was also using his newfound celebrity to take down left-wing Democrats in the Senate, many of whom were supported by anti-American interests. He was also not well-regarded by the elitist establishment wing of the GOP, which had grown more and more comfortable with Socialism in the post-1932 era.

"I know that’s exactly what I would have done had I been them and I been opportunistic since that’s EXACTLY what most Democrats did. In fact, the vast majority of the Democrats, even Harry Truman, who was painted as a hardliner against Communism, practically turned on McCarthy like a used car. The fact that JFK actually sided with him, AGAINST the rest of his party, would strongly suggest he isn’t opportunistic, or at least, he’s less opportunistic than most other members of the party. I know if I were one of those other democrats and operated under their viewpoint, then Irish Catholic Democrats in Massachusetts or not, I would have probably gone out of my way to ensure he got tarred and feathered, NOT defend him even when the rest of the democrat party is against me, because that’s exactly how the others acted during that time, again, including even Harry Truman."

And yet it was raw opportunism that motivated the Kennedys in linking themselves to Joe McCarthy. As I said, in the early '50s, McCarthy was a hero to Irish Catholic Democrats, especially in Massachusetts. At that time, Jack Kennedy was a Congressman trying to distinguish himself. His paternal grandfather, John Fitzgerald, had also been a Congressman and ran against the grandfather of Lodge, Henry Cabot, Sr. in 1916 for Senator. Politics in Massachusetts had been largely divided between the Protestant Republican Brahmins and Irish Catholic Democrats. When the then-heavily Whig Massachusetts in the 1850s saw the collapse of that party, many members briefly utilized the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party for the interim before the Republican Party was officially organized. Because of this, it bitterly divided the two religious groups. The Protestants feared the incoming Catholics would eventually outpopulate and outvote them in time, which eventually happened. The 1916 race was a warning of things to come. The corrupt, but affable Honey Fitz vs. the stalwart Conservative Lodge Sr. The most serious warning came in 1928 when reliably Republican Massachusetts repudiated Herbert Hoover for NY Irish Catholic Al Smith for President (as did neighboring Rhode Island, which also was heavily GOP, but with a burgeoning Catholic population).

Curiously, Rhode Island Republicans could see the writing on the wall and ran a Quebec-born French Canadian Catholic for Senator in 1928 against an incumbent Democrat, Felix Hebert (same name as a future long-time Democrat Congressman from Louisiana, though no relation). Even as Hoover lost RI, Hebert took the Senate seat and went to DC. Massachusetts, tightly controlled by the GOP Brahmins, largely failed to begin to make inroads into the Catholic population, which remained overwhelmingly Democrat. Flash forward to 1952 and Kennedy is making his run against Cabot, Jr... It would've been unimaginable for JFK to go against Joe McCarthy in Massachusetts, even if national Democrats despised him. In this case, religion was thicker than party. Cabot, Jr. was not seen as a particular ally of McCarthy, he was regarded more as the rabble of the Democrat opposition in his state. But former Ambassador Joseph Kennedy realized that it would be McCarthy that would turn the race. His son would ride on McCarthy's popularity in the state to victory, despite his being a Republican. They cultivated Joe in every way possible (Bobby, of course, went to work for him). Had he repudiated McCarthy, JFK would not have won in 1952, it's that simple. Although ultimately McCarthy gave a tepid endorsement (solely due to party) to Lodge, there was already the appearance that a JFK win would not be seen as a "bad" thing. Lodge's problem, too, was that he had jettisoned the old Conservative politics of his grandfather and was a trendy young liberal. Between that and the religious politics of the state, it allowed for the toppling of the Republican majority, and Massachusetts would rapidly move to the Democrat party control (and ultimately, leftward).

I'll add, too, that when the attacks against McCarthy by the usual suspects began to take its toll on his popularity and when it came time for the "censure" vote against him in 1954, JFK made sure he was conveniently out of the Senate so that he wouldn't have to vote. Opportunism and cowardice. If he voted against censure, he would've been severely damaged as a future Democrat Presidential candidate nationally. If he voted for it, he would've been voting against the wishes of his Irish Catholic base, who viewed the attacks on McCarthy because of his religion.

"I can name quite a few liberal people who stood against it regardless of party ties: Jack Nicholson, for starters, is liberal enough that he spoke glowingly of Cuba under Castro of all places, and you’d be surprised to learn that he’s actually one of the more pro-life of them, especially when he himself nearly ended up aborted. Same goes for Martin Sheen, who actually went as far as to avoid associating himself with Barack Obama precisely BECAUSE of the latter’s pro-Abortion stance, and part of the reason he was against Obama’s pro abortion stance was because he was also Catholic. And let’s not forget Randall Terry, who is explicitly a Democrat, yet has even gone to jail to push the pro-life message, campaigned on it. And bear in mind, Nicholson and Sheen are both current and very openly left-wing in various issues. If they can speak out against abortion even today, let alone presumably back then, I’m pretty sure JFK would do the same, period, even if he is leftist. There’s even a whole list of them compiled here, and with footnotes as well:"

But celebrities are still not elected officials. If their power and influence were at stake as elected officials, I guarantee they would've changed their tune or be kicked out of office. In the scope of things, Nicholson, Sheen and Terry were not particularly influential political figures. Again, if you think JFK would've been a pro-lifer had he lived into the '70s and '80s (or '90s), I think you're fooling yourself. He was always going to eventually go with the prevailing party opinion. You might have a point had Teddy defended life issues, but that got in the way with appealing to the radical feminist lobby. It would've been no different with JFK.

“McCarthy was an Irish Catholic. Until not long before his Senate runs, he was still a Democrat as most Irish Catholics were. The Wisconsin Democrat party had generally been the weak party. The state was dominated by the Socialist La Follettes who used the Republican Party as a vehicle for their agenda. In the 1930s, the La Follettes split entirely from the Republicans to form the WI Progressive Party. It was during that period that a young McCarthy was a Democrat. With the rise of the WI Republicans again by the late ‘30s and early ‘40s over the Progressives, McCarthy then switched to the GOP. The Democrats had reason to worry that if one of their most valuable bloc voters, Catholics, left the party for the GOP, this could have disastrous consequences nationally.

When McCarthy, on his second try for the Senate in 1946, managed to upend Sen. Robert La Follette, Jr. after he returned to the GOP in the Senate primary, it was nothing short of a revolution in WI. Junior La Follette didn’t take losing very well and ended up committing suicide not long after. McCarthy was a dangerous figure to the Democrats on a number of fronts: he was very popular to the working class Catholics, and secondly when he began to take on the cause of the Soviet infiltration of the government and their sympathizers. He was also using his newfound celebrity to take down left-wing Democrats in the Senate, many of whom were supported by anti-American interests. He was also not well-regarded by the elitist establishment wing of the GOP, which had grown more and more comfortable with Socialism in the post-1932 era.”

Again, Barack Obama ran as a black man during the 2008 and 2012 elections, and despite doing everything he can while in office to completely screw over his representative block in favor of far left donors, he still managed to win re-election in the latter. I’m pretty sure JFK would have pulled something similar if he were truly opportunistic, like how Obama opportunistically backstabbed his so-called fellow blacks, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed their fellow blacks in favor of far left positions, and continue to be voted back in again and again.

And for the record, McCarthy during the McCarthyist period, in fact, during all two terms of his time in the Senate, was actually a Republican, which is the most important point, especially among Democrats (take Nixon for example: It didn’t matter to them that he capitulated to their demands and implemented leftist policies such as Title 4 or created the EPA, they still wanted his blood for exposing Alger Hiss as a Communist to be condemned, made sure he ended up being pressured to resign under Watergate. And bear in mind, Nixon, Kennedy, AND McCarthy were allies regarding anti-Communism.). That if anything would have been even MORE reason to turn against him in favor of the Democrats and thus be opportunistic. Yet they didn’t, they aided and defended him right to the very end. Contrast that with, say, Harry Truman, who refused to listen to Whittaker Chambers and his exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent and also fired MacArthur for his trek into China, or heck, most of the Democrats who turned against McCarthy in a heartbeat, and even several Republicans/Conservatives such as Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Am I saying he’s ideally Conservative? No, not really, JFK is guilty of several left-wing stuff, but he at least did promote some Conservative stuff, which STILL makes him more Conservative than, say, Clinton or Obama.

“And yet it was raw opportunism that motivated the Kennedys in linking themselves to Joe McCarthy. As I said, in the early ‘50s, McCarthy was a hero to Irish Catholic Democrats, especially in Massachusetts. At that time, Jack Kennedy was a Congressman trying to distinguish himself. His paternal grandfather, John Fitzgerald, had also been a Congressman and ran against the grandfather of Lodge, Henry Cabot, Sr. in 1916 for Senator. Politics in Massachusetts had been largely divided between the Protestant Republican Brahmins and Irish Catholic Democrats. When the then-heavily Whig Massachusetts in the 1850s saw the collapse of that party, many members briefly utilized the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party for the interim before the Republican Party was officially organized. Because of this, it bitterly divided the two religious groups. The Protestants feared the incoming Catholics would eventually outpopulate and outvote them in time, which eventually happened. The 1916 race was a warning of things to come. The corrupt, but affable Honey Fitz vs. the stalwart Conservative Lodge Sr. The most serious warning came in 1928 when reliably Republican Massachusetts repudiated Herbert Hoover for NY Irish Catholic Al Smith for President (as did neighboring Rhode Island, which also was heavily GOP, but with a burgeoning Catholic population).

Curiously, Rhode Island Republicans could see the writing on the wall and ran a Quebec-born French Canadian Catholic for Senator in 1928 against an incumbent Democrat, Felix Hebert (same name as a future long-time Democrat Congressman from Louisiana, though no relation). Even as Hoover lost RI, Hebert took the Senate seat and went to DC. Massachusetts, tightly controlled by the GOP Brahmins, largely failed to begin to make inroads into the Catholic population, which remained overwhelmingly Democrat. Flash forward to 1952 and Kennedy is making his run against Cabot, Jr... It would’ve been unimaginable for JFK to go against Joe McCarthy in Massachusetts, even if national Democrats despised him. In this case, religion was thicker than party. Cabot, Jr. was not seen as a particular ally of McCarthy, he was regarded more as the rabble of the Democrat opposition in his state. But former Ambassador Joseph Kennedy realized that it would be McCarthy that would turn the race. His son would ride on McCarthy’s popularity in the state to victory, despite his being a Republican. They cultivated Joe in every way possible (Bobby, of course, went to work for him). Had he repudiated McCarthy, JFK would not have won in 1952, it’s that simple. Although ultimately McCarthy gave a tepid endorsement (solely due to party) to Lodge, there was already the appearance that a JFK win would not be seen as a “bad” thing. Lodge’s problem, too, was that he had jettisoned the old Conservative politics of his grandfather and was a trendy young liberal. Between that and the religious politics of the state, it allowed for the toppling of the Republican majority, and Massachusetts would rapidly move to the Democrat party control (and ultimately, leftward).

I’ll add, too, that when the attacks against McCarthy by the usual suspects began to take its toll on his popularity and when it came time for the “censure” vote against him in 1954, JFK made sure he was conveniently out of the Senate so that he wouldn’t have to vote. Opportunism and cowardice. If he voted against censure, he would’ve been severely damaged as a future Democrat Presidential candidate nationally. If he voted for it, he would’ve been voting against the wishes of his Irish Catholic base, who viewed the attacks on McCarthy because of his religion.”

That never stopped the likes of, say, Harry Truman from firing General MacArthur regarding his trek into China during the Korean War, or his demonizing Whittaker Chambers while he tried to expose that Alger Hiss as a spy, and that was despite his cultivating a pretty big reputation during that time of being a hardline anti-Communist (a reputation, BTW, that’s being pushed in our history books as we speak). If he could do it, JFK most certainly could vote against him openly and not even worry about the Catholic base turning against him. Heck, Obama managed to backstab his own black base multiple times and STILL got reelected despite that, same goes for the so-called Congressional Black Caucus, where despite leaving them even poorer than before they STILL get reelected. And don’t get me started on several other big-name Democrats who went out of their way to ensure McCarthy was demonized, not to mention the likes of Ed Murrow, a CBS newscaster. And again, raw opportunism would have them explicitly siding with the Democrats, stabbing their Irish Catholic base in the back, simply to toe the party line, just as Obama did with his black base, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed the guys they claimed to represent, all for pushing left-wing views.

“But celebrities are still not elected officials. If their power and influence were at stake as elected officials, I guarantee they would’ve changed their tune or be kicked out of office. In the scope of things, Nicholson, Sheen and Terry were not particularly influential political figures. Again, if you think JFK would’ve been a pro-lifer had he lived into the ‘70s and ‘80s (or ‘90s), I think you’re fooling yourself. He was always going to eventually go with the prevailing party opinion. You might have a point had Teddy defended life issues, but that got in the way with appealing to the radical feminist lobby. It would’ve been no different with JFK.”

They may not be elected officials, that much is true, but make no mistake, those actors are politicians, trying to sway public policies, even being members of political organizations such as “Not My War” and ANSWER and other stuff. Can’t get any more political than that. And besides, you clearly haven’t seen how leftist Hollywood celebrities shun anyone who even steps slightly out of line (for goodness sakes, the wife of Ted Nugent actually got shunned by Hollywood just because she happened to be the wife of Ted Nugent, and only revealed this absentmindedly while taking a cell phone call. If they can do that, I’m pretty sure they’d risk their standing by even speaking in favor of being pro-life. In fact, one director, Lionel Chetwynd, was actually barred from making films in Hollywood due to his conservative politics.). In fact, they make Jacobins seem tolerant, that’s how intolerant of any slight dissent they are. Heck, Cher actually pushed for abortion in spite of the fact that she herself was nearly an abortion victim, something which not even Jack Nicholson, himself no stranger to left-wing politics, would never support under any circumstance and made very clear he’d even go against his party if necessary when it came to that issue.

"Again, Barack Obama ran as a black man during the 2008 and 2012 elections, and despite doing everything he can while in office to completely screw over his representative block in favor of far left donors, he still managed to win re-election in the latter."

He didn't just run as the "Black Man", but as the alternative to a damaged and divisive Hillary. He won the general election in both instances because neither Republican running were attempting to win, indeed, they were outright ringers who sought to prevent Conservative opposition to Zero.

"I’m pretty sure JFK would have pulled something similar if he were truly opportunistic, like how Obama opportunistically backstabbed his so-called fellow blacks, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed their fellow blacks in favor of far left positions, and continue to be voted back in again and again."

JFK was notoriously opportunistic and cunning. Look at the fraud that was perpetrated in then-Democrat West Virginia in the primaries in a state that was pretty stridently anti-Catholic. Then-Sen. Hubert Humphrey should've won there in 1960 and fraud and payoffs stripped him of a key win. Look, too, that Mr. Civil Rights told his celebrity pal Sammy Davis, Jr. not to marry White actress May Britt lest it hurt him at the polls. And yet so many Black households have a portrait of JFK hanging in a place of prominence next to MLK. These are just two more examples. I just don't know what you're trying to squeeze out of JFK to look statesmanlike or "Conservative." He was an opportunist of the highest order who used fraud and deceit to rise to power, and the damage he ultimately inflicted (and his family) in office and then turning him into a great martyr, has caused this nation most grievously.

"And for the record, McCarthy during the McCarthyist period, in fact, during all two terms of his time in the Senate, was actually a Republican, which is the most important point, especially among Democrats (take Nixon for example: It didn’t matter to them that he capitulated to their demands and implemented leftist policies such as Title 4 or created the EPA, they still wanted his blood for exposing Alger Hiss as a Communist to be condemned, made sure he ended up being pressured to resign under Watergate. And bear in mind, Nixon, Kennedy, AND McCarthy were allies regarding anti-Communism.). That if anything would have been even MORE reason to turn against him in favor of the Democrats and thus be opportunistic. Yet they didn’t, they aided and defended him right to the very end. Contrast that with, say, Harry Truman, who refused to listen to Whittaker Chambers and his exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent and also fired MacArthur for his trek into China, or heck, most of the Democrats who turned against McCarthy in a heartbeat, and even several Republicans/Conservatives such as Dwight D. Eisenhower."

Nixon merely tried to co-opt some left-wing causes, which was a huge mistake. His time to have served as President should've been from 1961-1969. I absolutely believe a President Nixon during that period would've drastically changed the country for the better. Fidel would've been removed, Khruschev could not have gotten the upper hand on Nixon, and the approach in Vietnam would've been different and likely resolved much more quickly. Nixon also probably wouldn't have embarked on a crazy massive government scheme like Great Society. BTW, as for Eisenhower, I think he was a disaster for the Republicans. He was at heart a left-winger and raised by a Socialist father. He didn't take the Soviet infiltration of our government and institutions seriously and allowed the Democrats to grab 2/3rds of the Congress in 1958 and didn't lift a finger to help Nixon. It took over 2 decades to regain the Senate and 4 for the House thanks to Eisenhower and enabled JFK and LBJ to pursue massive government schemes.

"Am I saying he’s ideally Conservative? No, not really, JFK is guilty of several left-wing stuff, but he at least did promote some Conservative stuff, which STILL makes him more Conservative than, say, Clinton or Obama." But he never was ideally Conservative or Conservative, which is the whole point here. He was grossly incompetent and in over his head. He was aided by a corrupt leftist big media establishment to cover up his messes.

"That never stopped the likes of, say, Harry Truman from firing General MacArthur regarding his trek into China during the Korean War, or his demonizing Whittaker Chambers while he tried to expose that Alger Hiss as a spy, and that was despite his cultivating a pretty big reputation during that time of being a hardline anti-Communist (a reputation, BTW, that’s being pushed in our history books as we speak)."

Truman was never a serious anti-Communist. His failures to deal with Korea and China in a decisive and unapologetic manner left us with all the Asian fiascoes for decades to come, right up to today. Truman and MacArthur could've deposed Mao for Chiang, which would've been an instant ally for the U.S., no Kim family horror in the Koreas, no base to provide help for a Communist North Vietnam. The Soviets would've been hemmed in. We should've had a President Patton elected in 1948. He'd have eliminated all those threats and dealt very firmly with the Soviets. I doubt he also would've sat back and allowed a Soviet infiltration of our institutions, either.

"If he could do it, JFK most certainly could vote against him openly and not even worry about the Catholic base turning against him."

He wasn't going to take the risk. He was trying to have it both ways.

"Heck, Obama managed to backstab his own black base multiple times and STILL got reelected despite that, same goes for the so-called Congressional Black Caucus, where despite leaving them even poorer than before they STILL get reelected."

Sadly, since the 1960s, reviewing the political/social pathology of the Black community in what they can tolerate from left-wing politicians could fill books. Not all groups were as masochistic against their own interests. Trump is the first Republican President in the post-1960 period actively working to break them free of that horrific voting habit.

"And don’t get me started on several other big-name Democrats who went out of their way to ensure McCarthy was demonized, not to mention the likes of Ed Murrow, a CBS newscaster."

They all were doing so. These left-wingers were more worried about threats to their livelihoods and being exposed as Soviet sympathizers, so they had to go all out to destroy McCarthy and those of like-mind. These were never newscasters or journalists, they were leftist propagandists. Just as dangerous then as now, with the exception that they were seen as more trustworthy then because few outlets could expose these individuals.

"And again, raw opportunism would have them explicitly siding with the Democrats, stabbing their Irish Catholic base in the back, simply to toe the party line, just as Obama did with his black base, or how the Congressional Black Caucus repeatedly backstabbed the guys they claimed to represent, all for pushing left-wing views."

...as I said above...

"They may not be elected officials, that much is true, but make no mistake, those actors are politicians, trying to sway public policies, even being members of political organizations such as “Not My War” and ANSWER and other stuff."

I never said they weren't "politicians" of a different sort, but that they're not elected officials. Some would have to behave in a different manner if they were elected. Outside of extreme-left areas, these folks would have a hard time getting elected in mainstream areas.

"Can’t get any more political than that. And besides, you clearly haven’t seen how leftist Hollywood celebrities shun anyone who even steps slightly out of line (for goodness sakes, the wife of Ted Nugent actually got shunned by Hollywood just because she happened to be the wife of Ted Nugent, and only revealed this absentmindedly while taking a cell phone call. If they can do that, I’m pretty sure they’d risk their standing by even speaking in favor of being pro-life."

Of course I know, and all too well. They've practiced the "McCarthyism" they've accused of the right since the 1950s. They've all but purged any sane center-right people and forced the rest into remaining quiet, lest they lose their livelihoods. The Blacklist is very real for right-thinking people.

"In fact, one director, Lionel Chetwynd, was actually barred from making films in Hollywood due to his conservative politics.). In fact, they make Jacobins seem tolerant, that’s how intolerant of any slight dissent they are. Heck, Cher actually pushed for abortion in spite of the fact that she herself was nearly an abortion victim, something which not even Jack Nicholson, himself no stranger to left-wing politics, would never support under any circumstance and made very clear he’d even go against his party if necessary when it came to that issue."

Unfortunately, most people don't know who Chetwynd is. A lot of Americans, especially mainstream ones, no longer pay any mind to the leftist causes celebrities endorse. They don't have the pull they once did. They've also generally managed to piss off half their fan base as a result. All that polarization is on them. They made that. They keep pushing it, and they're going to find themselves even more unpopular than ever. When celebutard Taylor Swift decided to open her mouth and weigh in on Tennessee politics, for which she knows nothing about, sounding off like some Stalinist nutter, it permanently damaged her standing with many of her fans and actually inflicted damage to the Democrat candidate she was supporting for Senator, and he dropped 10% in the polls right after. Hollyweird celeb endorsements now are the kiss of death in flyover country.

“He didn’t just run as the “Black Man”, but as the alternative to a damaged and divisive Hillary. He won the general election in both instances because neither Republican running were attempting to win, indeed, they were outright ringers who sought to prevent Conservative opposition to Zero. “

Well, he certainly ran as the so-called “First Black President” back in 2008, I can tell you THAT much (and I voted for McCain and Romney, both times mostly because it was either them or Obama. Heck, Romney wasn’t even my first choice, it was Rick Santorum (mostly because he showed the most promise of repealing Roe v. Wade).

“JFK was notoriously opportunistic and cunning. Look at the fraud that was perpetrated in then-Democrat West Virginia in the primaries in a state that was pretty stridently anti-Catholic. Then-Sen. Hubert Humphrey should’ve won there in 1960 and fraud and payoffs stripped him of a key win. Look, too, that Mr. Civil Rights told his celebrity pal Sammy Davis, Jr. not to marry White actress May Britt lest it hurt him at the polls. And yet so many Black households have a portrait of JFK hanging in a place of prominence next to MLK. These are just two more examples. I just don’t know what you’re trying to squeeze out of JFK to look statesmanlike or “Conservative.” He was an opportunist of the highest order who used fraud and deceit to rise to power, and the damage he ultimately inflicted (and his family) in office and then turning him into a great martyr, has caused this nation most grievously.”

Yeah, unfortunately, I’m very much aware of that. Heck, I’m even aware that Martin Luther King Jr. was investigated by the FBI under JFK as well. And yes, he was duplicituous as well, never even said or implied he was even a good president. I was just saying he still held to some conservative principles like love of country and all of that shebang. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama don’t even make it a secret that they outright hated America, heck, George Lucas didn’t even make it a secret he hated America in 1973 or earlier (and yes, I know he isn’t an actual elected official, but he HAS done political stuff before, so he ultimately still counts).

“Nixon merely tried to co-opt some left-wing causes, which was a huge mistake. His time to have served as President should’ve been from 1961-1969. I absolutely believe a President Nixon during that period would’ve drastically changed the country for the better. Fidel would’ve been removed, Khruschev could not have gotten the upper hand on Nixon, and the approach in Vietnam would’ve been different and likely resolved much more quickly. Nixon also probably wouldn’t have embarked on a crazy massive government scheme like Great Society. BTW, as for Eisenhower, I think he was a disaster for the Republicans. He was at heart a left-winger and raised by a Socialist father. He didn’t take the Soviet infiltration of our government and institutions seriously and allowed the Democrats to grab 2/3rds of the Congress in 1958 and didn’t lift a finger to help Nixon. It took over 2 decades to regain the Senate and 4 for the House thanks to Eisenhower and enabled JFK and LBJ to pursue massive government schemes.”

Hey, I’m pretty much in agreement with you regarding Nixon that he probably would have made a better president (though that being said, I did hear that allegedly, Nixon or at least his campaign staff may have cheated in Illinois. That’s what TVTropes said under “Vote Early, Vote Often”, and that that was part of the reason he didn’t bother contesting the questionable results. Note that I never added it in, I only added the bit about Nixon being honorable enough to not question the ballot box for the sake of continuity, someone else added in the bit about him or at least his campaign staff possibly committing voter fraud). I’m not sure I entirely agree with you regarding Ike, though. He certainly took the Soviets more seriously than FDR did, where he if anything cozied on up with the likes of Stalin, far beyond what was necessary to win World War II and even compared him positively to Great Britain, claiming the USSR wasn’t Imperialist (well, gee, knowing what the USSR truly was like, I’d probably prefer an “Imperialist” country like the USSR to a Communist one). And besides, I heard that part of the reason why he simply let the Soviets launch Sputnik first was because the alternative was to have global Soviet-orchestrated protests if we did it first in a clear temper tantrum over getting second place compared to us, so there were some foreign policy issues about that (and either way, we outclassed the Soviets technologically and militarily. Probably the only part they were actually a threat at was espionage). And to be fair, he did acknowledge adding Brennan and Warren to the Supreme Court was a mistake, so he deserves credit there.

“But he never was ideally Conservative or Conservative, which is the whole point here. He was grossly incompetent and in over his head. He was aided by a corrupt leftist big media establishment to cover up his messes.”

Like I said, I agree he’s not ideally conservative. But he certainly was far more Conservative than FDR ever was. At least he actually ATTEMPTED to fight off Communism, even backed up McCarthy when the odds were against him. I’ve seen plenty of Democrat politicians sell out their supposed constituencies simply in favor of leftist causes, in far less time as well, even those who have built up a massive reputation of being something they really weren’t. Besides, I’m pretty sure even the corrupt media (which had been corrupt since Lippmann basically did his “Public Opinion” thing) would turn on JFK on a dime if he even remotely considers fighting Cuba or the Vietcong. Heck, the leftist media actually turned against LBJ after the Tet Offensive (remember, it was Walter Cronkite’s treasonous report that convinced LBJ to basically not run for reelection, thinking middle America turned against him, and he was very far to the left [well, not as far as Clinton or Obama, even LBJ loved his country, while those two clearly didn’t, but still pretty far to the left]. And we later get a redo of what the corrupt media would do to future presidents with Watergate and Nixon. That’s also why I’m pretty sure LBJ wouldn’t have needed to assassinate JFK to get his spot, just do something similar to Monica Lewinsky and leak to the press, after “ensuring their cooperation”, exposing that JFK slept with an East German Spy, and they’d oust JFK.).

“Truman was never a serious anti-Communist. His failures to deal with Korea and China in a decisive and unapologetic manner left us with all the Asian fiascoes for decades to come, right up to today. Truman and MacArthur could’ve deposed Mao for Chiang, which would’ve been an instant ally for the U.S., no Kim family horror in the Koreas, no base to provide help for a Communist North Vietnam. The Soviets would’ve been hemmed in. We should’ve had a President Patton elected in 1948. He’d have eliminated all those threats and dealt very firmly with the Soviets. I doubt he also would’ve sat back and allowed a Soviet infiltration of our institutions, either.”

Oh, I fully agree with you there that Patton was the better choice. Heck, we probably should have had someone other than FDR who was the closest we ever had to a ruler for life do things. I was just saying Truman selling out MacArthur and to a certain extent McCarthy didn’t impact his reputation of being a hardline anti-Communist that’s being taught in schools to this day. And believe me, if Truman could do that with his reputation intact, I’m pretty sure JFK could do the same and backstab McCarthy.

“He wasn’t going to take the risk. He was trying to have it both ways.”

Eh, I don’t know, Truman definitely seemed awfully eager to risk losing reelection and royally tick off his (non-Communist) base to basically tar and feather McCarthy, not to mention Whittaker Chambers, for trying to expose actual Communist threats.

“Sadly, since the 1960s, reviewing the political/social pathology of the Black community in what they can tolerate from left-wing politicians could fill books. Not all groups were as masochistic against their own interests. Trump is the first Republican President in the post-1960 period actively working to break them free of that horrific voting habit.”

Yeah, and I give Trump a whole lot of credit for breaking them free. I’m just noting the tendency for them to continue backing the same guys who bite their hands every time. Heck, not even LBJ’s remark on the plane was enough to dissuade them from voting Democrat, and in most movies, someone saying that kind of thing in front of people just have their reputations tarnished beyond repair, lose out on a whole lot. Besides, its not just blacks that are impacted by this (I’m not even going to bother covering Catholics since you already mentioned them). Jews continue voting in droves for Democrats despite the fact that they not only constantly stab them in the back recently, but even FDR, their hero, pretty much refused to let them entry in the leadup to World War II when they were obviously trying to escape from the Nazis due to fears that they were Fascist plants (in fact, ironically, the guys he DID let in, the Frankfurt School, turned out to be people even WORSE than the Nazis), with several even fearing that Trump and his staff were Nazis, even claiming one keynote speaker gave the Hitler salute thanks to some editing from ABC (and I’d know this because one of the people at my think tank actually DID relay this to me). And don’t get me started on how the Japanese/Asians seem to vote Democrat even after the whole Internment Camps that were made under FDR’s watch, who last I checked was a Democrat, and far left at that (well, at the very least, George Takei continues backing Democrats, even AFTER the whole Internment Camp issue). And don’t get me started on the latino stuff either and how so many of them seem to back Democrats even when it obviously is not in their best interest to do so (as the Latino Caucus demonstrated time and again, up to and including one of Trump’s state of the union addresses where they failed to give credit where credit was due regarding actually putting latinos to work). All that taken into account, it really IS a miracle that Trump manage to avert a Hillary Clinton presidency. And for that, I’m truly grateful.

“They all were doing so. These left-wingers were more worried about threats to their livelihoods and being exposed as Soviet sympathizers, so they had to go all out to destroy McCarthy and those of like-mind. These were never newscasters or journalists, they were leftist propagandists. Just as dangerous then as now, with the exception that they were seen as more trustworthy then because few outlets could expose these individuals.”

Yeah, I agree with you there, they certainly were dangerous. In fact, I’d even argue they were dangerous since I guess the 1920s after Walter Lippmann wrote his Public Opinion tract. I think Arnie Pyle’s probably one of the few journalists during that time who WASN’T a committed leftist. Too bad he died...

“I never said they weren’t “politicians” of a different sort, but that they’re not elected officials. Some would have to behave in a different manner if they were elected. Outside of extreme-left areas, these folks would have a hard time getting elected in mainstream areas.”

Maybe not, but on the other hand, Ed Asner did in fact moderate a presidential debate in 2016, so I’m not too sure about that. And besides, I know that Martin Sheen absolutely refused to back Barack Obama due to his abortion stance. That would have most likely resulted in him being denounced by his own Democrat party knowing how utterly totalitarian they were. Read about it here: https://www.irishcentral.com/news/martin-sheen-opens-up-about-his-strong-anti-abortion-views-120000529-237382661 Seeing him actually refuse to back Barack Obama would make me think he probably wouldn’t breach from that bit regardless of what the party thinks.

“Of course I know, and all too well. They’ve practiced the “McCarthyism” they’ve accused of the right since the 1950s. They’ve all but purged any sane center-right people and forced the rest into remaining quiet, lest they lose their livelihoods. The Blacklist is very real for right-thinking people.”

Yeah, I’m far too aware of that. Heck, it’s even real for those in education. Had to put up or shut up regarding my views at college, and I nearly got brainwashed there.

“Unfortunately, most people don’t know who Chetwynd is. A lot of Americans, especially mainstream ones, no longer pay any mind to the leftist causes celebrities endorse. They don’t have the pull they once did. They’ve also generally managed to piss off half their fan base as a result. All that polarization is on them. They made that. They keep pushing it, and they’re going to find themselves even more unpopular than ever. When celebutard Taylor Swift decided to open her mouth and weigh in on Tennessee politics, for which she knows nothing about, sounding off like some Stalinist nutter, it permanently damaged her standing with many of her fans and actually inflicted damage to the Democrat candidate she was supporting for Senator, and he dropped 10% in the polls right after. Hollyweird celeb endorsements now are the kiss of death in flyover country.”

I know who he is, largely because I watched him and Roger Simon on PJTV’s Poliwood. I’m pretty sure there are still some right-wing celebrities, though. Brooke Anne Smith probably qualifies as one (note that I said “probably”), since she does mention how freedom isn’t free (I simply cannot imagine a leftist saying that), that she supports our military, and supports the second amendment (those are definitely stuff leftists do not support) in her twitter and Instagram pages. In fact, probably the only thing she actually supports that might qualify as leftist is gay marriage at one point, though I suspect based on correspondence with her that that may have been mandated by the higher ups and out of her hands (she effectively stated when you’re given a script to do a role, you don’t exactly have much options but to perform to it). To be honest, I’m actually surprised she even mentioned gun rights and the military in a positive manner there, especially considering how leftist Hollywood would not tolerate positive depictions of such. There’s also Jodi Benson (aka, the voice of Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid), who is a committed Christian, and based on some comments on IMDb back when they had actual comment pages, she also is against Gay Marriage. Kelsey Grammar and Mel Gibson, heck, Clint Eastwood as well, definitely qualified as Conservative. But I do agree with you that the vast majority of the celebrities were far-left, unfortunately. And hopefully it IS a kiss of death at this point, but we shall wait and see.

"Well, he certainly ran as the so-called “First Black President” back in 2008, I can tell you THAT much (and I voted for McCain and Romney, both times mostly because it was either them or Obama. Heck, Romney wasn’t even my first choice, it was Rick Santorum (mostly because he showed the most promise of repealing Roe v. Wade)."

He wasn't the first to run. You had Je$$e Jack$on back in 1984 and Amb. Alan Keyes, too. 2008 and 2012 was the absolute nadir of the GOP when it came to Presidential candidate, the worst trash and most deceitful rose to the top. Competent leaders didn't bother to run as they didn't want them and their families gang-raped by the media. Zero should've been easily defeated, and could've been with a candidate willing to run a tough race. As we found out, Willard and McQueeg were there to help elect him and play the role of gracious loser. Santorum was second-tier with respect to his viability. His bad loss for a 3rd term in PA in 2006 didn't help, either.

"Yeah, unfortunately, I’m very much aware of that. Heck, I’m even aware that Martin Luther King Jr. was investigated by the FBI under JFK as well. And yes, he was duplicituous as well, never even said or implied he was even a good president. I was just saying he still held to some conservative principles like love of country and all of that shebang. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama don’t even make it a secret that they outright hated America, heck, George Lucas didn’t even make it a secret he hated America in 1973 or earlier (and yes, I know he isn’t an actual elected official, but he HAS done political stuff before, so he ultimately still counts)."

Though, as I've laid out, I never would call those "conservative principles." It was pure love of power and to carry out the family desire of installing a Kennedy in the White House. It was supposed to be Joe, Sr., but his death in WW2 prevented that from happening (who knows how he would've been, but if his brothers were any indication, someone who should not have been near power). I think there was some hatred of country at work in the psyche of the Kennedys, because as Irish Catholics, they were seen as not being able to have the same entree into the halls of power and privilege as with WASPs. It was a "Well, we'll show them !" More like revenge.

"Hey, I’m pretty much in agreement with you regarding Nixon that he probably would have made a better president (though that being said, I did hear that allegedly, Nixon or at least his campaign staff may have cheated in Illinois. That’s what TVTropes said under “Vote Early, Vote Often”, and that that was part of the reason he didn’t bother contesting the questionable results. Note that I never added it in, I only added the bit about Nixon being honorable enough to not question the ballot box for the sake of continuity, someone else added in the bit about him or at least his campaign staff possibly committing voter fraud)."

Whatever went on in IL in GOP areas was nothing compared to the Democrat-mafia corruption in Chicago. We already saw how much fraud went on in WV to deliver the state over Humphrey, and that was just in a Democrat primary. IL was not the only state where that fraud was going on. Texas was another, and LBJ was very skilled at fixing elections, especially the infamous 1948 Democrat Senate primary against Gov. Coke Stevenson. Stevenson, a Conservative Tory, was the actual winner, but the national Dems refused to overturn the corrupt returns.

"I’m not sure I entirely agree with you regarding Ike, though. He certainly took the Soviets more seriously than FDR did, where he if anything cozied on up with the likes of Stalin, far beyond what was necessary to win World War II and even compared him positively to Great Britain, claiming the USSR wasn’t Imperialist (well, gee, knowing what the USSR truly was like, I’d probably prefer an “Imperialist” country like the USSR to a Communist one). And besides, I heard that part of the reason why he simply let the Soviets launch Sputnik first was because the alternative was to have global Soviet-orchestrated protests if we did it first in a clear temper tantrum over getting second place compared to us, so there were some foreign policy issues about that (and either way, we outclassed the Soviets technologically and militarily. Probably the only part they were actually a threat at was espionage). And to be fair, he did acknowledge adding Brennan and Warren to the Supreme Court was a mistake, so he deserves credit there."

There's little positive I can say about Eisenhower given the damage he inflicted to the party. I would've supported Robert Taft, Sr. in 1952 (his running mate was going to be Gen. Douglas MacArthur). Another sadly little-known fact about Eisenhower is that his operatives went into the South and destroyed the biracial coalitions in control of local party apparatii (supporting Taft) and replaced them with all-White Ike sycophants. That would partly result within a decade of many newly-enfranchised Southern Blacks going almost entirely to the Democrats, whereas prior to that, they were able to participate in GOP politics. Taft would've nationally brought back Black voters into the GOP (he was highly regarded by Blacks in his support of Civil Rights). Unfortunately for Taft, he still would've died of cancer in 1953, and would've been replaced by MacArthur. I think MacArthur (like Patton) would've made a superb President and would've been unapologetic in foreign policy against domestic enemies. He wouldn't have thrown Sen. McCarthy under the bus, either. Eisenhower was just too plain Establishment and refused to dismantle two decades of Socialist Democrat Big "Gubmint" policies, which should've been done from day #1. He set the standard for promises of GOP politicians claiming they would scale back government, only to leave it larger than ever before. No GOP President since Warren Harding has drastically cut government, taxes and spending taking over from a Dem administration. Almost 100 years. Even President Trump hasn't been able to do that.

"Like I said, I agree he’s not ideally conservative. But he certainly was far more Conservative than FDR ever was."

FDR was simply a dictator. But there hasn't been any "Conservative" Democrat to serve as President since Bourbonite Grover Cleveland was last elected in 1892. Since 1896, there has only been two occasions when non-liberals were nominated: Judge Alton Parker in 1904 (he was a moderate) and former Wilson Solicitor-General and Amb. to the UK John W. Davis in 1924. At no point other than for those two has a non-liberal leftist been nominated, and that includes JFK. JFK was never not an ideal "Conservative" because he never was a "Conservative" in any way. He believed in using the government to achieve his ends, same as FDR and virtually every Democrat. That's the definition of anti-Conservative.

"At least he actually ATTEMPTED to fight off Communism, even backed up McCarthy when the odds were against him."

But he left McCarthy to twist in the wind in 1954. He could've stepped up and repudiated the attacks and burnished some "Conservative" bonafides. Instead, he made sure he was out of the Senate so he didn't have to vote. That was cowardice.

"I’ve seen plenty of Democrat politicians sell out their supposed constituencies simply in favor of leftist causes, in far less time as well, even those who have built up a massive reputation of being something they really weren’t. Besides, I’m pretty sure even the corrupt media (which had been corrupt since Lippmann basically did his “Public Opinion” thing) would turn on JFK on a dime if he even remotely considers fighting Cuba or the Vietcong. Heck, the leftist media actually turned against LBJ after the Tet Offensive (remember, it was Walter Cronkite’s treasonous report that convinced LBJ to basically not run for reelection, thinking middle America turned against him, and he was very far to the left [well, not as far as Clinton or Obama, even LBJ loved his country, while those two clearly didn’t, but still pretty far to the left]. And we later get a redo of what the corrupt media would do to future presidents with Watergate and Nixon. That’s also why I’m pretty sure LBJ wouldn’t have needed to assassinate JFK to get his spot, just do something similar to Monica Lewinsky and leak to the press, after “ensuring their cooperation”, exposing that JFK slept with an East German Spy, and they’d oust JFK.)."

But frankly, JFK did sell out his constituencies. He pretended to be a stalwart defender of traditional Catholic values, and we know how phony that was. There just wasn't anything admirable about him. Just another in a long line of power-hungry aspirants who've inspired the same, and that includes Clinton and Zero.

"Oh, I fully agree with you there that Patton was the better choice. Heck, we probably should have had someone other than FDR who was the closest we ever had to a ruler for life do things. I was just saying Truman selling out MacArthur and to a certain extent McCarthy didn’t impact his reputation of being a hardline anti-Communist that’s being taught in schools to this day. And believe me, if Truman could do that with his reputation intact, I’m pretty sure JFK could do the same and backstab McCarthy."

The mistake that led to FDR was nominating and electing a former Wilson Progressive in Herbert Hoover in 1928. We should've gone with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon instead. Mellon was arguably the greatest individual to have held that office. He was hated with a burning passion by FDR, and that made him magnificent in my book. I think Mellon would've pursued a course that kept 1929 to just a "panic." Hoover set the course for using government interference in economic affairs that was exploded beyond belief under FDR and helped create a whole dependency class (his policies contributed greatly to enslaving Blacks to welfare and making them permanent Democrat slaves). Even FDR's first VP, Cactus Jack Garner, who was center-right, would've been a superior President, but because Garner was merely being used for Southern votes, the left-wing party wasn't about to let the guy supplant FDR in 1940 (they installed flakey pro-Soviet Henry Wallace). When Truman supplanted Wallace in 1944, he wasn't even FDR's preferred choice, he wanted the equally flakey and ultraleft loon Wild Bill Douglas from the Supreme Court. I guess the upside would've been a President Wallace or Douglas would've likely lost in 1944 or 1948 after FDR died. Of course, Gov. Dewey would've been about as subpar as Eisenhower (his 1944 running mate would've made a better President, Conservative OH Gov. John Bricker).

"Eh, I don’t know, Truman definitely seemed awfully eager to risk losing reelection and royally tick off his (non-Communist) base to basically tar and feather McCarthy, not to mention Whittaker Chambers, for trying to expose actual Communist threats."

McCarthy wasn't a nationally known figure in 1948, so he wasn't a real target of Truman's in that election. Truman knew he was going to lose had he run in 1952, one reason he tried to persuade Ike to run as a Democrat (too bad he didn't -- if Ike had done to the Democrats what he did to the GOP, the Republicans would've had a supermajority at the end of his regime). Truman was in over his head, anyhow. His 1949-53 term was a complete fiasco.

"Yeah, and I give Trump a whole lot of credit for breaking them free."

Trying to, but we won't know if it works until we see the election results.

"I’m just noting the tendency for them to continue backing the same guys who bite their hands every time. Heck, not even LBJ’s remark on the plane was enough to dissuade them from voting Democrat, and in most movies, someone saying that kind of thing in front of people just have their reputations tarnished beyond repair, lose out on a whole lot."

As I said, it's a whole pathology that has taken decades to ingrain.

"Besides, its not just blacks that are impacted by this (I’m not even going to bother covering Catholics since you already mentioned them). Jews continue voting in droves for Democrats despite the fact that they not only constantly stab them in the back recently, but even FDR, their hero, pretty much refused to let them entry in the leadup to World War II when they were obviously trying to escape from the Nazis due to fears that they were Fascist plants (in fact, ironically, the guys he DID let in, the Frankfurt School, turned out to be people even WORSE than the Nazis), with several even fearing that Trump and his staff were Nazis, even claiming one keynote speaker gave the Hitler salute thanks to some editing from ABC (and I’d know this because one of the people at my think tank actually DID relay this to me)."

Sadly, many American Jews are not devout practitioners of their religion. They wear the label of heritage, but their religion now is Socialism/Communism. If you see some of the writings of the latter individuals, the derangement is off the charts. They think Trump = Hitler or worse. This is a mental illness and soul sickness. You can't reason with people that think that way. If you swapped out these fake Jews for Israeli Jews, support for Trump would be 3/4ths or higher.

"And don’t get me started on how the Japanese/Asians seem to vote Democrat even after the whole Internment Camps that were made under FDR’s watch, who last I checked was a Democrat, and far left at that (well, at the very least, George Takei continues backing Democrats, even AFTER the whole Internment Camp issue)."

Although it varies with some Asians, unfortunately many in this country support a generous social welfare system, why many vote Democrat. If only they voted more like Vietnamese-Americans.

"And don’t get me started on the latino stuff either and how so many of them seem to back Democrats even when it obviously is not in their best interest to do so (as the Latino Caucus demonstrated time and again, up to and including one of Trump’s state of the union addresses where they failed to give credit where credit was due regarding actually putting latinos to work). All that taken into account, it really IS a miracle that Trump manage to avert a Hillary Clinton presidency. And for that, I’m truly grateful."

Latino groups vary, too. Sadly, many of the ones in urban California support the Marxist Atzlan interests, open borders loons. Curiously, the ones who are farmers in the Central Valley are far less so and will consider voting Republican (the actor/comedian Paul Rodriguez, once an outspoken far-leftist, took up their cause on water issues and became a Conservative, which all but made him vanish from Hollywood). Latinos in Texas vary, too. Same for Florida (unfortunately, many Cubans in the generations removed from Castro have been trending leftward - the Cuban GOP Congressmembers are uniformally awful, very left-wing now. They were center-right 20 years ago). I personally hope they get supplanted by Venezuelans, who are very anti-leftist.

"Maybe not, but on the other hand, Ed Asner did in fact moderate a presidential debate in 2016, so I’m not too sure about that. And besides, I know that Martin Sheen absolutely refused to back Barack Obama due to his abortion stance. That would have most likely resulted in him being denounced by his own Democrat party knowing how utterly totalitarian they were. Read about it here: https://www.irishcentral.com/news/martin-sheen-opens-up-about-his-strong-anti-abortion-views-120000529-237382661 Seeing him actually refuse to back Barack Obama would make me think he probably wouldn’t breach from that bit regardless of what the party thinks."

Of course, Asner is a Stalinist. Mary Tyler Moore was trying to moderate him, but now that she's gone... But Martin Sheen has little pull anymore, so he can be viewed as anachronistic.

"Yeah, I’m far too aware of that. Heck, it’s even real for those in education. Had to put up or shut up regarding my views at college, and I nearly got brainwashed there."

I'm self-educated. I'm too outspoken to have put up with that leftist crap. I'd have been a lightning rod on campus.

"I know who he is, largely because I watched him and Roger Simon on PJTV’s Poliwood. I’m pretty sure there are still some right-wing celebrities, though. Brooke Anne Smith probably qualifies as one (note that I said “probably”), since she does mention how freedom isn’t free (I simply cannot imagine a leftist saying that), that she supports our military, and supports the second amendment (those are definitely stuff leftists do not support) in her twitter and Instagram pages. In fact, probably the only thing she actually supports that might qualify as leftist is gay marriage at one point, though I suspect based on correspondence with her that that may have been mandated by the higher ups and out of her hands (she effectively stated when you’re given a script to do a role, you don’t exactly have much options but to perform to it). To be honest, I’m actually surprised she even mentioned gun rights and the military in a positive manner there, especially considering how leftist Hollywood would not tolerate positive depictions of such. There’s also Jodi Benson (aka, the voice of Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid), who is a committed Christian, and based on some comments on IMDb back when they had actual comment pages, she also is against Gay Marriage. Kelsey Grammar and Mel Gibson, heck, Clint Eastwood as well, definitely qualified as Conservative. But I do agree with you that the vast majority of the celebrities were far-left, unfortunately. And hopefully it IS a kiss of death at this point, but we shall wait and see."

I don't know who Brooke Anne Smith is. Some of the others that are Conservatives are very-little known, others no longer care and are able to keep working, but it's not many. James Woods is outspoken on Twitter now, but he acknowledges now they won't employ him in Hollywood. I remember Ah-nold Schwarzenpecker was cited as a "Hollywood Conservative", but as we know from his ghastly turn as Governor, he was a devout Socialist who wanted to purge every center-right political figure out of the CA GOP. I warned folks here on FR 15 years ago how bad he would be, and he turned out even worse. Nothing like having Democrats and Communists wrecking the GOP from within (why many were panicked that Trump might be yet another of those, which it turned out wasn't true, fortunately).

“He wasn’t the first to run. You had Je$$e Jack$on back in 1984 and Amb. Alan Keyes, too. 2008 and 2012 was the absolute nadir of the GOP when it came to Presidential candidate, the worst trash and most deceitful rose to the top. Competent leaders didn’t bother to run as they didn’t want them and their families gang-raped by the media. Zero should’ve been easily defeated, and could’ve been with a candidate willing to run a tough race. As we found out, Willard and McQueeg were there to help elect him and play the role of gracious loser. Santorum was second-tier with respect to his viability. His bad loss for a 3rd term in PA in 2006 didn’t help, either.”

Hey, I’m just going by what the press indicated. I know about Keyes ran for office before Obama, not to mention there were plans for Colin Powell to run as a Republican as well. And don’t remind me of Jesse Jackson, who sold out the pro-life groups.

“Though, as I’ve laid out, I never would call those “conservative principles.” It was pure love of power and to carry out the family desire of installing a Kennedy in the White House. It was supposed to be Joe, Sr., but his death in WW2 prevented that from happening (who knows how he would’ve been, but if his brothers were any indication, someone who should not have been near power). I think there was some hatred of country at work in the psyche of the Kennedys, because as Irish Catholics, they were seen as not being able to have the same entree into the halls of power and privilege as with WASPs. It was a “Well, we’ll show them !” More like revenge.”

I’m pretty sure if he actually did hate our country, he would not have bothered trying to fight against the Communists at all, seriously or unseriously, and if anything threw the gates wide open to the Communists and invite them over to invade us. Heck, Obama openly rooted for the terrorists to take control and bomb American soldiers even while he was President, not to mention openly told various motley mobs to basically kill anyone they found like some Purge movie. I’m pretty sure JFK would have done that, even go so far as to ship Cuban Communists to America and bomb the heck out of everyone while telling everyone they’re screwed, or heck, releasing criminals and telling them to murder fellow Americans and cut loose. That’s certainly what I would have done if I were president and hated my country. Not that I actually hate my country, of course (in fact, I’m disgusted that Lucas actually rooted for the Vietcong and tricked a lot of Americans into doing the same.).

“Whatever went on in IL in GOP areas was nothing compared to the Democrat-mafia corruption in Chicago. We already saw how much fraud went on in WV to deliver the state over Humphrey, and that was just in a Democrat primary. IL was not the only state where that fraud was going on. Texas was another, and LBJ was very skilled at fixing elections, especially the infamous 1948 Democrat Senate primary against Gov. Coke Stevenson. Stevenson, a Conservative Tory, was the actual winner, but the national Dems refused to overturn the corrupt returns.”

Yeah, I’m far too familiar with the Democrat “fixes” with votes, especially LBJ (heck, I even suspect that one of the reasons Obama won reelection was due to Obama’s group stuffing the ballot box in various states. It seems suspicious that most if not all of the states that went for Romney just so happened to be Voter ID states, while most if not all of the states that went for Obama lacked Voter ID.). And I wasn’t saying that Illinois somehow exonerated JFK (actually, if anything, I didn’t even KNOW that Illinois apparently had voter fraud on Nixon’s side until someone on TVTropes noted it. My original edit if anything simply mentioned Nixon being honorable enough to not contest the vote even when he had every right to do so, putting country over himself).

“There’s little positive I can say about Eisenhower given the damage he inflicted to the party. I would’ve supported Robert Taft, Sr. in 1952 (his running mate was going to be Gen. Douglas MacArthur). Another sadly little-known fact about Eisenhower is that his operatives went into the South and destroyed the biracial coalitions in control of local party apparatii (supporting Taft) and replaced them with all-White Ike sycophants. That would partly result within a decade of many newly-enfranchised Southern Blacks going almost entirely to the Democrats, whereas prior to that, they were able to participate in GOP politics. Taft would’ve nationally brought back Black voters into the GOP (he was highly regarded by Blacks in his support of Civil Rights). Unfortunately for Taft, he still would’ve died of cancer in 1953, and would’ve been replaced by MacArthur. I think MacArthur (like Patton) would’ve made a superb President and would’ve been unapologetic in foreign policy against domestic enemies. He wouldn’t have thrown Sen. McCarthy under the bus, either. Eisenhower was just too plain Establishment and refused to dismantle two decades of Socialist Democrat Big “Gubmint” policies, which should’ve been done from day #1. He set the standard for promises of GOP politicians claiming they would scale back government, only to leave it larger than ever before. No GOP President since Warren Harding has drastically cut government, taxes and spending taking over from a Dem administration. Almost 100 years. Even President Trump hasn’t been able to do that.”

Yeah, there definitely was bad he did. Still, he had to do something right in order to be elected twice, and not via ballot stuffing, either. And to be fair, we did have to worry about the Communists first and foremost (though I kinda wish, even if it meant Soviet-orchestrated protests, that we launched the spy satellite first instead of the Soviets.).

“FDR was simply a dictator. But there hasn’t been any “Conservative” Democrat to serve as President since Bourbonite Grover Cleveland was last elected in 1892. Since 1896, there has only been two occasions when non-liberals were nominated: Judge Alton Parker in 1904 (he was a moderate) and former Wilson Solicitor-General and Amb. to the UK John W. Davis in 1924. At no point other than for those two has a non-liberal leftist been nominated, and that includes JFK. JFK was never not an ideal “Conservative” because he never was a “Conservative” in any way. He believed in using the government to achieve his ends, same as FDR and virtually every Democrat. That’s the definition of anti-Conservative.”

Maybe, but on the other hand, being for no government doesn’t exactly make one conservative either. Just look at the Weathermen, or the Marxists, heck, just look at Michel Foucault especially (who was so dead-set against authority and government that he actually stated there shouldn’t be any court systems at all, not even socialist “people’s courts”, and instead just do mob vigilante violence like the September Massacres): Those guys advocated complete destruction of government and leaving no government in place, and they obviously aren’t conservative by ANY stretch. Heck, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the guy who found the anarchist movement, practically advocated for the same stuff Karl Marx did, and Rousseau and the Jacobins for that matter (it’s a very big misconception that anarchists are right-wing while totalitarians are left wing, just as it is a misconception that Nazis/fascists are right wing while communists are left-wing. Actually, if anything, totalitarian and anarchistic views fall under the same place on the political scale, the far left). And believe me, compared to Obama and Clinton, JFK is conservative by comparison. Even my dad says that, and he’s as conservative as one can get.

“But he left McCarthy to twist in the wind in 1954. He could’ve stepped up and repudiated the attacks and burnished some “Conservative” bonafides. Instead, he made sure he was out of the Senate so he didn’t have to vote. That was cowardice.”

Well, at least he didn’t vote to remove him. I know if I were JFK and a full-on leftist, I’d actually vote him out with zeal, basking in his horror that I betrayed him in pure sociopathic relish. And I’d know this because that’s EXACTLY how most other Democrats acted, up to and even including Obama, to people who placed trust in them.

“But frankly, JFK did sell out his constituencies. He pretended to be a stalwart defender of traditional Catholic values, and we know how phony that was. There just wasn’t anything admirable about him. Just another in a long line of power-hungry aspirants who’ve inspired the same, and that includes Clinton and Zero.”

Quite frankly, I’m pretty sure if he sold out his constituencies, he would have done it openly, sort of like how Obama openly backstabbed his constituencies, or the Congressional Black Caucus, or heck, Jesse Jackson with his switching from pro-life to pro-abortion at the drop of a hat. I’ll give you his selling out Catholic voters, though: His statement about not serving the word of the Pope and having Diem assassinated certainly would not have reflected well on pro-Catholic elements (certainly didn’t with me). And quite frankly, I’m not too fond of JFK myself (that said, he was STILL more respectable and still came across as being closer to conservative than Robert or ESPECIALLY Ted).

“The mistake that led to FDR was nominating and electing a former Wilson Progressive in Herbert Hoover in 1928. We should’ve gone with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon instead. Mellon was arguably the greatest individual to have held that office. He was hated with a burning passion by FDR, and that made him magnificent in my book. I think Mellon would’ve pursued a course that kept 1929 to just a “panic.” Hoover set the course for using government interference in economic affairs that was exploded beyond belief under FDR and helped create a whole dependency class (his policies contributed greatly to enslaving Blacks to welfare and making them permanent Democrat slaves). Even FDR’s first VP, Cactus Jack Garner, who was center-right, would’ve been a superior President, but because Garner was merely being used for Southern votes, the left-wing party wasn’t about to let the guy supplant FDR in 1940 (they installed flakey pro-Soviet Henry Wallace). When Truman supplanted Wallace in 1944, he wasn’t even FDR’s preferred choice, he wanted the equally flakey and ultraleft loon Wild Bill Douglas from the Supreme Court. I guess the upside would’ve been a President Wallace or Douglas would’ve likely lost in 1944 or 1948 after FDR died. Of course, Gov. Dewey would’ve been about as subpar as Eisenhower (his 1944 running mate would’ve made a better President, Conservative OH Gov. John Bricker).”

Yeah, I also wasn’t fond of that either from Hoover (though to be fair, a lot of the problems were caused by the Bonus Army causing a riot, and many of them being explicit Communists in all but name, and how FDR apparently engineered that little riot behind the scenes.). There were probably far better ways to do it, but then again, it’s all guess work at this point. We definitely shouldn’t have trusted Keyes, which they obviously did.

“McCarthy wasn’t a nationally known figure in 1948, so he wasn’t a real target of Truman’s in that election. Truman knew he was going to lose had he run in 1952, one reason he tried to persuade Ike to run as a Democrat (too bad he didn’t — if Ike had done to the Democrats what he did to the GOP, the Republicans would’ve had a supermajority at the end of his regime). Truman was in over his head, anyhow. His 1949-53 term was a complete fiasco. “

He was by 1952, and besides, there’s still Whittaker Chambers, and ESPECIALLY MacArthur, firing them would have ruined his reputation, yet he didn’t care. I know if I were in his position, I’d be genuinely terrified of doing anything bad to them because if I did, that would destroy a reputation I’ve cultivated about being anti-Communist, and thus wouldn’t DARE try to lay a finger on them, let alone demonize or even fire them unless I can find an excuse to do so.

“Trying to, but we won’t know if it works until we see the election results.”

Yes, which will be in a week. Let’s hope for the best. America needs fixing, badly, especially after far too many leftist crap. Of course, I’m not even sure if it CAN be fixed, not after reading Liberty, the God that Failed, anyways (not without REALLY redoing the whole thing, which is its own problem.).

“Sadly, many American Jews are not devout practitioners of their religion. They wear the label of heritage, but their religion now is Socialism/Communism. If you see some of the writings of the latter individuals, the derangement is off the charts. They think Trump = Hitler or worse. This is a mental illness and soul sickness. You can’t reason with people that think that way. If you swapped out these fake Jews for Israeli Jews, support for Trump would be 3/4ths or higher.”

Yeah, I’m far too familiar with that rhetoric (not that the J-Street Jews were much better, and they’re Hasidic, meaning pretty religious, and some of them STILL vote Democrat even after being backstabbed multiple times). Doesn’t help that at Bob Iger (yes, the same guy who runs Walt Disney right now) IS a religious jew who is also a big enough Clintonite Democrat that he sabotaged any chance at Path to 9/11 seeing a DVD release solely to allow Hillary Clinton to run in 2008. At least, his being religious is what some web pages like Jesus Is Savior claimed. Socialism/Communism is certainly their belief worldview, though I wouldn’t call it a religion (in my mind, a religion requires a deity, supernatural elements, and an afterlife. Socialism/Communism has none, at least, not the latter two.). As far as Israeli Jews, I hope you’re right, but I’m a bit cynical on that front, since I heard that a lot of Israel’s elected officials and judges are pro-Palestinian right now, meaning it’s probably not going to be much better if we swapped them out.

“Although it varies with some Asians, unfortunately many in this country support a generous social welfare system, why many vote Democrat. If only they voted more like Vietnamese-Americans.”

Yeah, especially when Vietnamese-Americans most likely remember what happened in Vietnam when the Vietcong/NVA took over. And don’t get me started on Japanese people who AREN’T even American citizens. Hideo Kojima, the guy who does Metal Gear, for example, actually was a huge Obama supporter and basically used his games since at least Metal Gear Solid 2 to demonize America as a horrible nation that doesn’t even deserve to exist (even going so far as to call it the “biggest evil”), one game even being devoted to worshipping Che Guevara, and that was DESPITE his nearly causing nuclear war, which naturally would have affected Japan as Peace Walker (the game that lionized that monster) ironically pointed out, to occur during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and would have succeeded had Khrushchev not put a muzzle on him).

“Latino groups vary, too. Sadly, many of the ones in urban California support the Marxist Atzlan interests, open borders loons. Curiously, the ones who are farmers in the Central Valley are far less so and will consider voting Republican (the actor/comedian Paul Rodriguez, once an outspoken far-leftist, took up their cause on water issues and became a Conservative, which all but made him vanish from Hollywood). Latinos in Texas vary, too. Same for Florida (unfortunately, many Cubans in the generations removed from Castro have been trending leftward - the Cuban GOP Congressmembers are uniformally awful, very left-wing now. They were center-right 20 years ago). I personally hope they get supplanted by Venezuelans, who are very anti-leftist.”

Yeah, and let’s hope the Venezuelans don’t make the same mistake the Cubans made regarding becoming leftist later on. Heck, I had an Education professor who actually descended from Cubans who was at the very least left-of-center, if not full on leftist, so I know exactly what you’re talking about regarding Cubans going leftist despite fleeing from the result of leftwing policies.

“Of course, Asner is a Stalinist. Mary Tyler Moore was trying to moderate him, but now that she’s gone... But Martin Sheen has little pull anymore, so he can be viewed as anachronistic.”

No kidding about Asner. Definitely learned that about him after his little role as narrator of that awful Tax the Rich cartoon. Sheesh, what’s his issue with free markets, anyway?

“I’m self-educated. I’m too outspoken to have put up with that leftist crap. I’d have been a lightning rod on campus.”

I don’t know about self-educated, but I did have a lot of help from my parents being engaged in critical thinking. And I know I’ve at times been framed for saying stuff on campus at least once during my time at Oglethorpe.

“I don’t know who Brooke Anne Smith is. Some of the others that are Conservatives are very-little known, others no longer care and are able to keep working, but it’s not many. James Woods is outspoken on Twitter now, but he acknowledges now they won’t employ him in Hollywood. I remember Ah-nold Schwarzenpecker was cited as a “Hollywood Conservative”, but as we know from his ghastly turn as Governor, he was a devout Socialist who wanted to purge every center-right political figure out of the CA GOP. I warned folks here on FR 15 years ago how bad he would be, and he turned out even worse. Nothing like having Democrats and Communists wrecking the GOP from within (why many were panicked that Trump might be yet another of those, which it turned out wasn’t true, fortunately).”

I’ll admit I was nervous when Trump implied he would consider not repealing Roe v. Wade in a stump speech in New York during the 2016 election (that basically acts as my smell test, especially considering I’m obligated as a Catholic to end it). Fortunately, his pick of Mike Pence eliminated those doubts. As far as who Brooke Anne Smith is, well, this is her twitter account: https://twitter.com/Brookeannesmith also her Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/brookeannesmith/ Had she been a leftist, I’m pretty sure her posts would have called for gun control, claiming freedom is free, and or demonized the military, like how Sarah Silvermann or several other Hollywood leftists such as Michael Moore or George Lucas have done all of that and more. And I’m pretty sure people would be somewhat familiar with Jodi Benson, since she voiced Ariel in Disney’s The Little Mermaid, aka the movie that saved Disney from bankruptcy. On that note, Kelsey Grammar came out as a Republican back in 2003 and even mocked Michael Moore, also founded the RightNetwork (of course, I’m not fond of the fact that he is pro-choice, which is the main reason I don’t fully support him, but still...). And Clint Eastwood is one of the few open conservatives in Hollywood, played Dirty Harry.

And shame on Schwartzenegger, he should have known better especially considering how his dad was a Nazi and clearly wasn’t fond of that fact (and Nazis were on the left).

Yikes, these posts are getting awfully long... I'll try to keep my replies brief...

"Hey, I’m just going by what the press indicated. I know about Keyes ran for office before Obama, not to mention there were plans for Colin Powell to run as a Republican as well. And don’t remind me of Jesse Jackson, who sold out the pro-life groups."

We should be grateful we dodged that Powell bullet, what a scumbag backstabbing weasel he turned out to be. He'd have inflicted maximum damage to the GOP had he run and won in 1996 (and probably would've handed off the office right back to the Dems in 2000). As for Je$$e, an example of dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park. Sadly, had MLK lived, I think he would've been scarcely different. One reason I deplore his canonization (same with the Kennedys).

"I’m pretty sure if he actually did hate our country, he would not have bothered trying to fight against the Communists at all, seriously or unseriously, and if anything threw the gates wide open to the Communists and invite them over to invade us."

Given his actions in Bay of Pigs and the immigration law changes to allow for hordes of third-worlders, it's not possible for him to have been much worse. Even Khrushchev was gobsmacked at how much he gave away, essentially guaranteeing protection for Castro's gulag state for perpetuity. He would've been equally disastrous on Vietnam had he lived. None of that would've happened under a President Nixon in the '60s.

"Heck, Obama openly rooted for the terrorists to take control and bomb American soldiers even while he was President, not to mention openly told various motley mobs to basically kill anyone they found like some Purge movie. I’m pretty sure JFK would have done that, even go so far as to ship Cuban Communists to America and bomb the heck out of everyone while telling everyone they’re screwed, or heck, releasing criminals and telling them to murder fellow Americans and cut loose. That’s certainly what I would have done if I were president and hated my country. Not that I actually hate my country, of course (in fact, I’m disgusted that Lucas actually rooted for the Vietcong and tricked a lot of Americans into doing the same.)."

Zero was raised by Communists and sponsored by domestic terrorists. Had the media done their job in exposing him, this trash would never have been elected dogcatcher.

"Yeah, I’m far too familiar with the Democrat “fixes” with votes, especially LBJ (heck, I even suspect that one of the reasons Obama won reelection was due to Obama’s group stuffing the ballot box in various states. It seems suspicious that most if not all of the states that went for Romney just so happened to be Voter ID states, while most if not all of the states that went for Obama lacked Voter ID.)."

Willard was never going to win the Presidency. It was a joke. Zero didn't have to do anything illegal in 2012. Had a nominee been a non-leftist and actually willing to run a campaign, they'd have won.

"And I wasn’t saying that Illinois somehow exonerated JFK (actually, if anything, I didn’t even KNOW that Illinois apparently had voter fraud on Nixon’s side until someone on TVTropes noted it. My original edit if anything simply mentioned Nixon being honorable enough to not contest the vote even when he had every right to do so, putting country over himself)."

It would've ripped the country apart had Nixon contested that fraudulent election. Frankly, given everything that happened, I wish he had. After all, the Democrats haven't hesitated to do so in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

"Yeah, there definitely was bad he did. Still, he had to do something right in order to be elected twice, and not via ballot stuffing, either. And to be fair, we did have to worry about the Communists first and foremost (though I kinda wish, even if it meant Soviet-orchestrated protests, that we launched the spy satellite first instead of the Soviets.)."

Any Republican with a pulse would've won in 1952. Ike lucked out by having an uninspiring "intellectual pointy-head" in Adlai Stevenson as an opponent not once, but twice.

"Maybe, but on the other hand, being for no government doesn’t exactly make one conservative either. Just look at the Weathermen, or the Marxists, heck, just look at Michel Foucault especially (who was so dead-set against authority and government that he actually stated there shouldn’t be any court systems at all, not even socialist “people’s courts”, and instead just do mob vigilante violence like the September Massacres): Those guys advocated complete destruction of government and leaving no government in place, and they obviously aren’t conservative by ANY stretch. Heck, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the guy who found the anarchist movement, practically advocated for the same stuff Karl Marx did, and Rousseau and the Jacobins for that matter (it’s a very big misconception that anarchists are right-wing while totalitarians are left wing, just as it is a misconception that Nazis/fascists are right wing while communists are left-wing. Actually, if anything, totalitarian and anarchistic views fall under the same place on the political scale, the far left)."

The ideal is small, Constitutional and moral government that respects the rights of its citizens. One might say that (on paper) Marxism appears to be "no government" with all-citizen participation. Of course, in practice, it leads to oppression and mass-murder to enact it. I personally do not view pure democracy as a good thing, because that is best described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. I think we have too much democracy in our nation right now. Anyone working for the federal government should not have a vote. It was one reason why DC was never intended to have the vote, because the presumption would be they would be voting on their own livelihoods at the expense of the taxpayers. It's no wonder the entire DC area is filthy rich now and votes heavily Democrat. It's a chronic problem even in state capitols and those with taxpayer-funded universities. That all will have to be changed or this nation will go bankrupt before long.

"And believe me, compared to Obama and Clinton, JFK is conservative by comparison. Even my dad says that, and he’s as conservative as one can get."

Though he never really was. You can make that claim about almost any pol 6 decades ago compared to today if only because our nation and culture has been pushed so dramatically leftward, and JFK was one of those responsible for making that happen.

"Well, at least he didn’t vote to remove him. I know if I were JFK and a full-on leftist, I’d actually vote him out with zeal, basking in his horror that I betrayed him in pure sociopathic relish. And I’d know this because that’s EXACTLY how most other Democrats acted, up to and even including Obama, to people who placed trust in them."

If he was principled and courageous, he'd have cast a vote one way or the other. JFK's arranging to be in a hospital conveniently on the day of the vote was the epitome of cowardice.

"Quite frankly, I’m pretty sure if he sold out his constituencies, he would have done it openly, sort of like how Obama openly backstabbed his constituencies, or the Congressional Black Caucus, or heck, Jesse Jackson with his switching from pro-life to pro-abortion at the drop of a hat. I’ll give you his selling out Catholic voters, though: His statement about not serving the word of the Pope and having Diem assassinated certainly would not have reflected well on pro-Catholic elements (certainly didn’t with me). And quite frankly, I’m not too fond of JFK myself (that said, he was STILL more respectable and still came across as being closer to conservative than Robert or ESPECIALLY Ted)."

I lament that the Kennedys ever were in politics. The mess that family made on the nation is incalculable.

"Yeah, I also wasn’t fond of that either from Hoover (though to be fair, a lot of the problems were caused by the Bonus Army causing a riot, and many of them being explicit Communists in all but name, and how FDR apparently engineered that little riot behind the scenes.). There were probably far better ways to do it, but then again, it’s all guess work at this point. We definitely shouldn’t have trusted Keyes, which they obviously did."

If Mellon wasn't up for it, Coolidge should've run for another term. He would've held firm in letting the economy work itself out and he certainly didn't tolerate threats.

"He was by 1952, and besides, there’s still Whittaker Chambers, and ESPECIALLY MacArthur, firing them would have ruined his reputation, yet he didn’t care. I know if I were in his position, I’d be genuinely terrified of doing anything bad to them because if I did, that would destroy a reputation I’ve cultivated about being anti-Communist, and thus wouldn’t DARE try to lay a finger on them, let alone demonize or even fire them unless I can find an excuse to do so."

We simply had the wrong people in charge of this country at the wrong time. Sadly, having decent Presidents is too rare a thing now, partly as a result of too much democracy. We're fortunate to have President Trump, a great man at the right time.

"Yes, which will be in a week. Let’s hope for the best. America needs fixing, badly, especially after far too many leftist crap. Of course, I’m not even sure if it CAN be fixed, not after reading Liberty, the God that Failed, anyways (not without REALLY redoing the whole thing, which is its own problem.)."

The country badly needs an exorcism, that's for sure.

"Yeah, I’m far too familiar with that rhetoric (not that the J-Street Jews were much better, and they’re Hasidic, meaning pretty religious, and some of them STILL vote Democrat even after being backstabbed multiple times). Doesn’t help that at Bob Iger (yes, the same guy who runs Walt Disney right now) IS a religious jew who is also a big enough Clintonite Democrat that he sabotaged any chance at Path to 9/11 seeing a DVD release solely to allow Hillary Clinton to run in 2008. At least, his being religious is what some web pages like Jesus Is Savior claimed. Socialism/Communism is certainly their belief worldview, though I wouldn’t call it a religion (in my mind, a religion requires a deity, supernatural elements, and an afterlife. Socialism/Communism has none, at least, not the latter two.). As far as Israeli Jews, I hope you’re right, but I’m a bit cynical on that front, since I heard that a lot of Israel’s elected officials and judges are pro-Palestinian right now, meaning it’s probably not going to be much better if we swapped them out."

It should be much easier to remove problem judges, both here and abroad, especially when they represent an existential threat to their countries. The Constitution never deemed these people to be dictators.

"Yeah, especially when Vietnamese-Americans most likely remember what happened in Vietnam when the Vietcong/NVA took over. And don’t get me started on Japanese people who AREN’T even American citizens. Hideo Kojima, the guy who does Metal Gear, for example, actually was a huge Obama supporter and basically used his games since at least Metal Gear Solid 2 to demonize America as a horrible nation that doesn’t even deserve to exist (even going so far as to call it the “biggest evil”), one game even being devoted to worshipping Che Guevara, and that was DESPITE his nearly causing nuclear war, which naturally would have affected Japan as Peace Walker (the game that lionized that monster) ironically pointed out, to occur during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and would have succeeded had Khrushchev not put a muzzle on him)."

That we let the left get away with this indoctrination and anti-American hate in so many facets of our government, education, cultural, and entertainment industries is appalling. This must change, too.

"Yeah, and let’s hope the Venezuelans don’t make the same mistake the Cubans made regarding becoming leftist later on. Heck, I had an Education professor who actually descended from Cubans who was at the very least left-of-center, if not full on leftist, so I know exactly what you’re talking about regarding Cubans going leftist despite fleeing from the result of leftwing policies."

It takes only one generation to reject all the values of the prior generation that protected and preserved a nation and its rights. It requires eternal vigilance to protect our guaranteed God-given rights. Unfortunately, we've seen countless groups follow down the path to evil. As long as there is always an instinct and desire to control others, it will always be a threat. The left is always about controlling others.

"No kidding about Asner. Definitely learned that about him after his little role as narrator of that awful Tax the Rich cartoon. Sheesh, what’s his issue with free markets, anyway?"

It's hard to deprogram people once they've been brainwashed. Of course, I don't see all these rich elitist Hollyweird idiots rushing to give 99% of their fortunes to the poor and living on minimum wage. If they did, they'd at least have something they don't have now... credibility.

"I don’t know about self-educated, but I did have a lot of help from my parents being engaged in critical thinking. And I know I’ve at times been framed for saying stuff on campus at least once during my time at Oglethorpe."

I went to public school, and I credit it with teaching me that virtually everything they do and stand for is wrong (and in the decades since, how much worse it is now). I got the early Democrat indoctrination and rejected it by the time I entered junior high school and became even more outspoken politically. It was not well received.

"I’ll admit I was nervous when Trump implied he would consider not repealing Roe v. Wade in a stump speech in New York during the 2016 election (that basically acts as my smell test, especially considering I’m obligated as a Catholic to end it). Fortunately, his pick of Mike Pence eliminated those doubts."

It would've been disingenuous, since a President doesn't have the power to repeal a court decision unilaterally, only the court (and Congress) does. Chipping away at it seems to be working to a degree. It was an egregious ruling, to be sure. The issue should never have gone beyond the basics under the purview of a doctor, that being rape/incest, severe fetal health issues or life of the mother.

"As far as who Brooke Anne Smith is, well, this is her twitter account: https://twitter.com/Brookeannesmith also her Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/brookeannesmith/ Had she been a leftist, I’m pretty sure her posts would have called for gun control, claiming freedom is free, and or demonized the military, like how Sarah Silvermann or several other Hollywood leftists such as Michael Moore or George Lucas have done all of that and more. And I’m pretty sure people would be somewhat familiar with Jodi Benson, since she voiced Ariel in Disney’s The Little Mermaid, aka the movie that saved Disney from bankruptcy. On that note, Kelsey Grammar came out as a Republican back in 2003 and even mocked Michael Moore, also founded the RightNetwork (of course, I’m not fond of the fact that he is pro-choice, which is the main reason I don’t fully support him, but still...). And Clint Eastwood is one of the few open conservatives in Hollywood, played Dirty Harry."

A few out there, just not enough. You should read James Woods' Twitter. He takes no prisoners.

"And shame on Schwartzenegger, he should have known better especially considering how his dad was a Nazi and clearly wasn’t fond of that fact (and Nazis were on the left)."

His actions were deliberate. He wanted to obliterate the CA Republican Party as a viable opposition to the Stalinistic and corrupt Democrat party. I warned folks here he needed to be defeated. He turned out to be even more left-wing than the Democrat he recalled from office, Gov. Gray Davis.

“We should be grateful we dodged that Powell bullet, what a scumbag backstabbing weasel he turned out to be. He’d have inflicted maximum damage to the GOP had he run and won in 1996 (and probably would’ve handed off the office right back to the Dems in 2000). As for Je$$e, an example of dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park. Sadly, had MLK lived, I think he would’ve been scarcely different. One reason I deplore his canonization (same with the Kennedys).”

Eh, to be fair, MLK at least knew enough about Communism to denounce it as anti-Christian, so he definitely was far better than Jesse by any day of the week (especially when he if anything outright loved Communism, especially hailing Castro).

“Given his actions in Bay of Pigs and the immigration law changes to allow for hordes of third-worlders, it’s not possible for him to have been much worse. Even Khrushchev was gobsmacked at how much he gave away, essentially guaranteeing protection for Castro’s gulag state for perpetuity. He would’ve been equally disastrous on Vietnam had he lived. None of that would’ve happened under a President Nixon in the ‘60s.”

Yeah, Nixon probably wouldn’t have made the same mistakes JFK did. Though then again, apparently he also lied about the Missile Gap when Ike told BOTH of them it was false via U2 data if the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s is to be believed, so who knows? As far as JFK and whether he could do much worse, I’d beg to differ, even though I’d like to believe you that he couldn’t afford to do so. Aside from how the Democrats acted later on (including Maxine Waters among others), various left-wingers can and HAVE acted worse around that time, like for example, Jean-Paul Sartre, the May 1968 rioters, Michel Foucault, and the like (and I’m not even taking into account people of the distant past such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Emma Goldman, the Jacobins and other French Revolutionaries, and Russian Nihilists, among others). Heck, the Weathermen Bombers and George Lucas automatically proved themselves to be FAR worse than JFK on his worst days, actively rooting for the enemy and actively, deliberately trying to blow up their own fellow American citizens in the case of the Weathermen Underground, and George Lucas, if his interview with TIME is to be believed, is no fan of the Kennedys either (apparently he implied that the formation of the Empire had some basis on the Kennedy clan as well as Nixon. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20020423000824/http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,232440,00.html and here’s the specific line paragraph: “”I’m more on the liberal side of things,” [George Lucas] says. “I grew up in San Francisco in the ‘60s, and my positions are sort of shaped by that ... If you look back 30 years ago, there were certain issues with the Kennedys, with Richard Nixon, that focused my interest.” Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea ... What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction?””). Heck, Lucas alongside Bill Ayers is arguably one of the people responsible for ensuring Obama not only got elected, but also did a massive tax hike to ensure that “the rich don’t own government” or some garbage like that. Besides, I’m not entirely sure whether Khrushchev was satisfied with Cuba or not. Yes, his memoirs definitely indicated he was, but on the other hand, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former DIE agent, relayed how his boss witnessed Khrushchev basically screaming they should kill the Viper in reference to JFK after Cuba, which implies he may have felt JFK did in fact humiliate him. You can find it here and at similar places like WND: https://www.scientiapress.com/kgb-kennedy

“Zero was raised by Communists and sponsored by domestic terrorists. Had the media done their job in exposing him, this trash would never have been elected dogcatcher.”

Fully agreed with you there.

“Willard was never going to win the Presidency. It was a joke. Zero didn’t have to do anything illegal in 2012. Had a nominee been a non-leftist and actually willing to run a campaign, they’d have won.”

Eh, I don’t know about that. Some footage of Obama’s speeches during that time seemed to show very minimal people attending his speeches (though then again, they never bothered to pan up, so who knows). And besides, you have to admit, having nearly all of Obama’s winning states happen to be states that have no Voter ID laws comes across as suspect, and having no states with Voter ID laws that he won. That would point to voter fraud. That’s not even getting into how some places such as Philadelphia had far higher turnout for Obama than there were actual citizenry of that community. I’m assuming you mean Romney, because I definitely don’t recall him being called “Willard.” Plus, I’m pretty sure Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum were actual conservatives and not RINOs/leftists, if that’s what you’re implying.

“It would’ve ripped the country apart had Nixon contested that fraudulent election. Frankly, given everything that happened, I wish he had. After all, the Democrats haven’t hesitated to do so in 2000, 2004 and 2016.”

True, but then again, back then we had the issue of potentially going into nuclear Armageddon.

“Any Republican with a pulse would’ve won in 1952. Ike lucked out by having an uninspiring “intellectual pointy-head” in Adlai Stevenson as an opponent not once, but twice.”

Perhaps. I do know this much, though, Conservapedia and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s seemed fond of him, the latter far more fond of him than JFK by any stretch.

“The ideal is small, Constitutional and moral government that respects the rights of its citizens. One might say that (on paper) Marxism appears to be “no government” with all-citizen participation. Of course, in practice, it leads to oppression and mass-murder to enact it. I personally do not view pure democracy as a good thing, because that is best described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner. I think we have too much democracy in our nation right now. Anyone working for the federal government should not have a vote. It was one reason why DC was never intended to have the vote, because the presumption would be they would be voting on their own livelihoods at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s no wonder the entire DC area is filthy rich now and votes heavily Democrat. It’s a chronic problem even in state capitols and those with taxpayer-funded universities. That all will have to be changed or this nation will go bankrupt before long.”

Oh, I fully agree with you there. Heck, if anything, I actually think we should have absolutely NO democracy at all, as when I think of democracy, I think of the French Revolution and its excesses, having anarchy and utter lawlessness as the closest thing to an order of the day, killing neighbors for a sheer laugh, and all of that. Or, to use a more contemporary reference, the episode of SEAL Team’s first season where Bravo Team has to evacuate an American embassy due to an uptick in riots in a Somalian region over election results. I believe the name of the episode was “Collapse.”

“Though he never really was. You can make that claim about almost any pol 6 decades ago compared to today if only because our nation and culture has been pushed so dramatically leftward, and JFK was one of those responsible for making that happen.”

Even still, he definitely still came across as conservative, certainly a lot moreso than FDR ever did, and bear in mind, I’m no fan of JFK either. Besides, I can and have named plenty of people from around that time, including Americans, who were even FURTHER to the Left than JFK ever was, like for example Jean Paul Sartre (basically praised Che Guevara as the “most complete human being of the century”, not to mention had a hand in May 1968 and even got arrested and pardoned simply because, and I quote, “one does not arrest Voltaire.”), Michel Foucault (basically same deal as Sartre, only he basically advocated lynch mobs being the standard practice, and practically denounced any governmental systems, oh, and also never found a radical group he didn’t like), the Weathermen Underground, Malcolm X (heck, that guy outright celebrated JFK’s death), among others. Probably also George Lucas, as well.

“If he was principled and courageous, he’d have cast a vote one way or the other. JFK’s arranging to be in a hospital conveniently on the day of the vote was the epitome of cowardice.”

Well, technically, if he were truly principled and courageous, he would have actually voted WITH Joe McCarthy, as siding against him and with the Democrat Party isn’t even close to courageous, let alone principled. And besides, by that logic, Che Guevara was “courageous and principled” for gunning down defenseless boys with a smile on his face, even when it’s very obvious that he was, aside from being sadistic, also a massive coward via his last moments in life where he pathetically begged for his life. Not voting is still ultimately more courageous than outright voting against Joe McCarthy and siding with the Democrat mob out of sheer peer pressure.

“I lament that the Kennedys ever were in politics. The mess that family made on the nation is incalculable.”

You and me both. Though JFK probably was the least bad of them, certainly he was a better man than Ted Kennedy at least. Had Ted Kennedy been there, he probably would have voted with the Democrats with a smile on his face as he watched McCarthy squirm at the betrayal.

“If Mellon wasn’t up for it, Coolidge should’ve run for another term. He would’ve held firm in letting the economy work itself out and he certainly didn’t tolerate threats.”

Let’s hope so regarding that.

“We simply had the wrong people in charge of this country at the wrong time. Sadly, having decent Presidents is too rare a thing now, partly as a result of too much democracy. We’re fortunate to have President Trump, a great man at the right time.”

Yes, it is indeed very fortunate that we got Trump at a time like this. Though I’m not entirely sure if it’s a result of too much democracy or that we even have democracy to begin with (like I said, the only thing I can think of with democracy is the excesses of the French Revolution, as well as similar events).

“The country badly needs an exorcism, that’s for sure.”

That, I agree with.

“It should be much easier to remove problem judges, both here and abroad, especially when they represent an existential threat to their countries. The Constitution never deemed these people to be dictators.”

Yeah, that’s one flaw with the Constitution (the other of course being that there was never an explicit accreditation to God himself). Good thing we have an amendment process, though.

“That we let the left get away with this indoctrination and anti-American hate in so many facets of our government, education, cultural, and entertainment industries is appalling. This must change, too.”

Agreed, we shouldn’t have let the left access those organs at all. Unfortunately, if we try to do anything about it, we’d get accused of destroying the Constitution. Besides, I personally blame Thomas Jefferson and his throwing his lot with the Jacobins, even when he obviously would have been aware of their more inhumane actions due to personally witnessing them during his time in France, and basically crafting that Adam and Eve letter voicing solidarity for those jerks. And he advocated for education, which is a large part of the reason we have this mess.

“It takes only one generation to reject all the values of the prior generation that protected and preserved a nation and its rights. It requires eternal vigilance to protect our guaranteed God-given rights. Unfortunately, we’ve seen countless groups follow down the path to evil. As long as there is always an instinct and desire to control others, it will always be a threat. The left is always about controlling others.”

Either that, or having everyone behave chaotically and without ANY standards, kill their own friends for a sheer laugh, like the Jacobins or anarchists. Besides, I view God to be a massive control-freak and even a bit of a megalomaniac, and that’s mainly why I serve him, mostly due to outright fear and terror of him.

“It’s hard to deprogram people once they’ve been brainwashed. Of course, I don’t see all these rich elitist Hollyweird idiots rushing to give 99% of their fortunes to the poor and living on minimum wage. If they did, they’d at least have something they don’t have now... credibility.”

No kidding, on both counts.

“It would’ve been disingenuous, since a President doesn’t have the power to repeal a court decision unilaterally, only the court (and Congress) does. Chipping away at it seems to be working to a degree. It was an egregious ruling, to be sure. The issue should never have gone beyond the basics under the purview of a doctor, that being rape/incest, severe fetal health issues or life of the mother.”

Maybe he doesn’t have that power, but did he really have to imply he was going to keep Roe v. Wade as law of the land in that speech at New York? He could have at least mentioned trying to get some Justices included on the Supreme Court who are Originalists and also try to remove Roe v. Wade.

“A few out there, just not enough. You should read James Woods’ Twitter. He takes no prisoners.”

Well, I know there’s Right Network, but yeah, you’re right, there’s too much to risk openly admitting to Conservative principles. And I’ll see what I can do (shame he’s effectively blacklisted. He did make a good Hades in Hercules).

“His actions were deliberate. He wanted to obliterate the CA Republican Party as a viable opposition to the Stalinistic and corrupt Democrat party. I warned folks here he needed to be defeated. He turned out to be even more left-wing than the Democrat he recalled from office, Gov. Gray Davis.”

Yeah, which makes his complaints about his father being a Nazi even more of a problem, since he hated that bit about him. If I were him, I’d go very far to avoid being a Nazi like my father, to the extent that if anything I’d be closer to a libertarian if not a far-right Conservative, precisely BECAUSE I’d realize the Nazis and the Communists are the same thing.

"Eh, to be fair, MLK at least knew enough about Communism to denounce it as anti-Christian, so he definitely was far better than Jesse by any day of the week (especially when he if anything outright loved Communism, especially hailing Castro)."

MLK was trained at the Highlander Folk School here in my state of TN. It was used to bring up Communist activists. He believed in massive federal government to resolve problems and thought the Communist system was a legitimate opposition system (he said as much on an interview with Merv Griffin). He may have sounded "Conservative" in some of his speeches (indeed, he plagiarized the speech of a Republican minister delivered to the GOP National Convention, "I Have A Dream"), but he was still very left wing and helped to lead 90%+ of Black voters onto the Democrat Plantation. The damage that has done to the Black community has been without equal, especially the destruction of the Black family.

"Yeah, Nixon probably wouldn’t have made the same mistakes JFK did. Though then again, apparently he also lied about the Missile Gap when Ike told BOTH of them it was false via U2 data if the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s is to be believed, so who knows? As far as JFK and whether he could do much worse, I’d beg to differ, even though I’d like to believe you that he couldn’t afford to do so. Aside from how the Democrats acted later on (including Maxine Waters among others), various left-wingers can and HAVE acted worse around that time, like for example, Jean-Paul Sartre, the May 1968 rioters, Michel Foucault, and the like (and I’m not even taking into account people of the distant past such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Emma Goldman, the Jacobins and other French Revolutionaries, and Russian Nihilists, among others). Heck, the Weathermen Bombers and George Lucas automatically proved themselves to be FAR worse than JFK on his worst days, actively rooting for the enemy and actively, deliberately trying to blow up their own fellow American citizens in the case of the Weathermen Underground, and George Lucas, if his interview with TIME is to be believed, is no fan of the Kennedys either (apparently he implied that the formation of the Empire had some basis on the Kennedy clan as well as Nixon. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20020423000824/http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,232440,00.html and here’s the specific line paragraph: “”I’m more on the liberal side of things,” [George Lucas] says. “I grew up in San Francisco in the ‘60s, and my positions are sort of shaped by that ... If you look back 30 years ago, there were certain issues with the Kennedys, with Richard Nixon, that focused my interest.” Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea ... What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction?””). Heck, Lucas alongside Bill Ayers is arguably one of the people responsible for ensuring Obama not only got elected, but also did a massive tax hike to ensure that “the rich don’t own government” or some garbage like that. Besides, I’m not entirely sure whether Khrushchev was satisfied with Cuba or not. Yes, his memoirs definitely indicated he was, but on the other hand, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former DIE agent, relayed how his boss witnessed Khrushchev basically screaming they should kill the Viper in reference to JFK after Cuba, which implies he may have felt JFK did in fact humiliate him. You can find it here and at similar places like WND: https://www.scientiapress.com/kgb-kennedy"

Of course, you're citing individuals that (at the time) could not have held or won office in this country. Intellectuals tend to be especially odious, airing their deranged views from the comfort of their ivory towers and never to live under such systems. These Communist celebrities are equally as bad. Filthy rich, they got theirs, and the peons should be serving them. Of course, they'll never move to Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea to their utopias. George Lucas is so overrated, anyhow. Star Wars is just a rip-off of Flash Gordon. He couldn't secure the rights to making "Gordon", so he just reworked the story. Now the new movies are nothing more than SJW propaganda and garbage. But, yes, left-wingers have been making humanity miserable now for centuries, bathing the 20th century in oceans of blood. I learned that the left was never about solving problems, but perpetuating misery and chaos and dependency in order to keep themselves in power. How much further we'd be along as humanity were they never to have existed. "Eh, I don’t know about that. Some footage of Obama’s speeches during that time seemed to show very minimal people attending his speeches (though then again, they never bothered to pan up, so who knows). And besides, you have to admit, having nearly all of Obama’s winning states happen to be states that have no Voter ID laws comes across as suspect, and having no states with Voter ID laws that he won. That would point to voter fraud. That’s not even getting into how some places such as Philadelphia had far higher turnout for Obama than there were actual citizenry of that community."

Voter fraud for Democrats is as American as apple pie. But it the case of 2012, it obviously happened, but it didn't make any difference, since the outcome was already pre-determined.

"I’m assuming you mean Romney, because I definitely don’t recall him being called “Willard.” Plus, I’m pretty sure Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum were actual conservatives and not RINOs/leftists, if that’s what you’re implying."

You weren't here for the fun times a dozen years ago. I was watching Willard the Rat (or Slick Willard, Scum Willard, et al) from the time he was Governor. To say he was a disastrous Socialist Chief Executive would be an understatement. He put leftist pro-criminal judges on the bench, he supported the pro-gay marriage horror, and implemented the very model for ZeroCare complete with cheap abortions. He also killed the last vestiges of the GOP in the state. In other words, Willard was a perfect Democrat. He also was massively unpopular and fled the office before he lost reelection and handed it to a Black Communist (sound familiar ?). He moved far away to California. I knew a total megalomaniac and pathological liar like Willard would be a disaster for the country if he ran for or became President. Then again, he was content in three elections in a row to (#1, help undermine and backstab Gov. Palin when she became McQueeg's running mate. #2, Willfully and deliberately threw the 2012 election. #3, Personally recruited Egg McMuffin for 2016 to funnel votes away from Trump and elect Hillary). To say Willard is a treasonous scumbag would be an understatement. What damage he will inflict (or attempt to) as the new Senator from Utah to deliberately harm President Trump is the question. I would vote for the actual Democrat running against him to keep him from the Senate.

As for the other candidates you mentioned, they were all too weak. Herman Cain was obliterated as soon as they trotted out the hackneyed old Democrat dirty trick of "sexual harassment" (which was racist on its face). Santorum was second-tier and could not get the resources needed to run a serious race. The only reason he got the support he did was because nobody else running had any Conservative credibility. You had Huckster from Arkansas, but he was the Southern-fried Willard and a disaster as Governor and had zero credibility on immigration (he supported open borders and keeping Tyson factories chock-full of illegal slave labor). He also virtually destroyed the state GOP (indeed, his Democrat successor did more to help the AR GOP than Huckster). As for Newtie, he was a no-go. He was one of the most unpopular pols in the country, he never recovered from his time as Speaker. He folded like a cheap suit during the so-called gov't shutdown of 1995 and all but handed Bubba Clintoon his second term. Now while he would've run to win, he was too problematic to win. Rudy Giuliani was a possibility (and he did take down an incompetent Communist Black Mayor in his first term), but he was too left-wing on social issues and it didn't make sense that he'd appoint a Conservative government when he didn't believe in it. Why would you appoint people you disagree with ?

"Perhaps. I do know this much, though, Conservapedia and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s seemed fond of him, the latter far more fond of him than JFK by any stretch."

Adlai ? Probably because of the scene he made when he served as UN Ambassador under JFK (the "Don't wait for the translation !" he shouted at the Russian Ambassador). It was a great visual, but Adlai as President would've been the Peter Sellers caricature Merkin Muffley from "Dr. Strangelove."

"Oh, I fully agree with you there. Heck, if anything, I actually think we should have absolutely NO democracy at all, as when I think of democracy, I think of the French Revolution and its excesses, having anarchy and utter lawlessness as the closest thing to an order of the day, killing neighbors for a sheer laugh, and all of that. Or, to use a more contemporary reference, the episode of SEAL Team’s first season where Bravo Team has to evacuate an American embassy due to an uptick in riots in a Somalian region over election results. I believe the name of the episode was “Collapse.”

The folks that should participate in anything pertaining to "democracy" are those with skin in the game. The makers, not the takers. It's frightening to think Thomas Jefferson supported the French Revolution, which demonstrated the left in all its bloodthirsty glory. Of course, he supported us being an agrarian society, since when you end up with cities... well, we've seen what political cesspools they are with corrupt, statist and totalitarian leftist instincts and no diversity of opinion (or critical thinking).

"Even still, he definitely still came across as conservative, certainly a lot moreso than FDR ever did, and bear in mind, I’m no fan of JFK either. Besides, I can and have named plenty of people from around that time, including Americans, who were even FURTHER to the Left than JFK ever was, like for example Jean Paul Sartre (basically praised Che Guevara as the “most complete human being of the century”, not to mention had a hand in May 1968 and even got arrested and pardoned simply because, and I quote, “one does not arrest Voltaire.”), Michel Foucault (basically same deal as Sartre, only he basically advocated lynch mobs being the standard practice, and practically denounced any governmental systems, oh, and also never found a radical group he didn’t like), the Weathermen Underground, Malcolm X (heck, that guy outright celebrated JFK’s death), among others. Probably also George Lucas, as well."

Well, Malcolm X commented that JFK's assassination was like the chickens coming home to roost. Unlike MLK, who all but urged the Black poultry to go to the Democrat plantation of Colonel Sanders, Malcolm warned Blacks about voting Democrat. MLK was too much of an attention-seeker (and pleasure-seeker) to have done much positive in the long run, but it would've been curious to see where Malcolm would've been at had he not been assassinated. He at least urged Blacks NOT to depend on government, which was excellent advice. Once you become dependent, it's hard to break the habit (like alcohol or drugs). Democrats knew this and worked it to their advantage, and still to this day.

"Well, technically, if he were truly principled and courageous, he would have actually voted WITH Joe McCarthy, as siding against him and with the Democrat Party isn’t even close to courageous, let alone principled. And besides, by that logic, Che Guevara was “courageous and principled” for gunning down defenseless boys with a smile on his face, even when it’s very obvious that he was, aside from being sadistic, also a massive coward via his last moments in life where he pathetically begged for his life. Not voting is still ultimately more courageous than outright voting against Joe McCarthy and siding with the Democrat mob out of sheer peer pressure."

But the point was that he needed to show up and stand up and be counted. It's not courageous to dodge a key vote, it's cowardice.

"You and me both. Though JFK probably was the least bad of them, certainly he was a better man than Ted Kennedy at least. Had Ted Kennedy been there, he probably would have voted with the Democrats with a smile on his face as he watched McCarthy squirm at the betrayal."

I considered them all odious.

"Yes, it is indeed very fortunate that we got Trump at a time like this. Though I’m not entirely sure if it’s a result of too much democracy or that we even have democracy to begin with (like I said, the only thing I can think of with democracy is the excesses of the French Revolution, as well as similar events)."

He turned out a lot of people to vote for him that either wouldn't have voted or voted Democrat. Trump carried some counties that hadn't gone Republican in over 6 decades (places like Dubuque, Iowa, a Catholic area), even one county in WA state that last went GOP for President in 1928. A lot of working-class and industrial areas went hard for Trump. The GOP should unapologetically be a workers' party (take back that name from the Stalinists) and an empowerment party for the individual, not empowerment for bureaucrats, ultraleft nutters and elitists.

"Yeah, that’s one flaw with the Constitution (the other of course being that there was never an explicit accreditation to God himself). Good thing we have an amendment process, though."

Of course, the Constitution is being flagrantly violated on a daily basis.

"Agreed, we shouldn’t have let the left access those organs at all. Unfortunately, if we try to do anything about it, we’d get accused of destroying the Constitution. Besides, I personally blame Thomas Jefferson and his throwing his lot with the Jacobins, even when he obviously would have been aware of their more inhumane actions due to personally witnessing them during his time in France, and basically crafting that Adam and Eve letter voicing solidarity for those jerks. And he advocated for education, which is a large part of the reason we have this mess."

It's not education in itself that is the problem, it's indoctrination and failure to teach critical thinking. The big ed industry has become so thoroughly corrupted and needs be cleaned out from top to bottom.

"Either that, or having everyone behave chaotically and without ANY standards, kill their own friends for a sheer laugh, like the Jacobins or anarchists. Besides, I view God to be a massive control-freak and even a bit of a megalomaniac, and that’s mainly why I serve him, mostly due to outright fear and terror of him."

I wish God would be a bit more controlling, to be honest. Rid us of the cancers of our society. Of course, He operates on His schedule, not ours. Though if He controlled every little aspect, what would be the point of our existence ? How would we ever learn ? It'd be like your parents perpetually babysitting you throughout your life.

"Maybe he doesn’t have that power, but did he really have to imply he was going to keep Roe v. Wade as law of the land in that speech at New York? He could have at least mentioned trying to get some Justices included on the Supreme Court who are Originalists and also try to remove Roe v. Wade."

Technically, he would be telling the truth by saying as much. Unfortunately, even if Roe was jettisoned today, some states that enacted laws preceding the decision (NY being one) would still have legalized abortion.

"Yeah, which makes his complaints about his father being a Nazi even more of a problem, since he hated that bit about him. If I were him, I’d go very far to avoid being a Nazi like my father, to the extent that if anything I’d be closer to a libertarian if not a far-right Conservative, precisely BECAUSE I’d realize the Nazis and the Communists are the same thing."

Curiously, Ah-nold wasn't even initially planning on running in the recall of 2003. He was planning on recruiting the left-wing RINO ex-Mayor of Los Angeles, Tricky Dick Riordan. Riordan was mediocre and loved endorsing Democrats (such as Sen. Feinstein). He was obliterated when he tried to run in a Gubernatorial primary, exposed as the left-wing phony that he is. So Ah-nold went to have a one-on-one with Dicky and made the discovery that he was obviously senile and had rice pudding for brains (wasn't just the leftism that addled his brain). Conservative Tom McClintock was already in the running, and a mush-brained Riordan would've been toast, so Ah-nold himself got in and used deep pockets and the corrupt party establishment to buy the office out from under McClintock. It's sick and sad to see the state today, so far removed from the Golden State shine it had up until the early '90s. It's a feudal state now with anti-American politics and rampant corruption and never-ending spending, chasing the productive middle and working class people out. The shame of the nation.

“MLK was trained at the Highlander Folk School here in my state of TN. It was used to bring up Communist activists. He believed in massive federal government to resolve problems and thought the Communist system was a legitimate opposition system (he said as much on an interview with Merv Griffin). He may have sounded “Conservative” in some of his speeches (indeed, he plagiarized the speech of a Republican minister delivered to the GOP National Convention, “I Have A Dream”), but he was still very left wing and helped to lead 90%+ of Black voters onto the Democrat Plantation. The damage that has done to the Black community has been without equal, especially the destruction of the Black family.”

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that even a left-wing Christian with Communist sympathies would not denounce Communism to such an extent that he declares it incapable of being mixed together, like King did in this speech here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/can-a-christian-be-a-communist/. If anything, they’d basically delusionally believe they COULD be mixed together with zero issues. You know, like the priest who recruited Hillary Clinton into being taught by Saul Alinsky, or the Liberation Theology believers, or Pope Francis for that matter. Either way, that speech he made STILL made him far better than Jesse Jackson, who actually DID try to praise Cuba’s communist system every chance he got. Also helps that King’s niece is in fact pro life.

“Of course, you’re citing individuals that (at the time) could not have held or won office in this country. Intellectuals tend to be especially odious, airing their deranged views from the comfort of their ivory towers and never to live under such systems. These Communist celebrities are equally as bad. Filthy rich, they got theirs, and the peons should be serving them. Of course, they’ll never move to Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea to their utopias. George Lucas is so overrated, anyhow. Star Wars is just a rip-off of Flash Gordon. He couldn’t secure the rights to making “Gordon”, so he just reworked the story. Now the new movies are nothing more than SJW propaganda and garbage. But, yes, left-wingers have been making humanity miserable now for centuries, bathing the 20th century in oceans of blood. I learned that the left was never about solving problems, but perpetuating misery and chaos and dependency in order to keep themselves in power. How much further we’d be along as humanity were they never to have existed.”

Honestly, wanting to maintain power by any means necessary would probably be too kind a description for them. I personally think they’re more like the Joker from The Dark Knight, doing their actions solely so they can watch the world burn, not even CARE if they get caught in the crossfire and or have their actions backfire on them.

As far as Lucas, I heard a similar story regarding how Star Wars was made, only instead of him not getting the rights to a Flash Gordon film, it involved having his rights to Apocalypse Now taken away from him after THX-1138’s failure, not to mention his American Zoetrope studio shut down (personally, I think the story would have been worse, be very openly against the Vietnam War, even when compared to the uncut version of the film we did get). His basing the Rebels on the Vietcong and the Empire on America is pretty much the reason I root for the Empire right now, and I don’t generally root for villains nor do I even like to root for villains, that’s how badly I took that revelation. And from what I’ve read in PIG 1960s, the student radicals in America at least, many of whom being Red Diaper babies, managed to blackball school administrators into effectively letting them have complete air time with that so-called “Free Speech” movement.

You might want to make sure to address the bit about Khrushchev apparently throwing a tantrum in the aftermath of the CMC going by what Ion Mihai Pacepa stated, though. Even gave you a link to that earlier.

“Voter fraud for Democrats is as American as apple pie. But it the case of 2012, it obviously happened, but it didn’t make any difference, since the outcome was already pre-determined.”

True, the Democrats have done voter fraud as well, but you still have to admit that it seems suspicious that only the Voter ID states swung for Romney. Maybe if a Voter ID state swung for Obama, I’d probably consider the possibility that some were disgruntled about Romney and not think anything else was suspicious, but all going for Romney? Yeah, sorry, but I would suspect voter fraud on Obama’s end was responsible for the election victory on Obama’s end. And it wouldn’t surprise me either, since Chicago’s infamous for its voter fraud, doing it since at least the time Daly told people to “vote early, vote often”.

“You weren’t here for the fun times a dozen years ago. I was watching Willard the Rat (or Slick Willard, Scum Willard, et al) from the time he was Governor. To say he was a disastrous Socialist Chief Executive would be an understatement. He put leftist pro-criminal judges on the bench, he supported the pro-gay marriage horror, and implemented the very model for ZeroCare complete with cheap abortions. He also killed the last vestiges of the GOP in the state. In other words, Willard was a perfect Democrat. He also was massively unpopular and fled the office before he lost reelection and handed it to a Black Communist (sound familiar ?). He moved far away to California. I knew a total megalomaniac and pathological liar like Willard would be a disaster for the country if he ran for or became President. Then again, he was content in three elections in a row to (#1, help undermine and backstab Gov. Palin when she became McQueeg’s running mate. #2, Willfully and deliberately threw the 2012 election. #3, Personally recruited Egg McMuffin for 2016 to funnel votes away from Trump and elect Hillary). To say Willard is a treasonous scumbag would be an understatement. What damage he will inflict (or attempt to) as the new Senator from Utah to deliberately harm President Trump is the question. I would vote for the actual Democrat running against him to keep him from the Senate. “

Yeah, come to think of it, I definitely remember being irritated when I saw that list of celebrities who voiced support for Obama and Romney was among them. I did ultimately vote for Romney in the actual election, although only because I couldn’t just sit home, not when the alternative was letting Obama stay in office. Besides, he did have as his VP Paul Ryan, who was pro-life, so I figured that at least I’m getting someone who was pro-life in there. And honestly, had Randall Terry successfully ousted Obama for the nomination in 2012, I definitely would have considered voting for him back then (I’m technically independent, so I can in fact vote for any party I wish. Randall Terry is pretty much the only exception I’m willing to make regarding Democrats and voting for them since at least HE is proven to be staunchly pro-Life). And as far as third party candidates, that’s pretty much a joke. Why bother voting for a third party candidate when they’re not even going to win anyways. Comes across as a wasted vote anyway.

“As for the other candidates you mentioned, they were all too weak. Herman Cain was obliterated as soon as they trotted out the hackneyed old Democrat dirty trick of “sexual harassment” (which was racist on its face). Santorum was second-tier and could not get the resources needed to run a serious race. The only reason he got the support he did was because nobody else running had any Conservative credibility. You had Huckster from Arkansas, but he was the Southern-fried Willard and a disaster as Governor and had zero credibility on immigration (he supported open borders and keeping Tyson factories chock-full of illegal slave labor). He also virtually destroyed the state GOP (indeed, his Democrat successor did more to help the AR GOP than Huckster). As for Newtie, he was a no-go. He was one of the most unpopular pols in the country, he never recovered from his time as Speaker. He folded like a cheap suit during the so-called gov’t shutdown of 1995 and all but handed Bubba Clintoon his second term. Now while he would’ve run to win, he was too problematic to win. Rudy Giuliani was a possibility (and he did take down an incompetent Communist Black Mayor in his first term), but he was too left-wing on social issues and it didn’t make sense that he’d appoint a Conservative government when he didn’t believe in it. Why would you appoint people you disagree with ?”

Like I said, my initial, and preferred, choice was Rick Santorum. I only went with Romney because it was either him or Obama, and I sure as heck wasn’t voting for Obama (and if I sat out, it would effectively be the same as voting for Obama). In fact, the one person I definitely didn’t want to vote for in the GOP by any stretch was Ron Paul. Sure, maybe he’s got a point on economic issues, but everything else he’s so dead wrong that it would be like voting the Joker from Batman into the presidency, and he pretty much supported abortificants, something I’m unwilling to knowingly back in a candidate (would even avoid voting for a Republican if they backed it if I could help it).

“Adlai ? Probably because of the scene he made when he served as UN Ambassador under JFK (the “Don’t wait for the translation !” he shouted at the Russian Ambassador). It was a great visual, but Adlai as President would’ve been the Peter Sellers caricature Merkin Muffley from “Dr. Strangelove.”

I... didn’t even mention Adlai, so I don’t even know what you’re getting at there, because I referenced Conservapedia and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s in that thing you responded to, and about Ike, no less.

“The folks that should participate in anything pertaining to “democracy” are those with skin in the game. The makers, not the takers. It’s frightening to think Thomas Jefferson supported the French Revolution, which demonstrated the left in all its bloodthirsty glory. Of course, he supported us being an agrarian society, since when you end up with cities... well, we’ve seen what political cesspools they are with corrupt, statist and totalitarian leftist instincts and no diversity of opinion (or critical thinking).”

He unfortunately DID support those jerks. Even went as far as to write a letter voicing his support, as you can see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/adam.htm In fact, it was his support of the French Revolution that was the main reason why John Adams and he basically broke off their friendship. Oh, and speaking of which, the book “Liberty: The God that Failed” by Christopher A. Ferrara gives quite a bit more detail about him. Did you know that Jefferson basically was a huge Big Government Ogre? Here’s a bulletpointed list in this link: http://distributistreview.com/liberty-god-that-failed/

“Well, Malcolm X commented that JFK’s assassination was like the chickens coming home to roost. Unlike MLK, who all but urged the Black poultry to go to the Democrat plantation of Colonel Sanders, Malcolm warned Blacks about voting Democrat. MLK was too much of an attention-seeker (and pleasure-seeker) to have done much positive in the long run, but it would’ve been curious to see where Malcolm would’ve been at had he not been assassinated. He at least urged Blacks NOT to depend on government, which was excellent advice. Once you become dependent, it’s hard to break the habit (like alcohol or drugs). Democrats knew this and worked it to their advantage, and still to this day.”

Maybe, but on the other hand, he also advocated for black revolts and separatist groups akin to the KKK, so he definitely was closer to the far left than MLK was even if he did advocate against government dependency. After all, the likes of Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre if anything demanded the extermination of government, the former even advocating for people to just engage in vigilante lynching, or as he put it, popular justice, like with the September Massacres, and you’d have to be blind to think that he wanted government, even basically stating that government was the same as a prison as well as, well, pretty much any job, private or public, being a prison, and last I checked, they were of the far left, not even close to conservative under either the American OR the European definition.

“But the point was that he needed to show up and stand up and be counted. It’s not courageous to dodge a key vote, it’s cowardice.”

Maybe, but then again, showing up, standing up, and being counted among Democrats while taking his time taking as much joy in destroying the career of a patriot who can barely even defend himself a’la Che Guevara and his execution squads against defenseless boys isn’t really courageous by any stretch either. In fact, I’d argue such is even MORE cowardly than simply not voting. At least by not voting, he technically still isn’t actually siding with the Democrats.

“I considered them all odious.”

Honestly, I think them all odious too. But here’s the thing, I think of ALL people, myself included, as odious for doing even one bad thing, and if I go by that line of thinking... well, let’s just say my views would be more likely to just ensure no human remains alive (myself included), or even this planet Earth, so I HAVE to try and look for even small positives in order to not do to the world what Kefka did in FFVI out of a fit of nihilism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-cdwDnryY0

“He turned out a lot of people to vote for him that either wouldn’t have voted or voted Democrat. Trump carried some counties that hadn’t gone Republican in over 6 decades (places like Dubuque, Iowa, a Catholic area), even one county in WA state that last went GOP for President in 1928. A lot of working-class and industrial areas went hard for Trump. The GOP should unapologetically be a workers’ party (take back that name from the Stalinists) and an empowerment party for the individual, not empowerment for bureaucrats, ultraleft nutters and elitists. “

Well, to be fair, speaking as someone who IS Catholic since childhood when my mom returned to the Church, I voted for McCain, Santorum, Romney, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump, and have generally voted Republican (mostly because there’s more chance of them actually repealing Roe v. Wade than the Democrats), and 2008 was actually my first presidential vote (before then, the only other time I might have voted was during the vote for Dunwoody to become a City).

“Of course, the Constitution is being flagrantly violated on a daily basis.”

No kidding, and it’s been that way since at the very least when Earl Warren was put on the Supreme Court, arguably even before that when FDR threatened to pack the court.

“It’s not education in itself that is the problem, it’s indoctrination and failure to teach critical thinking. The big ed industry has become so thoroughly corrupted and needs be cleaned out from top to bottom.”

I wish I could believe you regarding education in itself not being the problem. Really, I do. Unfortunately, after the likes of Voltaire and Diderot managed to take over the French Academy and basically used that to basically indoctrinate loads of literate people in France down to and including the peasant class into thinking Christians were bad, leading directly to the French Revolution (this part you can read about from Timothy Dwight’s 1799 speech to the Yale Graduates of Independence Day of that year recapping how the French Revolution happened), heck, Jean-Jacques Rousseau practically FOUNDING Education, or at least what we know of it today via his Emile book, I definitely have to blame Education itself for it. Based on my experiences, heck, even doing some independent research that had me learning that Rousseau and Voltaire are effectively responsible for the sorry state of education right now, if not responsible for education itself, it’s better off just being destroyed, reduced to rubble, not even BOTHER fixing it (besides, the leftist radicals also claimed to be working to fix education back during the 1960s, and they invariably made it worse). By keeping it, we have brainwashing and indoctrination. Is it bleak, yes, but unfortunately, it is what it is. One article has even implied that this rot has been going on since the 19th century. Here, read for yourself: https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-liberals-think-being-educated-means-being-liberal

“I wish God would be a bit more controlling, to be honest. Rid us of the cancers of our society. Of course, He operates on His schedule, not ours. Though if He controlled every little aspect, what would be the point of our existence ? How would we ever learn ? It’d be like your parents perpetually babysitting you throughout your life.”

Sometimes I wonder if that is the case, that he’s not controlling. As far as I can tell, God’s essentially a combination of the Patriots from MGS2 (https://youtu.be/eKl6WjfDqYA; https://youtu.be/mrVThXFnE1s ), the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dij287EZT50 ), and Kefka from Final Fantasy VI. Have to think that way since he’s omnipotent and omniscient, not to mention omnipresent, meaning he can’t be stupid, weak, or anything like that. Even if it’s a bleak view of God, it’s still what I think of as God, especially after Raiders of the Lost Ark.

“Technically, he would be telling the truth by saying as much. Unfortunately, even if Roe was jettisoned today, some states that enacted laws preceding the decision (NY being one) would still have legalized abortion.”

Then we need to find a way to ensure the states DON’T retain those abortion laws. For goodness sakes, the Founding Fathers actually had state laws that banned pornographic material before Earl Warren with his Memoirs v. Massachusetts ruling pretty much gutted those laws.

“Curiously, Ah-nold wasn’t even initially planning on running in the recall of 2003. He was planning on recruiting the left-wing RINO ex-Mayor of Los Angeles, Tricky Dick Riordan. Riordan was mediocre and loved endorsing Democrats (such as Sen. Feinstein). He was obliterated when he tried to run in a Gubernatorial primary, exposed as the left-wing phony that he is. So Ah-nold went to have a one-on-one with Dicky and made the discovery that he was obviously senile and had rice pudding for brains (wasn’t just the leftism that addled his brain). Conservative Tom McClintock was already in the running, and a mush-brained Riordan would’ve been toast, so Ah-nold himself got in and used deep pockets and the corrupt party establishment to buy the office out from under McClintock. It’s sick and sad to see the state today, so far removed from the Golden State shine it had up until the early ‘90s. It’s a feudal state now with anti-American politics and rampant corruption and never-ending spending, chasing the productive middle and working class people out. The shame of the nation.”

Darn shame what happened there. Then again, a lot of the leftist jerks who did the student protests and all of that definitely had the golden sunshine gradually removed (heck, Governor Brown during the 1960s literally let riots occur non-stop at Los Angeles and clearly let them spread to other places), so while Arnold may not have been responsible for losing its sunshine, he certainly didn’t help restore it.

"Yeah, I’m pretty sure that even a left-wing Christian with Communist sympathies would not denounce Communism to such an extent that he declares it incapable of being mixed together, like King did in this speech here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/can-a-christian-be-a-communist/. If anything, they’d basically delusionally believe they COULD be mixed together with zero issues. You know, like the priest who recruited Hillary Clinton into being taught by Saul Alinsky, or the Liberation Theology believers, or Pope Francis for that matter. Either way, that speech he made STILL made him far better than Jesse Jackson, who actually DID try to praise Cuba’s communist system every chance he got. Also helps that King’s niece is in fact pro life."

I'm not as sanguine about the speech, because he gives Communism some validity that it can somehow help the poor and oppressed. It's a bit too SJW. Plus, he didn't have much credibility about living the life of a good Christian. As for the clergyman who introduced a young and impressionable Hillary to Communist politics, he deserves some serious scrutiny. I absolutely believe she sold her soul to Satan for power and influence. The late Fr. Malachi Martin discussed the subject to an extent on Art Bell's radio show back in the '90s (you can find them on Youtube). They are interesting and very frightening. Anyone who is a disciple of Alinsky is a disciple of Satan. As for Alveda King, she is largely ignored by the media because she isn't a left-winger. Typical treatment for Blacks who have left the Democrat plantation, they're either ignored or vilified.

"Honestly, wanting to maintain power by any means necessary would probably be too kind a description for them. I personally think they’re more like the Joker from The Dark Knight, doing their actions solely so they can watch the world burn, not even CARE if they get caught in the crossfire and or have their actions backfire on them."

That might describe a few, the total nihilists, but most want an escape plan. They're willing to sacrifice the whole world so long as they can get away. Even Che Guevera didn't want to be a martyr in desperately trying to cut a deal with the troops who caught him in Bolivia. Ultimately, they're mostly egotistical cowards.

"As far as Lucas, I heard a similar story regarding how Star Wars was made, only instead of him not getting the rights to a Flash Gordon film, it involved having his rights to Apocalypse Now taken away from him after THX-1138’s failure, not to mention his American Zoetrope studio shut down (personally, I think the story would have been worse, be very openly against the Vietnam War, even when compared to the uncut version of the film we did get). His basing the Rebels on the Vietcong and the Empire on America is pretty much the reason I root for the Empire right now, and I don’t generally root for villains nor do I even like to root for villains, that’s how badly I took that revelation. And from what I’ve read in PIG 1960s, the student radicals in America at least, many of whom being Red Diaper babies, managed to blackball school administrators into effectively letting them have complete air time with that so-called “Free Speech” movement."

The "Free-Speech" movement was a joke. It was just an attempt by Communists to get power and shut down any opposition to their tyranny. Communist totalitarians never voluntarily relinquish power or allow free speech. Since it is viewed by its adherents as absolute and right, there cannot be an "opposition." Opposition are counter-revolutionaries, and they must be destroyed. You can see how that works on college campuses today and locales where these thugs hold power.

"You might want to make sure to address the bit about Khrushchev apparently throwing a tantrum in the aftermath of the CMC going by what Ion Mihai Pacepa stated, though. Even gave you a link to that earlier."

Frankly, all the stuff surrounding JFK's assassination has been so muddied over the years, it's hard to figure out what is truth, what is fiction/hyperbole, etc. I don't think Khrushchev would've necessarily been behind an assassination, because if it openly came out, it would've triggered WW3. He certainly didn't want to start it over Cuba, either. JFK made so many enemies that it made all these conspiracies seem plausible (even the mafia angle, too, and LBJ - since the Kennedys were planning to dump him from the ticket in '64 and replace him with MO Sen. Stuart Symington, a more reliable toady).

"True, the Democrats have done voter fraud as well, but you still have to admit that it seems suspicious that only the Voter ID states swung for Romney. Maybe if a Voter ID state swung for Obama, I’d probably consider the possibility that some were disgruntled about Romney and not think anything else was suspicious, but all going for Romney? Yeah, sorry, but I would suspect voter fraud on Obama’s end was responsible for the election victory on Obama’s end. And it wouldn’t surprise me either, since Chicago’s infamous for its voter fraud, doing it since at least the time Daly told people to “vote early, vote often”."

I think Willard (as with McQueeg) were a toxic contribution to keeping base voters from turning out. I only voted for McQueeg in 2008 solely because I expected him to die in office early and be replaced with Sarah Palin (and she was the only reason he performed as well as he did). It's hard to overstate how shockingly unpopular and hated these two were. Over half the party voters were negative on both. I found it absolutely astonishing how either could get nominated as the most unpopular figures running. I was hoping for both to be defeated at the convention and replaced with a more popular and unifying figure. You cannot nominate someone that unpopular and magically expect them to win a general election.

"Yeah, come to think of it, I definitely remember being irritated when I saw that list of celebrities who voiced support for Obama and Romney was among them. I did ultimately vote for Romney in the actual election, although only because I couldn’t just sit home, not when the alternative was letting Obama stay in office. Besides, he did have as his VP Paul Ryan, who was pro-life, so I figured that at least I’m getting someone who was pro-life in there. And honestly, had Randall Terry successfully ousted Obama for the nomination in 2012, I definitely would have considered voting for him back then (I’m technically independent, so I can in fact vote for any party I wish. Randall Terry is pretty much the only exception I’m willing to make regarding Democrats and voting for them since at least HE is proven to be staunchly pro-Life). And as far as third party candidates, that’s pretty much a joke. Why bother voting for a third party candidate when they’re not even going to win anyways. Comes across as a wasted vote anyway."

I considered my vote for McQueeg in 2008 to be a waste when he didn't die earlier. I later repudiated my vote for him. In 2012, that was the final straw. I'd spent over 6 years warning people about Willard and his antics, and that his nomination was tantamount to re-coronating Zero. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances and endorsed VA Congressman Virgil Goode instead as the only option for Conservative patriots. There was nothing that would've changed my mind on that. It wasn't even a lesser of two evils situation, both were evil and Deep State operatives. If Willard had won by accident (he wasn't going to, but still...) the damage he would've done to the Conservative movement would've assured the loss of Congress in 2014 and the election of Hillary in 2016. Our side would not have likely won either the Congress or Presidency again, and the loss of the Supreme Court was imminent. It was just that frightening and bad. As for Paul Ryan, he is also a Deep State Establishment hack. He was more than happy to serve Zero and hates Trump. Conservatives are VERY happy to see this fraud hit the bricks after his willfully incompetent and obstructionist tenure.

"Like I said, my initial, and preferred, choice was Rick Santorum. I only went with Romney because it was either him or Obama, and I sure as heck wasn’t voting for Obama (and if I sat out, it would effectively be the same as voting for Obama). In fact, the one person I definitely didn’t want to vote for in the GOP by any stretch was Ron Paul. Sure, maybe he’s got a point on economic issues, but everything else he’s so dead wrong that it would be like voting the Joker from Batman into the presidency, and he pretty much supported abortificants, something I’m unwilling to knowingly back in a candidate (would even avoid voting for a Republican if they backed it if I could help it)."

Paul's too nutty and too libertarian. But he's not Deep State and would've run to win had he been nominated, but as with you, I had too many problems with him.

"I... didn’t even mention Adlai, so I don’t even know what you’re getting at there, because I referenced Conservapedia and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s in that thing you responded to, and about Ike, no less."

I misinterpreted your comment to be talking about Adlai being better regarded than JFK by Conservapedia.

"He unfortunately DID support those jerks. Even went as far as to write a letter voicing his support, as you can see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/adam.htm In fact, it was his support of the French Revolution that was the main reason why John Adams and he basically broke off their friendship. Oh, and speaking of which, the book “Liberty: The God that Failed” by Christopher A. Ferrara gives quite a bit more detail about him. Did you know that Jefferson basically was a huge Big Government Ogre? Here’s a bulletpointed list in this link: http://distributistreview.com/liberty-god-that-failed/"

I tended to prefer Adams, anyhow. Keeping slavery enshrined in our fledgling nation was a recipe for long-term disaster. Of course, you were going to have a problem with slave colonies not going along in 1776 had it been abolished. A double-edged sword, to be sure. Then again, you have the problem with flawed individuals trying to come up with a system of governance that had the widest-possible appeal. It's ultimately impossible to create a perfect republican system. Trying to create such a utopia on earth is foolhardy (although that doesn't preclude us from striving to make it better an ironing out and addressing problems, either).

"Maybe, but on the other hand, he also advocated for black revolts and separatist groups akin to the KKK, so he definitely was closer to the far left than MLK was even if he did advocate against government dependency. After all, the likes of Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre if anything demanded the extermination of government, the former even advocating for people to just engage in vigilante lynching, or as he put it, popular justice, like with the September Massacres, and you’d have to be blind to think that he wanted government, even basically stating that government was the same as a prison as well as, well, pretty much any job, private or public, being a prison, and last I checked, they were of the far left, not even close to conservative under either the American OR the European definition."

The biggest mistake the Black community made was jettisoning the self-reliance ethos of Booker T. Washington in favor of radical leftism espoused by W. E. B. Du Bois. Following Washington would've seen the Black community largely assimilated into the national culture at large (much like how Southern Europeans and Irish were eventually assimilated after being seen as "non-White" in the 19th century), instead of being culturally divorced and at odds. Of course, Washington himself warned us about people that would seek to exploit Blacks to their detriment, and described the hucksters and con-men we see to this day (from Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpton, Zero, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters & the CBC and other various media and pop culture "overseers" like the Samuel L. Jackson character in "Django Unchained" to keep the slaves from running away).

"Maybe, but then again, showing up, standing up, and being counted among Democrats while taking his time taking as much joy in destroying the career of a patriot who can barely even defend himself a’la Che Guevara and his execution squads against defenseless boys isn’t really courageous by any stretch either. In fact, I’d argue such is even MORE cowardly than simply not voting. At least by not voting, he technically still isn’t actually siding with the Democrats."

By not showing up, I would argue JFK was providing de facto support to the Democrat/RINO left because he didn't DEFEND McCarthy at a pivotal moment.

"Honestly, I think them all odious too. But here’s the thing, I think of ALL people, myself included, as odious for doing even one bad thing, and if I go by that line of thinking... well, let’s just say my views would be more likely to just ensure no human remains alive (myself included), or even this planet Earth, so I HAVE to try and look for even small positives in order to not do to the world what Kefka did in FFVI out of a fit of nihilism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-cdwDnryY0"

Well, we all make mistakes. The difference is whether we are engaged in such actions accidentally or willfully. I look to another political family I wish had never appeared on the political scene: the Bushes. Dubya (or Shrub, a nickname he has since well earned) was sworn to uphold the Constitution and keep our borders secure. Did he do that ? Nope. He allowed millions of illegals to come in (as did his predecessors and successor) and refused to do anything about it. He didn't consider it wrong. I had one of those charming individuals for a neighbor from Central America. He should've been deported but he wasn't, because this wasn't a priority. One day, he apparently tried to kill his wife and two police officers (as I was typing away right here at my computer, got to hear the exchange out my open window). For 7 years, too, another set of neighbors of undetermined status harassed us day and night, cops were called endlessly, and nothing was done (didn't want to appear "racist" for going after some Mexicans). Of course, these were just two examples. When I hear the lying media tell us about how these folks are just a bunch of innocents and people who want to secure our borders (Trump) are racist and evil, I want to slap them hard across the face. Rapists, murderers, thugs, drunk drivers and more ARE the people that settled into my area and others across the country. They make our communities unsafe and drain our resources. But elitists like Shrub, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, who don't have these quality folks living feet away from them (indeed, they have security and expensive estates to keep them far, far away in my working-class neighborhood) don't have them disturbing and threatening them 24/7. If they love them so much, they won't mind taking them and Mohammadans, too, into their homes and open arms to sleep next to them and their children and grandchildren. Until then, they can STFU.

"Well, to be fair, speaking as someone who IS Catholic since childhood when my mom returned to the Church, I voted for McCain, Santorum, Romney, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump, and have generally voted Republican (mostly because there’s more chance of them actually repealing Roe v. Wade than the Democrats), and 2008 was actually my first presidential vote (before then, the only other time I might have voted was during the vote for Dunwoody to become a City)."

I think the overwhelming bulk of faithful Christians and Jews vote GOP now. The fake JINOs, Cafeteria Catholics (CINOs), and the anti-Christian SJWs (who have taken over countless Christian sects) are obviously going to vote Communist-Democrat.

"No kidding, and it’s been that way since at the very least when Earl Warren was put on the Supreme Court, arguably even before that when FDR threatened to pack the court."

I think Chief Justice Marshall set the standard for judicial tyranny with Marbury v. Madison.

"I wish I could believe you regarding education in itself not being the problem. Really, I do. Unfortunately, after the likes of Voltaire and Diderot managed to take over the French Academy and basically used that to basically indoctrinate loads of literate people in France down to and including the peasant class into thinking Christians were bad, leading directly to the French Revolution (this part you can read about from Timothy Dwight’s 1799 speech to the Yale Graduates of Independence Day of that year recapping how the French Revolution happened), heck, Jean-Jacques Rousseau practically FOUNDING Education, or at least what we know of it today via his Emile book, I definitely have to blame Education itself for it. Based on my experiences, heck, even doing some independent research that had me learning that Rousseau and Voltaire are effectively responsible for the sorry state of education right now, if not responsible for education itself, it’s better off just being destroyed, reduced to rubble, not even BOTHER fixing it (besides, the leftist radicals also claimed to be working to fix education back during the 1960s, and they invariably made it worse). By keeping it, we have brainwashing and indoctrination. Is it bleak, yes, but unfortunately, it is what it is. One article has even implied that this rot has been going on since the 19th century. Here, read for yourself: https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-liberals-think-being-educated-means-being-liberal"

It's WHAT is taught that is the issue and WHO is teaching it. If you're using it for indoctrination purposes, it is evil. Smashing the entire system to pieces and not bothering to replace it is just as bad. You neither want an ignorant populace or a brainwashed one. I believe we need a total overhaul of how we educate children. A one-size fits all approach that the corrupt teachers unions support is not working. Each child should have an education tailor-made for his/her needs. I was above average as a youngster and could read before Kindergarten, but I was placed in a subpar sausage factory (public ed) that dumbed me down, kept me disinterested and bored and ultimately crushed my spirit and put me in harm's way. In many ways, I had to teach myself and try to separate fact from fiction. Public ed taught me that it is everything that is done wrong, and it is kept that way on purpose.

"Sometimes I wonder if that is the case, that he’s not controlling. As far as I can tell, God’s essentially a combination of the Patriots from MGS2 (https://youtu.be/eKl6WjfDqYA; https://youtu.be/mrVThXFnE1s ), the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dij287EZT50 ), and Kefka from Final Fantasy VI. Have to think that way since he’s omnipotent and omniscient, not to mention omnipresent, meaning he can’t be stupid, weak, or anything like that. Even if it’s a bleak view of God, it’s still what I think of as God, especially after Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Well, we're never going to be able to fully comprehend who He is. That's above our proverbial pay grade. We can only try to follow what He wants for us and trust it's the best thing for us.

"Then we need to find a way to ensure the states DON’T retain those abortion laws. For goodness sakes, the Founding Fathers actually had state laws that banned pornographic material before Earl Warren with his Memoirs v. Massachusetts ruling pretty much gutted those laws."

Too many people support those laws in those states. Even in the Dakotas, I forgot which one, they tried to enact a law to outlaw all abortions and it didn't pass muster with the voters. Since only a small number would be performed under an exceptions clause, that's the best route to try to take. The left-wing state voters won't give it up for any circumstance (short of perhaps outlawing partial-birth, which is too ghoulish even for many Democrats). As for porno stuff, that genie is out of the bottle. As long as there is an interest in sex, that's going to be around.

"Darn shame what happened there. Then again, a lot of the leftist jerks who did the student protests and all of that definitely had the golden sunshine gradually removed (heck, Governor Brown during the 1960s literally let riots occur non-stop at Los Angeles and clearly let them spread to other places), so while Arnold may not have been responsible for losing its sunshine, he certainly didn’t help restore it."

Yeah, it was headed downhill under Pat Brown, though he couldn't extinguish it entirely. Sadly, thanks to Ike and his national demolition of the GOP in 1958, it made the election of Pat Brown possible when GOP Senate Minority Leader Bill Knowland and Gov. Goodwin Knight tried to switch jobs. It enabled the capture of the state by Democrats who effectively disenfranchised the GOP voting majority and they never recovered from that (not even Reagan was able to do so).

“I’m not as sanguine about the speech, because he gives Communism some validity that it can somehow help the poor and oppressed. It’s a bit too SJW. Plus, he didn’t have much credibility about living the life of a good Christian. As for the clergyman who introduced a young and impressionable Hillary to Communist politics, he deserves some serious scrutiny. I absolutely believe she sold her soul to Satan for power and influence. The late Fr. Malachi Martin discussed the subject to an extent on Art Bell’s radio show back in the ‘90s (you can find them on Youtube). They are interesting and very frightening. Anyone who is a disciple of Alinsky is a disciple of Satan. As for Alveda King, she is largely ignored by the media because she isn’t a left-winger. Typical treatment for Blacks who have left the Democrat plantation, they’re either ignored or vilified.”

Regarding King and whether it’s SJW, maybe, but it’s still at least repudiating enough that he specifically concluded they can never come together at all, so he at least deserves respect for that (and either way is STILL better than Jesse Jackson’s blatant promotion of Fidel Castro, even BEFORE the whole running for office thing). And to be fair, a lot of people don’t exactly have credibility of being a good Christian, can’t even say I myself might be one. Heck, Donald Trump defends the Christian faith and Western Civilization right now, and defends Israel right now, yet I’m not entirely sure I can say he’s a good Christian if we go down to personal morals (though I’ll say this much, regardless of how he’s like, he’s got FAR better morals than the Clintons). Not saying bad about him, since like I said, he at least earned my loyalty, far more than just tolerating him enough in a failed attempt to ensure Obama or similar people never won the Presidency.

And as far as Alinsky, yeah, doesn’t help either that he actually dedicated his book to Satan. Sometimes I wish when Jesus during his three days of death just killed Satan and exterminated his followers, then robbed us of our free will, or heck, his father do that.

“That might describe a few, the total nihilists, but most want an escape plan. They’re willing to sacrifice the whole world so long as they can get away. Even Che Guevera didn’t want to be a martyr in desperately trying to cut a deal with the troops who caught him in Bolivia. Ultimately, they’re mostly egotistical cowards.”

Yeah, he did, begged for his life for a publicity trial akin to what Debres got from what I heard. Makes me feel very cynical about mercy, really... enough that if I were put in a situation where it’s life or death, I won’t beg for mercy because I don’t wish to do the same beg and backstab thing those guys do.

“The “Free-Speech” movement was a joke. It was just an attempt by Communists to get power and shut down any opposition to their tyranny. Communist totalitarians never voluntarily relinquish power or allow free speech. Since it is viewed by its adherents as absolute and right, there cannot be an “opposition.” Opposition are counter-revolutionaries, and they must be destroyed. You can see how that works on college campuses today and locales where these thugs hold power.”

Yeah, no disagreeing with you there. Heck, even Voltaire’s defense of free speech was a complete joke, considering he had zero problem lying about and censoring Christian thought, wanting it completely destroyed via mockery. And you know what that led to.

“Frankly, all the stuff surrounding JFK’s assassination has been so muddied over the years, it’s hard to figure out what is truth, what is fiction/hyperbole, etc. I don’t think Khrushchev would’ve necessarily been behind an assassination, because if it openly came out, it would’ve triggered WW3. He certainly didn’t want to start it over Cuba, either. JFK made so many enemies that it made all these conspiracies seem plausible (even the mafia angle, too, and LBJ - since the Kennedys were planning to dump him from the ticket in ‘64 and replace him with MO Sen. Stuart Symington, a more reliable toady).”

Eh, I’m pretty sure that Khrushchev had in fact been responsible for JFK’s assassination, or if not him, then certainly Fidel Castro. Certainly Markus Wolf and Ion Mihai Pacepa made very convincing arguments that it was them. And you have to admit, the Soviets would otherwise have no real reason to do a disinformation campaign deflecting blame if they truly had no involvement whatsoever (heck, barely anyone knew until the 1990s when the Archives opened up that the Soviets were responsible for Katyn and believed the Nazis were responsible, thanks to a disinformation campaign by the Soviets). Whether it was deliberate or accidental (or even both) is up for debate, however. Yes, his making enemies technically makes things plausible, but there’s also some things that nix that idea. For example, aside from the fact that LBJ could have just as easily simply leaked to the press that JFK was having an affair with an East German Spy and blackmailed them into publishing it to get the presidency (or the fact that said amendment requiring the VP to be put in the President’s place if he unexpectedly dies in office) hadn’t even been thought up yet, LBJ going by CIA memos wasn’t even AWARE that LHO was the shooter until three days after the fact. Had he been the one who got him shot, I’m pretty sure he would have known who he was. And even the Mafia would not dare try to risk America being harmed by the Soviets just to settle a grudge anyway (they probably would have waited until AFTER he was out of office). Not to mention they didn’t try to kill any president involved in the prohibition movement (Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, you name it), even when they actually would have had plenty of reasons to hate them for shutting down some of their operations.

“I think Willard (as with McQueeg) were a toxic contribution to keeping base voters from turning out. I only voted for McQueeg in 2008 solely because I expected him to die in office early and be replaced with Sarah Palin (and she was the only reason he performed as well as he did). It’s hard to overstate how shockingly unpopular and hated these two were. Over half the party voters were negative on both. I found it absolutely astonishing how either could get nominated as the most unpopular figures running. I was hoping for both to be defeated at the convention and replaced with a more popular and unifying figure. You cannot nominate someone that unpopular and magically expect them to win a general election.”

Never said they’d actually win the general election. I was just saying that it was suspicious that, of the states that voted for Obama, all of them had been from states without Voter ID laws, while Romney actually got them. If Romney, or heck, McCain even, actually lost one of the Voter ID states, I’d probably see your point about how they were unpopular candidates.

“I considered my vote for McQueeg in 2008 to be a waste when he didn’t die earlier. I later repudiated my vote for him. In 2012, that was the final straw. I’d spent over 6 years warning people about Willard and his antics, and that his nomination was tantamount to re-coronating Zero. I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances and endorsed VA Congressman Virgil Goode instead as the only option for Conservative patriots. There was nothing that would’ve changed my mind on that. It wasn’t even a lesser of two evils situation, both were evil and Deep State operatives. If Willard had won by accident (he wasn’t going to, but still...) the damage he would’ve done to the Conservative movement would’ve assured the loss of Congress in 2014 and the election of Hillary in 2016. Our side would not have likely won either the Congress or Presidency again, and the loss of the Supreme Court was imminent. It was just that frightening and bad. As for Paul Ryan, he is also a Deep State Establishment hack. He was more than happy to serve Zero and hates Trump. Conservatives are VERY happy to see this fraud hit the bricks after his willfully incompetent and obstructionist tenure.”

True, but on the other hand, at least those guys had more of a chance at actually revoking Roe v. Wade than Obama at that point (at least Paul Ryan was specifically noted, by Breitbart of all groups, to be pro-life). Had Romney nominated Condoleeza Rice for the VP position, which is actually EXACTLY what I feared, I definitely would have sat out of the election, since she was pro-Choice. Eliminating Roe v. Wade has been a deal-breaker for me.

“Paul’s too nutty and too libertarian. But he’s not Deep State and would’ve run to win had he been nominated, but as with you, I had too many problems with him.”

Yeah, he wasn’t Deep State, too bad he still wasn’t much better. One thing I deeply disagreed with him on besides the who abortion angle was his inferring we should be purely isolationist. Ignoring that our attempt at isolationism during the 1930s was an abject failure that just made things worse for us, not to mention others, there’s also the fact that such would have meant abandoning our allies to the enemy, like what we did with Vietnam, and letting them be overrun.

“I misinterpreted your comment to be talking about Adlai being better regarded than JFK by Conservapedia.”

Yeah, I was meaning Ike, Eisenhower. I wasn’t even aware of Adlai until you mentioned him. Read Ike’s article, for example. There’s also the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s as well, that made Eisenhower flattering, while JFK they weren’t particularly fond of by comparison. On that note, the book also made clear that NASA, heck, the entire trip to the moon, was a colossal waste of money.

“I tended to prefer Adams, anyhow. Keeping slavery enshrined in our fledgling nation was a recipe for long-term disaster. Of course, you were going to have a problem with slave colonies not going along in 1776 had it been abolished. A double-edged sword, to be sure. Then again, you have the problem with flawed individuals trying to come up with a system of governance that had the widest-possible appeal. It’s ultimately impossible to create a perfect republican system. Trying to create such a utopia on earth is foolhardy (although that doesn’t preclude us from striving to make it better an ironing out and addressing problems, either).”

Yeah, me too. Well, either him or Alexander Jackson. At least both fully recognized the folly of the French Revolution from the start. And yeah, it’s pretty much impossible, certainly doing so from scratch.

“The biggest mistake the Black community made was jettisoning the self-reliance ethos of Booker T. Washington in favor of radical leftism espoused by W. E. B. Du Bois. Following Washington would’ve seen the Black community largely assimilated into the national culture at large (much like how Southern Europeans and Irish were eventually assimilated after being seen as “non-White” in the 19th century), instead of being culturally divorced and at odds. Of course, Washington himself warned us about people that would seek to exploit Blacks to their detriment, and described the hucksters and con-men we see to this day (from Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpton, Zero, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters & the CBC and other various media and pop culture “overseers” like the Samuel L. Jackson character in “Django Unchained” to keep the slaves from running away).”

Yeah, they really should have stuck with Booker T. Washington. Well, either him or George Washington Carver, anyway. At least he taught self-reliance, and not the crap self-reliance that Sartre promoted via “existentialism” that essentially implied that people form their own selves, or the form of self-reliance that Gaston was shown to be in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast which painted it in the WORST light since he was the main villain (that reminds me, Jeffrey Katzenberg of ALL the far-left Commie celebrities is probably the closest we’ve ever gotten to one who actually HELD political office, due to him dropping out of NYU to run for John Lindsay’s failed political campaign. And he was responsible for frankly ruining Beauty and the Beast by turning what was originally a fairly good story into a thinly-veiled gender studies textbook.).

“By not showing up, I would argue JFK was providing de facto support to the Democrat/RINO left because he didn’t DEFEND McCarthy at a pivotal moment.”

He had about four years of defending him, even while each year his so-called Democrat friends were piling additional charges and making him look bad by the day. I may personally prefer him defending him that pivotal moment, but at least he actually defended him constantly up to that point, and he had plenty of opportunities to side with the Democrats, his own Catholic voters be darned, for the sake of naked leftism.

“Well, we all make mistakes. The difference is whether we are engaged in such actions accidentally or willfully. I look to another political family I wish had never appeared on the political scene: the Bushes. Dubya (or Shrub, a nickname he has since well earned) was sworn to uphold the Constitution and keep our borders secure. Did he do that ? Nope. He allowed millions of illegals to come in (as did his predecessors and successor) and refused to do anything about it. He didn’t consider it wrong. I had one of those charming individuals for a neighbor from Central America. He should’ve been deported but he wasn’t, because this wasn’t a priority. One day, he apparently tried to kill his wife and two police officers (as I was typing away right here at my computer, got to hear the exchange out my open window). For 7 years, too, another set of neighbors of undetermined status harassed us day and night, cops were called endlessly, and nothing was done (didn’t want to appear “racist” for going after some Mexicans). Of course, these were just two examples. When I hear the lying media tell us about how these folks are just a bunch of innocents and people who want to secure our borders (Trump) are racist and evil, I want to slap them hard across the face. Rapists, murderers, thugs, drunk drivers and more ARE the people that settled into my area and others across the country. They make our communities unsafe and drain our resources. But elitists like Shrub, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, who don’t have these quality folks living feet away from them (indeed, they have security and expensive estates to keep them far, far away in my working-class neighborhood) don’t have them disturbing and threatening them 24/7. If they love them so much, they won’t mind taking them and Mohammadans, too, into their homes and open arms to sleep next to them and their children and grandchildren. Until then, they can STFU.”

Eh, to be fair to Bush, and I’m no fan of him either (he may be better than Clinton or Obama, but then again, that’s not saying much), at least he actually responded to Osama bin Laden’s terror threat by actually striking back. At least he didn’t dither indecisively at any opportunities that arose to kill him unlike Bill Clinton who did so no less than ten times and made 9/11 inevitable, nor did he even actually avoid war despite it obviously being necessary after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Though, yeah, I do really wish that Bush actually ATTEMPTED to enforce border security more. Heck, at least Bush wasn’t an outright draft dodger during a war or make tracts against America during anti-American rallies as well as personally leading them, while Clinton was.

“I think the overwhelming bulk of faithful Christians and Jews vote GOP now. The fake JINOs, Cafeteria Catholics (CINOs), and the anti-Christian SJWs (who have taken over countless Christian sects) are obviously going to vote Communist-Democrat.”

I hope you’re right about that. I do know my parish definitely is very much against Roe v. Wade, though, having each anniversary various signs of how many babies were murdered since its passage.

“I think Chief Justice Marshall set the standard for judicial tyranny with Marbury v. Madison.”

Well, I don’t know about that... A misinterpretation by Progressives about his decision might have set the standard for judicial tyranny, but not the decision itself, since the text itself indicates the exact opposite going by this: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/no-marbury-v-madison-not-say-supreme-court-gets-final-say-constitutionality/

“It’s WHAT is taught that is the issue and WHO is teaching it. If you’re using it for indoctrination purposes, it is evil. Smashing the entire system to pieces and not bothering to replace it is just as bad. You neither want an ignorant populace or a brainwashed one. I believe we need a total overhaul of how we educate children. A one-size fits all approach that the corrupt teachers unions support is not working. Each child should have an education tailor-made for his/her needs. I was above average as a youngster and could read before Kindergarten, but I was placed in a subpar sausage factory (public ed) that dumbed me down, kept me disinterested and bored and ultimately crushed my spirit and put me in harm’s way. In many ways, I had to teach myself and try to separate fact from fiction. Public ed taught me that it is everything that is done wrong, and it is kept that way on purpose.”

Man, I sympathize with you there. As a kid, I actually managed to innately know numbers and colors, being able to count up to 13 at the very least, and that was back when I was a preschooler. Not to mention, because I had dysgraphia, and the teachers insisted I do book reports to prove I’ve actually read the book despite being innately capable of reading fast and understanding it very well (though I’ll admit I hadn’t quite mastered the understanding bit in second grade) pretty much killed my interest in reading. Oh, and in sixth grade, thanks to an accident on the track where I ended up having most of my hand skinned off from falling down on it, and my having the rotten luck of both having a competency test AND one of my teachers preparing to enter maternity leave at the same time, not to mention my injured status, they deemed me to have “100% regression” and had me placed into resource as if I were incompetent and/or retarded, and only learned their mistake later on when they tested me for literacy, and they did so without even consenting with my parents.

I’m not sure even a total overhaul would work. Bill Ayers did a total overhaul to the school system, and that made it very much worse. And besides, technically, that’s what the likes of Voltaire did as well. Heck, I went through a private university called Oglethorpe, and, well, let’s just say that that school alone is proof that, even if you get rid of the Department of Education and/or apply school vouchers, it wouldn’t get rid of the trash.

“Well, we’re never going to be able to fully comprehend who He is. That’s above our proverbial pay grade. We can only try to follow what He wants for us and trust it’s the best thing for us.”

Yeah, I realize that. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen far too many instances where those who are unable to be fully comprehended are in fact very evil. Like, for example, Abeloth from the Fate of the Jedi series, or Cthullu. I serve God mostly out of sheer terror, been that way since I saw the ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the other sources I alluded to certainly didn’t help either.

“Too many people support those laws in those states. Even in the Dakotas, I forgot which one, they tried to enact a law to outlaw all abortions and it didn’t pass muster with the voters. Since only a small number would be performed under an exceptions clause, that’s the best route to try to take. The left-wing state voters won’t give it up for any circumstance (short of perhaps outlawing partial-birth, which is too ghoulish even for many Democrats). As for porno stuff, that genie is out of the bottle. As long as there is an interest in sex, that’s going to be around.”

I’m pretty sure there is indeed a way to outlaw most abortions at the very least (not sure about outlawing all of them, unfortunately... if it’s anything like Prohibition, that may just make the problem worse). And if science actually proves a growing baby is life, I’m pretty sure they’ll fall into line. Regarding porno, true, it might be around as long as an interest in sex is around (and let’s face it, an interest in sex is ultimately a necessary evil to live by since sex is the only thing that allows the human race to continue to exist, responsible for procreation). But on the other hand, pornography was pretty rare due to the state laws banning it during the Founding Fathers days, and was nowhere near as big as after Warren’s foolish decision, and pornography has been with us since Adam and Eve ate that apple, so if they can at the very least minimize porn back then, we can certainly do the same today.

“Yeah, it was headed downhill under Pat Brown, though he couldn’t extinguish it entirely. Sadly, thanks to Ike and his national demolition of the GOP in 1958, it made the election of Pat Brown possible when GOP Senate Minority Leader Bill Knowland and Gov. Goodwin Knight tried to switch jobs. It enabled the capture of the state by Democrats who effectively disenfranchised the GOP voting majority and they never recovered from that (not even Reagan was able to do so).”

Well, at least there’s still GOP/conservatives in the California wilderness. And maybe there’s a way to basically jujitsu the whole “two party vote” jungle thing the Democrats have.

"Regarding King and whether it’s SJW, maybe, but it’s still at least repudiating enough that he specifically concluded they can never come together at all, so he at least deserves respect for that (and either way is STILL better than Jesse Jackson’s blatant promotion of Fidel Castro, even BEFORE the whole running for office thing)."

The problem here is, like so many on the left (and why they're so much like Mohammadans) is that they're so well-versed in lying to advance their cause. The country was never going to jump into Socialism-Communism, but you could start turning the water up a degree at a time until it was brought to a boil. MLK could denounce these politics even as it was clear he was promoting a movement in that direction. He could've easily been using God/Christ as a vehicle to achieve that goal and just as quickly jettisoned it as soon as it was reached. Look at the lunatic "Rev." Jim Jones. He suckered them in as a Christian, kicked it to the curb and preached SJW/Marxism and then went full-on totalitarian loon and set himself up as God.

"And to be fair, a lot of people don’t exactly have credibility of being a good Christian, can’t even say I myself might be one. Heck, Donald Trump defends the Christian faith and Western Civilization right now, and defends Israel right now, yet I’m not entirely sure I can say he’s a good Christian if we go down to personal morals (though I’ll say this much, regardless of how he’s like, he’s got FAR better morals than the Clintons). Not saying bad about him, since like I said, he at least earned my loyalty, far more than just tolerating him enough in a failed attempt to ensure Obama or similar people never won the Presidency."

Well, there's no perfect people. But Trump is obviously on the side of the good. The Clintoons were just power-hungry and used people for their own ends and just as quickly discarded them. I was 18 in the 1992 election and voted for Bush, Sr. to try to stop them, because I suspected they were very bad people. It turned out even worse than I thought. I predicted, too, that he would be impeached 6 years ahead of time. It was very scary times because we had an actual lawless President and the media would cover for every horrid thing that he did (and the evil wife).

"And as far as Alinsky, yeah, doesn’t help either that he actually dedicated his book to Satan. Sometimes I wish when Jesus during his three days of death just killed Satan and exterminated his followers, then robbed us of our free will, or heck, his father do that."

That's not how it works, though. We'd be automatons and nothing would be gained or learned from that.

"Yeah, he did, begged for his life for a publicity trial akin to what Debres got from what I heard. Makes me feel very cynical about mercy, really... enough that if I were put in a situation where it’s life or death, I won’t beg for mercy because I don’t wish to do the same beg and backstab thing those guys do."

It's sad he and the Castro Bros. weren't captured and put down before 1959. A 1961-69 Pres. Nixon would've successfully overthrown the regime, restored the Cuban republic and had those psychotics publicly executed for treason and mass-murder.

"Eh, I’m pretty sure that Khrushchev had in fact been responsible for JFK’s assassination, or if not him, then certainly Fidel Castro. Certainly Markus Wolf and Ion Mihai Pacepa made very convincing arguments that it was them. And you have to admit, the Soviets would otherwise have no real reason to do a disinformation campaign deflecting blame if they truly had no involvement whatsoever (heck, barely anyone knew until the 1990s when the Archives opened up that the Soviets were responsible for Katyn and believed the Nazis were responsible, thanks to a disinformation campaign by the Soviets). Whether it was deliberate or accidental (or even both) is up for debate, however. Yes, his making enemies technically makes things plausible, but there’s also some things that nix that idea. For example, aside from the fact that LBJ could have just as easily simply leaked to the press that JFK was having an affair with an East German Spy and blackmailed them into publishing it to get the presidency (or the fact that said amendment requiring the VP to be put in the President’s place if he unexpectedly dies in office) hadn’t even been thought up yet, LBJ going by CIA memos wasn’t even AWARE that LHO was the shooter until three days after the fact. Had he been the one who got him shot, I’m pretty sure he would have known who he was. And even the Mafia would not dare try to risk America being harmed by the Soviets just to settle a grudge anyway (they probably would have waited until AFTER he was out of office). Not to mention they didn’t try to kill any president involved in the prohibition movement (Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, you name it), even when they actually would have had plenty of reasons to hate them for shutting down some of their operations."

It might've been as simple as a lone-wolf assassin (a lot of people that hero-worship a President can't accept that a single person acting alone could bring them down) or it might've been a broader attempt. As I said before, the waters have been so muddied on this subject that we'll never know for sure. If LBJ was behind it, he's going to have to act as if he didn't know, and he certainly could not have any dealings with the person. It would've had to be layers between him and what went on. A blackmail situation to force JFK out wouldn't have worked for LBJ, either. He would've been seen as an extension of JFK and the corruption of a Democrat administration, so he'd have gone down in 1964. As for the mafia, this wasn't just a grudge, this was seen as backstabbing the very group that helped to orchestrate his election. There was no other President that earned that sort of enmity (and none that had ever engaged in such criminal collusion to that point). I absolutely believe they could've plausibly had him whacked while in office. As for taking down prior Presidents, it was Prohibition that helped to build the power of the mafia, so there was no reason to murder someone helping you build your empire. If anything, I'd have thought they'd be pissed at FDR for repeal, as that cut into their business model. Most mafia people knew the best model was keeping a low profile, though some flagrantly ignored that, to their own detriment. Whacking high government or law enforcement officials would only serve not only to bring the full power and force upon them and their "enterprises", it would also turn the public against them, too. I think many people were just indifferent to them or just simply minded their own business.

"True, but on the other hand, at least those guys had more of a chance at actually revoking Roe v. Wade than Obama at that point (at least Paul Ryan was specifically noted, by Breitbart of all groups, to be pro-life). Had Romney nominated Condoleeza Rice for the VP position, which is actually EXACTLY what I feared, I definitely would have sat out of the election, since she was pro-Choice. Eliminating Roe v. Wade has been a deal-breaker for me."

Willard wasn't a pro-lifer, despite his claims. His mother, Lenore, was one of the most militant pro-abort champions in the country even before Roe. The GOP ran her for Senator in Michigan in 1970 and she got one of the lowest %'s of the vote for their party in state history. It was obvious that scores of Republicans voted for the Democrat incumbent that year. I don't believe for a second that either he or Wimpy Paul were going to do squat to alter Roe. His record with judges in MA showed he never could be counted on to put good people on the bench.

"Yeah, he wasn’t Deep State, too bad he still wasn’t much better. One thing I deeply disagreed with him on besides the who abortion angle was his inferring we should be purely isolationist. Ignoring that our attempt at isolationism during the 1930s was an abject failure that just made things worse for us, not to mention others, there’s also the fact that such would have meant abandoning our allies to the enemy, like what we did with Vietnam, and letting them be overrun."

You can't be purely isolationist in this day and time. However, his argument did gain merit with some, especially some on the far-left, because of our neverending adventures in the Middle East. Initially, I myself was a neo-con and believed in nation-building. But the problem remained that unless said country shares similar values as ours, you're not going to be successful. Mohammadan countries especially cannot become better models of republicanism until they rid themselves of Mohammadanism. That is the cancer. Their own people in their countries are going to have to be responsible for launching revolutions to get rid of that 7th century Satanic totalitarianism. I've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth a drop of Judeo-Christian blood to interfere in these hellholes, especially when it's just going to continue to remain the same with different leaders (example: Syria. The leader there is awful. Those that we'd overthrow him for are even worse. There's no upside here to interference). These countries can't even really function without a dictatorship.

"Yeah, I was meaning Ike, Eisenhower. I wasn’t even aware of Adlai until you mentioned him. Read Ike’s article, for example. There’s also the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s as well, that made Eisenhower flattering, while JFK they weren’t particularly fond of by comparison. On that note, the book also made clear that NASA, heck, the entire trip to the moon, was a colossal waste of money."

You could draw that conclusion, but for folks around at the time, it was literally a battle between good and evil as to who would reach the moon first. Had the Soviets won, it would've had an awful effect on the free world and made them look like winners and boosted their morale through the roof and legitimized them. I don't think you could put a price on what it did for our side in winning that race. It had to be fought and it had to be won. It's as simple as that. The grievous mistake was not in pushing on after that for Mars and beyond (with unhelpful left-wing Senators like William Proxmire helping to scuttle that - Proxmire being the Democrat who succeeded McCarthy on his death in 1957). Our Space Program has never recovered from that, and is about in as bad a shape as imaginable today.

"Yeah, me too. Well, either him or Alexander Jackson. At least both fully recognized the folly of the French Revolution from the start. And yeah, it’s pretty much impossible, certainly doing so from scratch."

You mean Alexander Hamilton ?

"Yeah, they really should have stuck with Booker T. Washington. Well, either him or George Washington Carver, anyway. At least he taught self-reliance, and not the crap self-reliance that Sartre promoted via “existentialism” that essentially implied that people form their own selves, or the form of self-reliance that Gaston was shown to be in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast which painted it in the WORST light since he was the main villain (that reminds me, Jeffrey Katzenberg of ALL the far-left Commie celebrities is probably the closest we’ve ever gotten to one who actually HELD political office, due to him dropping out of NYU to run for John Lindsay’s failed political campaign. And he was responsible for frankly ruining Beauty and the Beast by turning what was originally a fairly good story into a thinly-veiled gender studies textbook.)."

Lindsay was the worst Mayor in NYC history. Dinkins and De Blasio are tied for 2nd worst. He was so typical of those "handsome" left wingers the media loves to promote for high office that are predictable disasters. He was riddled with STDs (so was JFK). Florence Henderson had a "date" with him before 'The Brady Bunch' premiered and he gave her an STD. What a guy. He gave NYC an STD and almost a million people left the city thanks to his leadership. No city before or since has had that many people flee in that short a period as it did under him. Even Detroit took 4 decades to lose that many people. NYC did it in 1 decade.

"He had about four years of defending him, even while each year his so-called Democrat friends were piling additional charges and making him look bad by the day. I may personally prefer him defending him that pivotal moment, but at least he actually defended him constantly up to that point, and he had plenty of opportunities to side with the Democrats, his own Catholic voters be darned, for the sake of naked leftism."

JFK only took office as Senator in 1953, and this vote was in 1954, so he'd barely served that long with him as a colleague. Virtually the same amount of time since Trump took office last year to right now. Hardly anything at all.

"Eh, to be fair to Bush, and I’m no fan of him either (he may be better than Clinton or Obama, but then again, that’s not saying much), at least he actually responded to Osama bin Laden’s terror threat by actually striking back. At least he didn’t dither indecisively at any opportunities that arose to kill him unlike Bill Clinton who did so no less than ten times and made 9/11 inevitable, nor did he even actually avoid war despite it obviously being necessary after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Though, yeah, I do really wish that Bush actually ATTEMPTED to enforce border security more. Heck, at least Bush wasn’t an outright draft dodger during a war or make tracts against America during anti-American rallies as well as personally leading them, while Clinton was."

I think it was Reagan's greatest mistake in choosing Bush, Sr. over fellow Conservative & Westerner Paul Laxalt for VP. Laxalt would've continued Reagan's policies as President and never would've set the stage for the Bush-Clintoon-Bush-Zero horror show this country had to endure for 28 years running. Imagine how much better this country would've been with none of those horrors as President. No left-wing SCOTUS to shove their diseased edicts down our throats. Roe perhaps overturned, no Obergefell horror. Secure borders, no millions of illegals. Quite probably no 9/11, either. It's just all gone off the tracks and Trump is having to clean up a mess that should never have happened in the first place.

"Well, I don’t know about that... A misinterpretation by Progressives about his decision might have set the standard for judicial tyranny, but not the decision itself, since the text itself indicates the exact opposite going by this: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/no-marbury-v-madison-not-say-supreme-court-gets-final-say-constitutionality/"

I'm just saying that set the standard for judicial overreach. I think it should've been up to the legislatures/Congress and the people themselves to decide if a law was inappropriate, and vote against it or vote out the people supporting it and remove said law at the next session. In many ways, I think SCOTUS should do little more than offer an opinion. It is not their job or right to legislate, period. That goes all the way down to the lowest judge. Now we have nothing but a proliferation of black-robed tyrants who think they're dictators with the last word. This must end. The left has used the judiciary to our detriment in overriding the wishes of the people for years. Any attempts to overrule them at the ballot box via initiatives, they merely strike down. CA people voted on banning fake (same-sex) marriage, opponents find a judge to toss it. Abortion forced on the nation by judicial fiat, etc, etc. Abolition of school prayer... Obergefell. You see where I'm going.

"Man, I sympathize with you there. As a kid, I actually managed to innately know numbers and colors, being able to count up to 13 at the very least, and that was back when I was a preschooler. Not to mention, because I had dysgraphia, and the teachers insisted I do book reports to prove I’ve actually read the book despite being innately capable of reading fast and understanding it very well (though I’ll admit I hadn’t quite mastered the understanding bit in second grade) pretty much killed my interest in reading. Oh, and in sixth grade, thanks to an accident on the track where I ended up having most of my hand skinned off from falling down on it, and my having the rotten luck of both having a competency test AND one of my teachers preparing to enter maternity leave at the same time, not to mention my injured status, they deemed me to have “100% regression” and had me placed into resource as if I were incompetent and/or retarded, and only learned their mistake later on when they tested me for literacy, and they did so without even consenting with my parents."

Just lovely. I have many stories, too. None pleasant.

"I’m not sure even a total overhaul would work. Bill Ayers did a total overhaul to the school system, and that made it very much worse. And besides, technically, that’s what the likes of Voltaire did as well. Heck, I went through a private university called Oglethorpe, and, well, let’s just say that that school alone is proof that, even if you get rid of the Department of Education and/or apply school vouchers, it wouldn’t get rid of the trash."

Working on the publicly-funded ones first should be paramount. There isn't enough parental involvement, either. Teachers complain about that, but with a caveat: They want parents to affirm everything they do, but without complaint or criticism. When parents start to scrutinize the materials and agenda and criticize, they are asked to "butt out." I knew one lady involved with PTA or some-such similar named group. When she would raise questions about what was being taught, they kicked her out. Parents need to take the lead in how and what their children are being taught.

"Yeah, I realize that. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen far too many instances where those who are unable to be fully comprehended are in fact very evil. Like, for example, Abeloth from the Fate of the Jedi series, or Cthullu. I serve God mostly out of sheer terror, been that way since I saw the ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the other sources I alluded to certainly didn’t help either."

He's not that bad ! Sheer terror would be a horror. Love and respect is better. I think even the usage of the word "fear" is too negative a connotation. Of course, since the Bible wasn't originally in English, translation of some words from another language doesn't necessarily mean the precise thing in another. The word might be closer to "awe", as in be in awe of Him. I'm not a biblical scholar, so I would yield to them, though I'm sure they'd agree that sheer terror of Him isn't what He wants for us. Probably not the best thing to take your cues from Spielberg or Lucas on the Lord, especially when their views and lifestyles are not what He wants.

"I’m pretty sure there is indeed a way to outlaw most abortions at the very least (not sure about outlawing all of them, unfortunately... if it’s anything like Prohibition, that may just make the problem worse). And if science actually proves a growing baby is life, I’m pretty sure they’ll fall into line."

The problem is now that science doesn't matter (look at the more than 2 genders crap being pushed by the moonbats). Abortion is a high holy sacrament for the left as sacrifice to Ba'al. You can't persuade deranged people to stop doing/supporting something evil when it's their entire mission in life. Some real sickos think it's even funny to kill a fetus. This is Satanic evil. You can't reason with evil, only destroy it.

"Regarding porno, true, it might be around as long as an interest in sex is around (and let’s face it, an interest in sex is ultimately a necessary evil to live by since sex is the only thing that allows the human race to continue to exist, responsible for procreation). But on the other hand, pornography was pretty rare due to the state laws banning it during the Founding Fathers days, and was nowhere near as big as after Warren’s foolish decision, and pornography has been with us since Adam and Eve ate that apple, so if they can at the very least minimize porn back then, we can certainly do the same today."

The issues regarding that ruling don't even much matter now (sending obscene materials through the mail, such as books/magazines). Magazines won't even exist in the coming decades. People can make it themselves on their phones. Teens do that stuff. Short of getting rid of the technology, it's going to be impossible to reign it in, short of personally convincing individuals to knock it off.

"Well, at least there’s still GOP/conservatives in the California wilderness. And maybe there’s a way to basically jujitsu the whole “two party vote” jungle thing the Democrats have."

That top two thing needs to go, it hasn't worked for the GOP at all. There just aren't enough responsible and sane voters in the state to overcome the brainwashed vote and the added corruption that keeps the left there in power. If the rest of the country turns into California, we'll definitely have to have another civil war to overthrow that evil.

“The problem here is, like so many on the left (and why they’re so much like Mohammadans) is that they’re so well-versed in lying to advance their cause. The country was never going to jump into Socialism-Communism, but you could start turning the water up a degree at a time until it was brought to a boil. MLK could denounce these politics even as it was clear he was promoting a movement in that direction. He could’ve easily been using God/Christ as a vehicle to achieve that goal and just as quickly jettisoned it as soon as it was reached. Look at the lunatic “Rev.” Jim Jones. He suckered them in as a Christian, kicked it to the curb and preached SJW/Marxism and then went full-on totalitarian loon and set himself up as God.”

I’m still not sure about MLK, to be honest. Even if he WERE to lie about being a Communist, why would he fully acknowledge that Communism and Christianity are incompatible in that speech? I’ve seen plenty of so-called “Christians” who, without obviously stating they’re communists (or likely still communists in one case), nonetheless specifically indicating they are compatible, like Vladimir Putin, or Pope Francis, or, heck, the whole Liberation Theology racket that’s been going around. MLK didn’t even NEED to state that Communism and Christianity were incompatible, which is a pretty solid truth there, and if anything would destroy any chance of Communism taking his movement.

“Well, there’s no perfect people. But Trump is obviously on the side of the good. The Clintoons were just power-hungry and used people for their own ends and just as quickly discarded them. I was 18 in the 1992 election and voted for Bush, Sr. to try to stop them, because I suspected they were very bad people. It turned out even worse than I thought. I predicted, too, that he would be impeached 6 years ahead of time. It was very scary times because we had an actual lawless President and the media would cover for every horrid thing that he did (and the evil wife).”

Yeah, no kidding about that. Heck, he’s the first president to actually have his affairs be made public, which PJMedia even noted basically destroyed an entire generation’s innocence. And they say Nixon represented pure evil, even though the Watergate break-in (which was done without his knowledge) is peanuts compared to what vile stuff the Clintons have done, even BEFORE entering the White House.

“That’s not how it works, though. We’d be automatons and nothing would be gained or learned from that.”

Actually, there would be: It would ensure God fully lives by his omnipotent and omniscient abilities. An omnipotent and omniscient person, after all, cannot be restrained, and free will actually restrains someone technically more powerful than you.

“It’s sad he and the Castro Bros. weren’t captured and put down before 1959. A 1961-69 Pres. Nixon would’ve successfully overthrown the regime, restored the Cuban republic and had those psychotics publicly executed for treason and mass-murder.”

Yeah, it definitely would have been much better if Nixon were president. At least there, we wouldn’t have a Communist Cuba still acting as a thorn to our side.

“It might’ve been as simple as a lone-wolf assassin (a lot of people that hero-worship a President can’t accept that a single person acting alone could bring them down) or it might’ve been a broader attempt. As I said before, the waters have been so muddied on this subject that we’ll never know for sure. If LBJ was behind it, he’s going to have to act as if he didn’t know, and he certainly could not have any dealings with the person. It would’ve had to be layers between him and what went on. A blackmail situation to force JFK out wouldn’t have worked for LBJ, either. He would’ve been seen as an extension of JFK and the corruption of a Democrat administration, so he’d have gone down in 1964. As for the mafia, this wasn’t just a grudge, this was seen as backstabbing the very group that helped to orchestrate his election. There was no other President that earned that sort of enmity (and none that had ever engaged in such criminal collusion to that point). I absolutely believe they could’ve plausibly had him whacked while in office. As for taking down prior Presidents, it was Prohibition that helped to build the power of the mafia, so there was no reason to murder someone helping you build your empire. If anything, I’d have thought they’d be pissed at FDR for repeal, as that cut into their business model. Most mafia people knew the best model was keeping a low profile, though some flagrantly ignored that, to their own detriment. Whacking high government or law enforcement officials would only serve not only to bring the full power and force upon them and their “enterprises”, it would also turn the public against them, too. I think many people were just indifferent to them or just simply minded their own business.”

True, prohibition did expand their scope beyond what was there before, but they still wouldn’t have liked anyone who encroached on their territory and stopped any activities, regardless of whether prohibition continued or not. I know they definitely had enough hatred of the Untouchables to want them dead, even successfully killed one of them if I recall correctly. They could have easily tried to kill any of the presidents for interfering with their operations in any way, or in FDR’s case, rendering their operations useless by repealing it. But they never did. Heck, the mafia didn’t like Nazis, and I’m pretty sure they’d hate Communists even more.

Either way, it still doesn’t explain why the KGB, heck, the Central Communist Party of the USSR, even, orchestrated an entire disinformation campaign called “Operation Dragon” specifically to deflect blame onto various people barring obviously themselves, such as right-wingers, CIA, fascists, oil barons, heck, even LBJ, if they genuinely had nothing to do with the death? Only gain I’d see is if they wanted to deflect guilt.

“Willard wasn’t a pro-lifer, despite his claims. His mother, Lenore, was one of the most militant pro-abort champions in the country even before Roe. The GOP ran her for Senator in Michigan in 1970 and she got one of the lowest %’s of the vote for their party in state history. It was obvious that scores of Republicans voted for the Democrat incumbent that year. I don’t believe for a second that either he or Wimpy Paul were going to do squat to alter Roe. His record with judges in MA showed he never could be counted on to put good people on the bench.”

Ugh... dang it. Wasn’t aware of that bit when I elected him. Unfortunately, if I didn’t vote, I effectively would vote Obama back into office anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Still surprised that he even bothered to put Paul Ryan as his running mate, when he could have used Condie instead, who unlike Ryan IS pro-choice.

“You can’t be purely isolationist in this day and time. However, his argument did gain merit with some, especially some on the far-left, because of our neverending adventures in the Middle East. Initially, I myself was a neo-con and believed in nation-building. But the problem remained that unless said country shares similar values as ours, you’re not going to be successful. Mohammadan countries especially cannot become better models of republicanism until they rid themselves of Mohammadanism. That is the cancer. Their own people in their countries are going to have to be responsible for launching revolutions to get rid of that 7th century Satanic totalitarianism. I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t worth a drop of Judeo-Christian blood to interfere in these hellholes, especially when it’s just going to continue to remain the same with different leaders (example: Syria. The leader there is awful. Those that we’d overthrow him for are even worse. There’s no upside here to interference). These countries can’t even really function without a dictatorship.”

Well, we could wipe out the mohammadians and let the Coptic Christians have power. Besides, a large part of the problem with the Middle East had to do with Carter bungling it with Iran. And honestly, the only reason I’d consider nation-building is mostly because we made the mistake of not doing that and leaving Afghanistan to its own devices after driving out the Soviets, which let bin Laden basically take control (and no, he was never aided by us. The 9/11 commission report makes it very clear that he got his materiel independently).

“You could draw that conclusion, but for folks around at the time, it was literally a battle between good and evil as to who would reach the moon first. Had the Soviets won, it would’ve had an awful effect on the free world and made them look like winners and boosted their morale through the roof and legitimized them. I don’t think you could put a price on what it did for our side in winning that race. It had to be fought and it had to be won. It’s as simple as that. The grievous mistake was not in pushing on after that for Mars and beyond (with unhelpful left-wing Senators like William Proxmire helping to scuttle that - Proxmire being the Democrat who succeeded McCarthy on his death in 1957). Our Space Program has never recovered from that, and is about in as bad a shape as imaginable today.”

Hey, I’m just going by what the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s said about it. At least symbolically, there was a pretty good argument to get to the moon. And if leftist senators were responsible for gutting any further plans, then shame on them. Heck, Obama practically gutted it to such an extent that it’s acronym is basically in name only and we were pretty much forced to piggyback off the Russians to get to space. I don’t know if Trump undid that from Obama, though.

“You mean Alexander Hamilton ?”

Yes, I meant Alexander Hamilton. Sorry for getting the name wrong.

“Lindsay was the worst Mayor in NYC history. Dinkins and De Blasio are tied for 2nd worst. He was so typical of those “handsome” left wingers the media loves to promote for high office that are predictable disasters. He was riddled with STDs (so was JFK). Florence Henderson had a “date” with him before ‘The Brady Bunch’ premiered and he gave her an STD. What a guy. He gave NYC an STD and almost a million people left the city thanks to his leadership. No city before or since has had that many people flee in that short a period as it did under him. Even Detroit took 4 decades to lose that many people. NYC did it in 1 decade.”

I’d probably call Lindsay second-worst, tied with Dinkins, to be honest. As bad as he was, at least he wasn’t an explicit Communist unlike de Blasio (I consider communists to be far worse than non-communists automatically, knowing what they’re like). And honestly, Jeffrey Katzenberg literally backed that guy, quit college to work on his campaign even when he proved to be the absolute worst you could promote as a candidate for the Democrat party short of being an explicit communist, and then as soon as Disney got an actual hit in the form of The Little Mermaid (on a side note, I’m definitely glad that the staff for that movie didn’t allow him to cut out Ariel’s Part of Your World song, because that would have been an utter disaster for the film, made those false complaints about Ariel only going for Eric a bit closer to the truth), he decided to really crank up leftism, in particular radical feminism in Beauty and the Beast, all to placate left-wing reviewers who complained about Ariel being “cloyingly sexist” despite genuinely being a badass and still wanting to actually be with a man she loves, and made BATB into an in name only adaptation, having far less commonality with its source material than TLM did for its source material (TLM at least changed the ending somewhat, while BATB is practically a completely different tale from the original, either of the two originals.), even hiring that Feminazi hack Linda Woolverton to make the movie. In other words, altered BATB all for the sake of pushing an agenda onto kids. And that’s not even getting into his later donation to American Priorities and making it clear he did so to sabotage Republican efforts in response to their being elected in 2010, or heck, his little hissy-fit when Clinton lost in 2016 about ideologues and “getting back in the game”. I’d even argue that Katzenberg is far more to blame for Disney going far left than even the likes of Michael Eisner ever was (believe it or not, Eisner actually LIKED Jim Cox’s rendition of Beauty and the Beast which was fairly close to the original tale overall, even called him to personally congratulate him and request a full-fledged screenplay. It was Katzenberg who canned that rendition. This info was in the Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast book from what I gather.).

“JFK only took office as Senator in 1953, and this vote was in 1954, so he’d barely served that long with him as a colleague. Virtually the same amount of time since Trump took office last year to right now. Hardly anything at all.”

I guess you have a point there.

“I think it was Reagan’s greatest mistake in choosing Bush, Sr. over fellow Conservative & Westerner Paul Laxalt for VP. Laxalt would’ve continued Reagan’s policies as President and never would’ve set the stage for the Bush-Clintoon-Bush-Zero horror show this country had to endure for 28 years running. Imagine how much better this country would’ve been with none of those horrors as President. No left-wing SCOTUS to shove their diseased edicts down our throats. Roe perhaps overturned, no Obergefell horror. Secure borders, no millions of illegals. Quite probably no 9/11, either. It’s just all gone off the tracks and Trump is having to clean up a mess that should never have happened in the first place.”

Yeah, definitely would have been much better, overall. Don’t know about no 9/11, though. If we continued to let Osama bin Laden have his air time, we’d probably would still get it.

“I’m just saying that set the standard for judicial overreach. I think it should’ve been up to the legislatures/Congress and the people themselves to decide if a law was inappropriate, and vote against it or vote out the people supporting it and remove said law at the next session. In many ways, I think SCOTUS should do little more than offer an opinion. It is not their job or right to legislate, period. That goes all the way down to the lowest judge. Now we have nothing but a proliferation of black-robed tyrants who think they’re dictators with the last word. This must end. The left has used the judiciary to our detriment in overriding the wishes of the people for years. Any attempts to overrule them at the ballot box via initiatives, they merely strike down. CA people voted on banning fake (same-sex) marriage, opponents find a judge to toss it. Abortion forced on the nation by judicial fiat, etc, etc. Abolition of school prayer... Obergefell. You see where I’m going.”

There really needs to be a way to restrain them to not override their wishes unless it’s stuff that actually WOULD be a detriment (ie, if the people try to enact a law allowing for a Purge-scale holiday).

“Just lovely. I have many stories, too. None pleasant.”

Yeah, and then there’s the fact that I had a History teacher back in sophomore year by the name of Andrew Sullivan (no, he is not related to the ABC news correspondent in any way), who often tried to push his anti-Catholic, heck, anti-Christian rhetoric on us, even singing praises for the French Revolution and comparing it to the American War of Independence (ironically, the Reign of Terror he expressed disgust at, mostly because he thought Robespierre was an idiot). That whole thing nearly cost me my Confirmation. Good thing it didn’t.

“Working on the publicly-funded ones first should be paramount. There isn’t enough parental involvement, either. Teachers complain about that, but with a caveat: They want parents to affirm everything they do, but without complaint or criticism. When parents start to scrutinize the materials and agenda and criticize, they are asked to “butt out.” I knew one lady involved with PTA or some-such similar named group. When she would raise questions about what was being taught, they kicked her out. Parents need to take the lead in how and what their children are being taught.”

Yeah, it’s very much a problem there. The teachers demand nothing but 100% praise and aren’t tolerant of even any valid criticism. Unfortunately, I’m not even sure if parents can even do that now, not when several generations have been brainwashed with this crap. Heck, Oppenheimer was a nuclear physicist and he managed to become a Communist during the 1930s or even 1940s.

“He’s not that bad ! Sheer terror would be a horror. Love and respect is better. I think even the usage of the word “fear” is too negative a connotation. Of course, since the Bible wasn’t originally in English, translation of some words from another language doesn’t necessarily mean the precise thing in another. The word might be closer to “awe”, as in be in awe of Him. I’m not a biblical scholar, so I would yield to them, though I’m sure they’d agree that sheer terror of Him isn’t what He wants for us. Probably not the best thing to take your cues from Spielberg or Lucas on the Lord, especially when their views and lifestyles are not what He wants.”

You probably should mention Philip Kaufman as well, since he helped write that storyline for Raiders.

“The problem is now that science doesn’t matter (look at the more than 2 genders crap being pushed by the moonbats). Abortion is a high holy sacrament for the left as sacrifice to Ba’al. You can’t persuade deranged people to stop doing/supporting something evil when it’s their entire mission in life. Some real sickos think it’s even funny to kill a fetus. This is Satanic evil. You can’t reason with evil, only destroy it.”

Yeah, agreed regarding destroying evil. Rand Paul, who’s a bit more reasonable than his father, did make it very clear that there is an actual provision to undoing Roe v. Wade, proving that a fetus is in fact alive, separately from the mother, so unless they wish to recuse themselves, I would suggest to those guys that they look at the evidence and vote pro-life, regardless of their personal views.

“That top two thing needs to go, it hasn’t worked for the GOP at all. There just aren’t enough responsible and sane voters in the state to overcome the brainwashed vote and the added corruption that keeps the left there in power. If the rest of the country turns into California, we’ll definitely have to have another civil war to overthrow that evil.”

Agreed. We can’t even hope to simply have them secede, anyway, considering that people like Bob Iger and Jeffrey Katzenberg will just move out and continue their crap at New York, or heck, having George Clooney move back to Kentucky and spew his crap there. Sure, it might prevent California-born people like George Lucas from spewing their crap, but those who moved from other states will just move back to them without issue. And that state definitely needs not just a wall, but also an actual viable Voter ID law.

"I’m still not sure about MLK, to be honest. Even if he WERE to lie about being a Communist, why would he fully acknowledge that Communism and Christianity are incompatible in that speech? I’ve seen plenty of so-called “Christians” who, without obviously stating they’re communists (or likely still communists in one case), nonetheless specifically indicating they are compatible, like Vladimir Putin, or Pope Francis, or, heck, the whole Liberation Theology racket that’s been going around. MLK didn’t even NEED to state that Communism and Christianity were incompatible, which is a pretty solid truth there, and if anything would destroy any chance of Communism taking his movement."

Because MLK was a leftist, and leftists usually lie. It makes perfect sense to me that he might publicly claim one thing (a negative) about Communism to try to deceive the naïve that he wasn't "one of them." As I said, when it comes to left-wingers, the way to tell if they're lying is when their lips are moving.

"Yeah, no kidding about that. Heck, he’s the first president to actually have his affairs be made public, which PJMedia even noted basically destroyed an entire generation’s innocence. And they say Nixon represented pure evil, even though the Watergate break-in (which was done without his knowledge) is peanuts compared to what vile stuff the Clintons have done, even BEFORE entering the White House."

Watergate was absolutely nothing. FDR was bugging his opponents 3-4 decades before Nixon. Watching the ultraleft media lose their $hit over it was just hysterical. The real crime during Clintoon was ChinaGate, which was never fully investigated (selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese military for campaign contributions). Those involved should've been executed for that level of treason.

"Actually, there would be: It would ensure God fully lives by his omnipotent and omniscient abilities. An omnipotent and omniscient person, after all, cannot be restrained, and free will actually restrains someone technically more powerful than you."

Well, we can't know for sure what His plans are. It's His universe and we're just living in it.

"True, prohibition did expand their scope beyond what was there before, but they still wouldn’t have liked anyone who encroached on their territory and stopped any activities, regardless of whether prohibition continued or not. I know they definitely had enough hatred of the Untouchables to want them dead, even successfully killed one of them if I recall correctly. They could have easily tried to kill any of the presidents for interfering with their operations in any way, or in FDR’s case, rendering their operations useless by repealing it. But they never did. Heck, the mafia didn’t like Nazis, and I’m pretty sure they’d hate Communists even more."

Well, Nazis and Communists would interfere with their business model. But as I said, to openly assassinate a President on their behalf would've brought an end to the mafia. The government and the public simply would not have tolerated that, and both would've sought their complete extermination. The mafia would never have been stupid enough to do that (at least pre-JFK).

"Either way, it still doesn’t explain why the KGB, heck, the Central Communist Party of the USSR, even, orchestrated an entire disinformation campaign called “Operation Dragon” specifically to deflect blame onto various people barring obviously themselves, such as right-wingers, CIA, fascists, oil barons, heck, even LBJ, if they genuinely had nothing to do with the death? Only gain I’d see is if they wanted to deflect guilt."

All we can do is speculate, since we will never know for sure. But it is remarkable how many people wanted JFK dead and how so many of these theories can be considered plausible.

"Ugh... dang it. Wasn’t aware of that bit when I elected him. Unfortunately, if I didn’t vote, I effectively would vote Obama back into office anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Still surprised that he even bothered to put Paul Ryan as his running mate, when he could have used Condie instead, who unlike Ryan IS pro-choice."

Although Condi Rice seemed to be an impressive individual, I probably disagreed with her on so many things. Obviously on social policies, though my concern is that she was an Arabist and anti-Israel. That was a serious problem in both Bush regimes.

"Well, we could wipe out the mohammadians and let the Coptic Christians have power. Besides, a large part of the problem with the Middle East had to do with Carter bungling it with Iran. And honestly, the only reason I’d consider nation-building is mostly because we made the mistake of not doing that and leaving Afghanistan to its own devices after driving out the Soviets, which let bin Laden basically take control (and no, he was never aided by us. The 9/11 commission report makes it very clear that he got his materiel independently)."

Carter's bungling didn't help, but let's face it, this crap's been going on there for 1,400 years. Of course, if you wiped out the Mohammadans in the Middle East, that would clear out over 90% of the population or more. Not a practical solution. I think a method similar to Ataturk's would begin to turn those nations back to sanity. Sadly, the lunatic in charge of Turkey, Erdogan, has eradicated all of Ataturk's movements to make it a more secular nation.

"Hey, I’m just going by what the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s said about it. At least symbolically, there was a pretty good argument to get to the moon. And if leftist senators were responsible for gutting any further plans, then shame on them. Heck, Obama practically gutted it to such an extent that it’s acronym is basically in name only and we were pretty much forced to piggyback off the Russians to get to space. I don’t know if Trump undid that from Obama, though."

Well, Trump has created that new Space Force, although it's really just on paper. We're decades away, if not longer, from viability.

"I’d probably call Lindsay second-worst, tied with Dinkins, to be honest. As bad as he was, at least he wasn’t an explicit Communist unlike de Blasio (I consider communists to be far worse than non-communists automatically, knowing what they’re like)."

Dinkins was just disinterested in managing a problem that had gotten so far out of control. He preferred to spend his time out at Forest Hills and the tennis courts all the while over 2,000 murders were occurring per year in the city. He didn't, however, create the problem. Lindsay, conversely DID create the problem of rapid decay and decline and an explosion of crime and championed policies that took things from fixable to horrible and chased the middle class out of the city. It would've required active work on behalf of Dinkins to achieve such a feat, he was simply too lazy and bored. This was active work by Lindsay to socially engineer the left-wing madness.

"And honestly, Jeffrey Katzenberg literally backed that guy, quit college to work on his campaign even when he proved to be the absolute worst you could promote as a candidate for the Democrat party short of being an explicit communist, and then as soon as Disney got an actual hit in the form of The Little Mermaid (on a side note, I’m definitely glad that the staff for that movie didn’t allow him to cut out Ariel’s Part of Your World song, because that would have been an utter disaster for the film, made those false complaints about Ariel only going for Eric a bit closer to the truth), he decided to really crank up leftism, in particular radical feminism in Beauty and the Beast, all to placate left-wing reviewers who complained about Ariel being “cloyingly sexist” despite genuinely being a badass and still wanting to actually be with a man she loves, and made BATB into an in name only adaptation, having far less commonality with its source material than TLM did for its source material (TLM at least changed the ending somewhat, while BATB is practically a completely different tale from the original, either of the two originals.), even hiring that Feminazi hack Linda Woolverton to make the movie. In other words, altered BATB all for the sake of pushing an agenda onto kids. And that’s not even getting into his later donation to American Priorities and making it clear he did so to sabotage Republican efforts in response to their being elected in 2010, or heck, his little hissy-fit when Clinton lost in 2016 about ideologues and “getting back in the game”. I’d even argue that Katzenberg is far more to blame for Disney going far left than even the likes of Michael Eisner ever was (believe it or not, Eisner actually LIKED Jim Cox’s rendition of Beauty and the Beast which was fairly close to the original tale overall, even called him to personally congratulate him and request a full-fledged screenplay. It was Katzenberg who canned that rendition. This info was in the Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast book from what I gather.)."

You obviously aren't a fan. ;-D I'm glad Uncle Walt didn't live long enough to see leftists ruin his creation. :-(

"Yeah, definitely would have been much better, overall. Don’t know about no 9/11, though. If we continued to let Osama bin Laden have his air time, we’d probably would still get it."

A Laxalt Administration (1989-97) quite probably would've removed the bin Laden cancer, especially after the initial '93 WTC bombings in NYC. Even Shrub couldn't manage that, and assuming Zero even did so, he was so meticulous about protecting the sanctity of Osama's Mohammadan beliefs about burial (because, yeah, Zero was NEVER a Mohammadan... right).

"There really needs to be a way to restrain them to not override their wishes unless it’s stuff that actually WOULD be a detriment (ie, if the people try to enact a law allowing for a Purge-scale holiday)."

Swift removal from office. Of course, Dems would manage to swiftly remove GOP judges, and we'd never get a Dem judge removed. You know how THAT goes.

"Yeah, and then there’s the fact that I had a History teacher back in sophomore year by the name of Andrew Sullivan (no, he is not related to the ABC news correspondent in any way), who often tried to push his anti-Catholic, heck, anti-Christian rhetoric on us, even singing praises for the French Revolution and comparing it to the American War of Independence (ironically, the Reign of Terror he expressed disgust at, mostly because he thought Robespierre was an idiot). That whole thing nearly cost me my Confirmation. Good thing it didn’t."

It would've been civil war if I were in a classroom with a leftist indoctrinator. The older I got, the angrier I got in dealing with that.

"Yeah, it’s very much a problem there. The teachers demand nothing but 100% praise and aren’t tolerant of even any valid criticism. Unfortunately, I’m not even sure if parents can even do that now, not when several generations have been brainwashed with this crap. Heck, Oppenheimer was a nuclear physicist and he managed to become a Communist during the 1930s or even 1940s."

Parents that care tend to take their child out of the system completely. Eventually, I took myself out of it by the 8th grade. The stress was destroying my health and I was learning nothing. I had a home school teacher for the 5 remaining years (one for two years, another for the last three). I never stopped studying politics/culture, etc., from that time onwards. Even though I never set foot in a college classroom, I've done more studying on the subject than most who have a PhD. It's why I tend to cringe when asked, "What's the highest level of education attained ?" I did an extra year of schooling (14 instead of 13 years) and then how do you add 25 additional years of daily learning on the aforementioned subjects ? High school tends to equal "average/subpar" intelligence, i.e. the great unwashed masses. A Democrat ex-Congressman from Chicago deemed me to be a historian (even if I don't have the degree or accreditation). I corresponded with hundreds of ex members of Congress in the '90s and '00s. I reviewed every short biography of every person to have ever served, election figures, even wrote up countless spreadsheets which listed every member going back to the Continental Congress. If I had the available info, I was even going to do so for state legislators, though would be a massive undertaking. I doubt many have come close to doing that.

"You probably should mention Philip Kaufman as well, since he helped write that storyline for Raiders."

He was the one responsible for turning "The Right Stuff" into a 3-hour campaign ad for John Glenn for President in 1984 (the same Glenn who was paid off for covering up the Clintoons crimes in ChinaGate and given another ride into space).

"Yeah, agreed regarding destroying evil. Rand Paul, who’s a bit more reasonable than his father, did make it very clear that there is an actual provision to undoing Roe v. Wade, proving that a fetus is in fact alive, separately from the mother, so unless they wish to recuse themselves, I would suggest to those guys that they look at the evidence and vote pro-life, regardless of their personal views."

Too much a high holy sacrament to the left. Don't want ugly, fat, tatted-up harridans rushing your office screaming, "MUH Body ! MUH Choice !" As if they're in any imminent danger of having sex with males and becoming pregnant.

"Agreed. We can’t even hope to simply have them secede, anyway, considering that people like Bob Iger and Jeffrey Katzenberg will just move out and continue their crap at New York, or heck, having George Clooney move back to Kentucky and spew his crap there. Sure, it might prevent California-born people like George Lucas from spewing their crap, but those who moved from other states will just move back to them without issue. And that state definitely needs not just a wall, but also an actual viable Voter ID law."

Oh, yeah, I'd love to see Clooney and his Mohammadan wife (beard ?) abandon his villa estate in Lake Como (where he was complaining about "the rabble") to move back to Kentucky. Even his dad couldn't fool the rubes into electing him in the district he and his sister, Rosemary, were born in.

“Because MLK was a leftist, and leftists usually lie. It makes perfect sense to me that he might publicly claim one thing (a negative) about Communism to try to deceive the naïve that he wasn’t “one of them.” As I said, when it comes to left-wingers, the way to tell if they’re lying is when their lips are moving.”

I know, but the problem is, stating that Christianity and Communism are incompatible would be a bad way to lie about it since that’s actually far closer to the truth, whether you’re left wing or otherwise. I’ve unfortunately seen plenty of Communists who have actually pretended that they are compatible, like Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin (for goodness sakes, he actually compared the Communist Manifesto the 10 Commandments, not to mention Lenin’s relics to Christian relics, said this very recently I should add, among other things.), heck, the entire “Liberation Theology” movement for that matter, which actually was started by the KGB. Had I been in MLK’s position, been a communist, and tried to lie to people to adopt its policies, one thing I wouldn’t even DARE try is claim that Christianity and Communism are incompatible, because the moment I say that, doesn’t matter how hard I try to sell Communism by any form of lies, I basically destroyed my own argument for getting people into Communism the very minute I claimed the two cannot work together. Shot myself in the foot in other words.

“Watergate was absolutely nothing. FDR was bugging his opponents 3-4 decades before Nixon. Watching the ultraleft media lose their $hit over it was just hysterical. The real crime during Clintoon was ChinaGate, which was never fully investigated (selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese military for campaign contributions). Those involved should’ve been executed for that level of treason.”

Fully agreed there. Nixon definitely didn’t deserve THAT kind of witch hunt (heck, he wasn’t even the guy who ordered for the breakin and if anything he didn’t even know it occurred until AFTER the fact). If anything, that kind of treatment DEFINITELY should have been reserved for the Clintons, at a bare minimum.

“Well, we can’t know for sure what His plans are. It’s His universe and we’re just living in it.”

Maybe. Still not sure overall. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely know he exists, and I must serve him. But even still...

“Well, Nazis and Communists would interfere with their business model. But as I said, to openly assassinate a President on their behalf would’ve brought an end to the mafia. The government and the public simply would not have tolerated that, and both would’ve sought their complete extermination. The mafia would never have been stupid enough to do that (at least pre-JFK).”

Actually, that rationale is EXACTLY why they would not have tried to assassinate JFK, especially not when they have nothing to gain from it (even if they do get away with the murder, they’d still have to contend with the likelihood that the Soviets would further encroach on their territory). They may be evil, but they’re certainly not stupid.

“All we can do is speculate, since we will never know for sure. But it is remarkable how many people wanted JFK dead and how so many of these theories can be considered plausible.”

I don’t know about speculating, at least in regards to the Soviets: Ion Mihai Pacepa has indicated he did have a pretty big role in the whole Operation Dragon disinformation campaign, and the Mitokyn Archives that got leaked to Britain did corroborate his claims. Heck, he even found, and documented, quite a bit of stuff in LHO’s belongings that pointed to him at the very least being under the KGB’s employ.

“Although Condi Rice seemed to be an impressive individual, I probably disagreed with her on so many things. Obviously on social policies, though my concern is that she was an Arabist and anti-Israel. That was a serious problem in both Bush regimes.”

I know. In fact, the social issues, in particular her support for abortion, is exactly why I would not have supported Mitt Romney if he used her as his running mate.

“Carter’s bungling didn’t help, but let’s face it, this crap’s been going on there for 1,400 years. Of course, if you wiped out the Mohammadans in the Middle East, that would clear out over 90% of the population or more. Not a practical solution. I think a method similar to Ataturk’s would begin to turn those nations back to sanity. Sadly, the lunatic in charge of Turkey, Erdogan, has eradicated all of Ataturk’s movements to make it a more secular nation.”

I’ll be honest with you... I’m not exactly fond or trusting of a more secular nation in the Middle East. As far as I can tell, making it more secular will just make it more of a USSR type region, or, heck, even France currently where they persecute Christians and are atheist in all but name. I won’t settle for anything except for a Christian-dominated Middle East (Coptic Christian at the very least). Sure, maybe it would get rid of the yoke the Muslims had if we made it more secular, make the Muslims weaker, but then again, we made the same mistake with the Buddhists in the Vietnam War where we basically capitulated to their demands on getting rid of Diem and that led directly to them basically letting Marxism into Vietnam anyway.

“Well, Trump has created that new Space Force, although it’s really just on paper. We’re decades away, if not longer, from viability.”

Yeah, we definitely need more viability there. Hopefully when that program becomes viable, we might have our own “Imperial Navy” from Star Wars (after Lucas’s infamous revelation that the Rebels were Vietcong members and the Empire were Americans, I definitely don’t intend to root for the Rebel Alliance anymore).

“Dinkins was just disinterested in managing a problem that had gotten so far out of control. He preferred to spend his time out at Forest Hills and the tennis courts all the while over 2,000 murders were occurring per year in the city. He didn’t, however, create the problem. Lindsay, conversely DID create the problem of rapid decay and decline and an explosion of crime and championed policies that took things from fixable to horrible and chased the middle class out of the city. It would’ve required active work on behalf of Dinkins to achieve such a feat, he was simply too lazy and bored. This was active work by Lindsay to socially engineer the left-wing madness.”

I know, but the problem is neither of those two were openly communist, even if left-wing, while de Blasio is in fact a communist, and those guys are infinitely worse. Heck, de Blasio has actually made anti-cop rhetoric in the city, even refusing to attend a wake.

“You obviously aren’t a fan. ;-D I’m glad Uncle Walt didn’t live long enough to see leftists ruin his creation. :-( “

Yeah, I’m definitely no fan of Jeffrey Katzenberg, since he contributed more than anyone save for maybe Bob Iger for turning Disney into a left-wing enterprise. In fact, even though I’m not much of a fan of Michael Eisner either, I am nonetheless thankful that he at least fired that jerk after Pocahontas’s failure, even if it WAS for purely selfish reasons (in fact, my only complaint regarding his firing Katzenberg was that he took as long as he did to do that. If you ask me, he should have been fired after screwing up Black Cauldron with his “10 minute cuts”). And besides, at least Michael Eisner attempted to continue Walt’s legacy until his breakdown (his distasteful involvement in the creation of Gay Days nonwithstanding), while the likes of Katzenberg and Iger went out of their way to disrespect him from the get-go. Probably the only Disney Renaissance films during his tenure that I’m still a fan of: The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, and technically Toy Story, happen to be films where he had very minimal involvement. I hope for the day that Disney, to quote Trump, is made great again, gotten closer to Walt Disney’s vision. And quite frankly, after dealing with a horrible World History professor in College who claimed women couldn’t get an education or even be literate until they “took power” on the campuses during the 1960s, I’m not fond of Belle due to her and her film effectively pushing a similar claim, how she’s an outcast in the village due to her being literate, a bookworm even (and besides, seeing how Sartre despite his reputation fell for a mass-murdering psychopath makes me unsure whether Belle has any discernment, especially when she doesn’t come across as Christian, or even marrying into it via Adam in the film.).

“A Laxalt Administration (1989-97) quite probably would’ve removed the bin Laden cancer, especially after the initial ‘93 WTC bombings in NYC. Even Shrub couldn’t manage that, and assuming Zero even did so, he was so meticulous about protecting the sanctity of Osama’s Mohammadan beliefs about burial (because, yeah, Zero was NEVER a Mohammadan... right).”

Yeah, I hope you’re right. The last thing we need is something like 9/11.

“Swift removal from office. Of course, Dems would manage to swiftly remove GOP judges, and we’d never get a Dem judge removed. You know how THAT goes.”

Yeah, I know that. Really wish there was a way to ensure that there aren’t any way that people don’t do loopholes to keep leftists in while purge conservatives. Sheesh, this is about as bad as the Complete Monster trope nominations on TV Tropes (when someone like Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty isn’t even considered a Complete Monster despite the fact that she’s explicitly the mistress of all evil, you know the trope is utterly broken.).

“It would’ve been civil war if I were in a classroom with a leftist indoctrinator. The older I got, the angrier I got in dealing with that.”

Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, I have to worry about getting good grades, and it didn’t help that a libertarian teacher in Middle School (one of my better teachers, I’ll admit) made it sound as though you needed to keep learning in order to avoid getting alzheimers, and the only way I could conceive of continuing to learn was to continue school, so I had to take in whatever is in it. I eventually learned otherwise in College, from the same teacher. I still try to learn everything I can, many times in the hope of finding a way to undo the legacy of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment (I have a personal investment in that because that was pretty much the start of atheist persecution of Christians.).

“Parents that care tend to take their child out of the system completely. Eventually, I took myself out of it by the 8th grade. The stress was destroying my health and I was learning nothing. I had a home school teacher for the 5 remaining years (one for two years, another for the last three). I never stopped studying politics/culture, etc., from that time onwards. Even though I never set foot in a college classroom, I’ve done more studying on the subject than most who have a PhD. It’s why I tend to cringe when asked, “What’s the highest level of education attained ?” I did an extra year of schooling (14 instead of 13 years) and then how do you add 25 additional years of daily learning on the aforementioned subjects ? High school tends to equal “average/subpar” intelligence, i.e. the great unwashed masses. A Democrat ex-Congressman from Chicago deemed me to be a historian (even if I don’t have the degree or accreditation). I corresponded with hundreds of ex members of Congress in the ‘90s and ‘00s. I reviewed every short biography of every person to have ever served, election figures, even wrote up countless spreadsheets which listed every member going back to the Continental Congress. If I had the available info, I was even going to do so for state legislators, though would be a massive undertaking. I doubt many have come close to doing that.”

Must admit, I’m actually impressed with your resume there.

“He was the one responsible for turning “The Right Stuff” into a 3-hour campaign ad for John Glenn for President in 1984 (the same Glenn who was paid off for covering up the Clintoons crimes in ChinaGate and given another ride into space).”

Ugh... great. I also heard he was responsible for the Pod People remake (you know, the one where the kid when seeing his “mom” in bed witnesses her just deflate like someone who was denied any form of water for prolonged periods of time, rather than her simply “waking up” and showing she wasn’t herself anymore from her eyes.). Well, that’s actually a very good reason not to buy any of his films (heck, even without that, Lucas’ table reads for Raiders of the Lost Ark basically ruined the film [to say little of how the ending effectively gave me a deeply disturbed view of God], especially considering the implication that God actually spared a pedophile as a result of what Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan were talking about. I’m sorry, but even during that period of time the film took place, him having a romantic relationship with an underaged child like Marrion Ravenwood would have been frowned upon at the very least. And I’m pretty sure pedophiles are about AS bad as the Nazis, at the very least.).

“Too much a high holy sacrament to the left. Don’t want ugly, fat, tatted-up harridans rushing your office screaming, “MUH Body ! MUH Choice !” As if they’re in any imminent danger of having sex with males and becoming pregnant.”

All I can say to them is “So, you want to chop your own limbs off and/or engage in BDSM that leaves you with extensive scarring? After all, if you adhere to “your body, your choice”, you shouldn’t have any problem scarring yourselves.” And quite frankly, scarring, amputating, or mutilating oneself by their own choice would come far closer to that phrase than abortion, since at least THAT actually is their own body unlike the unborn which isn’t actually a body part but a developing lifeform.

“Oh, yeah, I’d love to see Clooney and his Mohammadan wife (beard ?) abandon his villa estate in Lake Como (where he was complaining about “the rabble”) to move back to Kentucky. Even his dad couldn’t fool the rubes into electing him in the district he and his sister, Rosemary, were born in.”

Certainly not now, anyways, with the impending Red Wave (even several leftists are conceding that the Blue Wave fizzed out right now). If anything, I’d be deeply surprised if there IS a Blue Wave.

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.