Fighting For The United Nations?

[Flanders]

In an effort to make sense out of events on the Korean peninsula, I tried to organize the long line of Democrat hypocrisy crisscrossing nuclear weapons and North Korea. I started at the beginning of the Cold War.

American Communists justified treason with one sentence: If everybody has atomic bombs nobody will use them.

President Truman stops communism’s advance in Korea. The Left does not object because the UN sanctions the war. (Soviet Communists fail to veto the UN Police Action.)

The Korean War becomes the forgotten war mainly because Democrats want to forget Harry Truman going to Korea in the first place.

The Soviet Union and Communist China provide military and financial support to North Korea.

An armistice divides Korea between the Communist North and the free people in the South. Note satellite photo of the Korean peninsula today. The South is lit up; the north is dark:

Communist China gets nuclear bomb in 1964.

America stops Communists in Vietnam. American Communists object with demonstrations and violence because the United Nations DOES NOT sanction Vietnam. America is defeated.

The American Left revs up their years of agitating until Communist China is seated in the UN in 1971. Communist China also gets a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Cold War ends. Communist China inherits communism’s leadership role after the Soviet Union implodes.

Clintons take office soon after the Cold War ends. Clinton helps North Korea’s nuclear program:

How does Bill Clinton do it? I’m always amazed every time I see a news report on the Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons programs and there is never a mention of Clinton’s involvement in allowing the two rogue nations build their nuclear reactors in the first place. Even Jimmy Carter gets his due for allowing the rise of the Islamists in Iran, so why does Clinton get a free pass?

Reminder: Bill Clinton allowed Iran and North Korea to build nuclear reactors in the first place

Answer: Hillary Clinton gets the free pass.

Hussein & Company ratify New START Treaty with Russia. China and North Korea not affected by New START.

Kim Jong-un rattles the saber. Here’s where it gets interesting.

First off, everybody is getting the bomb. That’s what Democrats wanted all along.

Next, once again America’s military will be fighting for the United Nations if a shooting war breaks out:

. . . the South Koreans remain in command on the peninsula under normal armistice circumstances, but General Thurman, as the commander of American and United Nations forces, would assume operational control if war broke out.

U.S. Designs a Korea Response Proportional to the Provocation
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: April 7, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/w...lan-to-counter-north.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In plain English, Americans will do the dying while the UN pulls the strings.

Bottom line: The first Korean War was also the first Peace Without Victory war Americans fought; Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the Iraq War followed. (Remember how hard top Democrats tried to cut & run from Iraq before total victory could be accomplished.)

A second Korean War will be another Peace Without Victory war. Kim Jong-un knows this as well as I know it. He is gambling that another truce is the worst he can expect. China is his whole card irrespective of the fantasies you hear on TV.

Vietnam War traitor confirmed by 96 US Senators as secretary of state. The problem:

Kerry betrayed his country after he returned from Vietnam. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/269032-lurching-toward-treason.html

Kerry’s dilemma. The enemies are the same —— the players are different. Kerry now has to choose between working for the United Nations in order to stop Communist aggression on the Korean Peninsula, the very thing he opposed in Vietnam, or resign. There is no way he can work for America’s best interests.

Note that the real business Kerry does will be done behind closed doors not at press conferences. Being a member of the biggest pack of liars in America’s history, there is little chance the public will ever learn about another betrayal. Hell, the public is still in the dark about Benghazi.

Ultimately, America loses if Kim Jong-un is stopped by the United Nations diplomatically, or militarily.

America loses if Kim Jong-un defeats South Korea.

The only way America can win is to fight and defeat communism irrespective of the United Nations and the Peace Without Victory crowd. Considering Hussein’s political leanings Kerry’s position is obvious.

Finally, the lie:

Kerry: 'U.S. will defend its allies'

Kerry will defend the UN’s authority. No Democrat, least of all John Kerry, will fight against communism. There is zero chance Hussein & Company would defend South Korea if the UN was not in danger of losing the little credibility it has left.

As an added bonus the US military will be fighting for the UN, not for this country. That’s important in planting the idea of fighting for the UN in the heads of those Americans who were born after the first Korean War ended. In addition, the US military fighting for the UN’s global agenda has been a hidden goal for Democrats going back to 1945.

 

[Oldguy]

There's so much bullshit in that post that I don't know where to start.

So..I won't. I'll simply ask if you're so hot for war with North Korea, will YOU be the first to enlist?

 

[Flanders]

There's so much bullshit in that post that I don't know where to start.

So..I won't. I'll simply ask if you're so hot for war with North Korea, will YOU be the first to enlist?

To Oldguy: The war is against communism wherever Communists threaten to nuke this country. It just happens to be Korea this time.

And for your information, I was 17 years old when I enlisted in the first Korean War. I also VOLUNTARILY went to Vietnam in a civilian capacity during the war.

 

[Oldguy]

There's so much bullshit in that post that I don't know where to start.

So..I won't. I'll simply ask if you're so hot for war with North Korea, will YOU be the first to enlist?

To Oldguy: The war is against communism wherever Communists threaten to nuke this country. It just happens to be Korea this time.

And for your information, I was 17 years old when I enlisted in the first Korean War. I also VOLUNTARILY went to Vietnam in a civilian capacity during the war.

Ok. Will you offer up your grandkids?

And, are you equally willing to go to war against non-Communist countries who might threaten us like Iran?

 

[Flanders]

Ok. Will you offer up your grandkids?

To Oldguy: It’s not my decision. Everybody decides for themselves just as I decided.

I told you a little about myself because I thought it might shut you up. I should have known better. There’s always another question because you’re too goddamned stupid to defend your views.

And, are you equally willing to go to war against non-Communist countries who might threaten us like Iran?

To Oldguy: That is the most inane question you ever asked. Every enemy that threatens to destroy this country must be faced and defeated. Sad to say there are far too many cowards like you who would surrender to anybody that says “Boo.”

 

[Mad Scientist]

This kinda reminds me of that scene in Heartbreak Ridge where Gunny Highway and that asshole, know it all, Academy Grad Major finally throw down!

Kick his ass Flanders!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Flanders, do you see a possible scenario in which Russia and China have put NK up to this latest provocation? I believe we might be getting set up here. I don't believe the Russians or the Chinese plan on joining the UN's "global military". I think they are playing along until they can make their own move. Why would they bother to share power in nwo when they can have it all?

 

[Flanders]

Kick his ass Flanders!

To American Communist: Always a noble goal.

Flanders, do you see a possible scenario in which Russia and China have put NK up to this latest provocation? I believe we might be getting set up here.

To Jeremiah: That’s an insightful question. My answer: Absolutely. China is North Korea’s puppet master. And according to many reports in the past year or two:

Russia, China snuggling up
Energy deals mark new level of cooperation
Published: 6 days ago
F. MICHEAL MALOOF

Russia, China snuggling up

I don't believe the Russians or the Chinese plan on joining the UN's "global military".

To Jeremiah: Now that’s a complex belief; so allow me to skip to your next comment:

I think they are playing along until they can make their own move.

To Jeremiah: Put it in perspective this way: There was a time when two nuclear-armed Communist countries, China and the Soviet Union, occupied two out of five seats on the UN Security Council. They were close to making their move when the Soviet Union imploded.

The end of the Cold War did not mean Communism was defeated —— no matter how hard the media and the Left pushed that lie. Either by design, or by accident, the Clintons came along and gave worldwide communism an 8 year breathing spell to regroup.

Why would they bother to share power in nwo when they can have it all?

To Jeremiah: It’s essential that they have it all in the United Nations. The only respect the UN enjoys in non-Communist countries is derived from America’s participation. Socialism/Communism needs that cover. Put another way, the United Nations is a shortcut to worldwide Communist domination. Without the UN the Communists would have to invent a similar International organization.

Once America has been weakened enough, the combined militaries of China and Russia will dominate America’s military after it is placed under UN command. That means no one will stop communism as America did in Korea, and tried to do in Vietnam. Remember what President Truman said about stopping them in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear threat is not backed up by a military equal to China’s military, or Russia’s military; hence, communism is still the biggest threat American’s face. In his farewell address to Congress, General MacArthur might just as well have been talking about fighting their combined strength today:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8A&feature=player_detailpage]General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Speech - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Kick his ass Flanders!

To American Communist: Always a noble goal.

Flanders, do you see a possible scenario in which Russia and China have put NK up to this latest provocation? I believe we might be getting set up here.

To Jeremiah: That’s an insightful question. My answer: Absolutely. China is North Korea’s puppet master. And according to many reports in the past year or two:
Jeri reply:
I agree, Flanders. Without China and Russsa - North Koreans would have no one to export their manufactured goods made by their own imprisoned labor force. That has been going on for years. No telling what americans have in their homes that was actually produced in NK ( not China or Russia ) The prisoners who have escaped North Korea have given testimony to US Congress about these illegal practices. For years.





To Jeremiah: Now that’s a complex belief; so allow me to skip to your next comment:



To Jeremiah: Put it in perspective this way: There was a time when two nuclear-armed Communist countries, China and the Soviet Union, occupied two out of five seats on the UN Security Council. They were close to making their move when the Soviet Union imploded.

The end of the Cold War did not mean Communism was defeated —— no matter how hard the media and the Left pushed that lie. Either by design, or by accident, the Clintons came along and gave worldwide communism an 8 year breathing spell to regroup.
Jeri replies:
Hardly an accident. Kissinger has been doing damage control for both of them for years. Of course, he is the master of getting out in front something before it becomes news. Hillary Clinton wrote her disertation on Karl Marx - I'm told no one has been able to get access to it that either.

Why would they bother to share power in nwo when they can have it all?

To Jeremiah: It’s essential that they have it all in the United Nations. The only respect the UN enjoys in non-Communist countries is derived from America’s participation. Socialism/Communism needs that cover. Put another way, the United Nations is a shortcut to worldwide Communist domination. Without the UN the Communists would have to invent a similar International organization.

Jeri replies:

I understand that Communists have always been dependent on front organizations. I also understand the UN is a front organization for the communists. So is RAND, CFR, TRI -Lat, YPO, Bilderberg - the 10%ers are the communists without question - heck it is in their creed! In Revolutionist Underground in Russia their own members boasted about the center organization of their communist circle being titled "hell". You'd think it would have been called "betterment for the poor" if this were about the downtrodden. It isn't, of course.

I believe it was one of their members Tchernishevsky ( who poisoned his own father to give the inheritance to the movement) who said, Mankind must be divided into two unequal parts. One tenth receives personal liberty and unlimited rights over the other nine tenths. The latter must lose their personality and become a kind of herd. - end of quote -

In a nutshell that is life under communist rule. Look at Kims son in NK. Living the high life, partying with Dennis Rodman while his own people faint in the streets from starvation.

That is life under communism. If you are one of the ten percent ( as the Hollywood elite hope they would be under an Obama communist regime ) then life is good for you - if you are one of the 90% like the Occupy Wallstreeters were crying about - you LOSE. Too bad Occupy Wallstreet protesters still do not understand they are being used by the 10% and they are working FOR the 10% rather than against it. Sometimes reality takes a while to sink in...



Once America has been weakened enough, the combined militaries of China and Russia will dominate America’s military after it is placed under UN command. That means no one will stop communism as America did in Korea, and tried to do in Vietnam. Remember what President Truman said about stopping them in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

reply from Jeri:
Their combined militaries already dominate us, Flanders. The missing component is a nuclear strike on usa ( limited not total destruction ) and hard enough for Americans to accept UN & foreigners patrolling our streets. Kissinger was right when he said it would take the right crisis but it would make americans grateful to see the UN come in if they were in fear for their lives.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear threat is not backed up by a military equal to China’s military, or Russia’s military; hence, communism is still the biggest threat American’s face. In his farewell address to Congress, General MacArthur might just as well have been talking about fighting their combined strength today:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8A&feature=player_detailpage]General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Speech - YouTube[/ame]​

Jeri replies:
I agree with you concerning the threat Iran would pose to China and Russia but Iran isn't threatening either nation - they are threatening Israel and the USA. I'm certain Russia and China have their own interests concerning Israel so Irans hatred of Israel works for them. Thanks for the vid on MacArthur. Speaking of Generals, Patton was right. We should have dealt with the Soviet while we had the chance. - Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Getting back to your original thread, Flanders. Fighting for the United Nations. Is America a sovereign nation or isn't she? Isn't there a law against NGO's dictating American foreign policy? If there was a violation of that law then wouldn't it render all agreements with the UN null and void? Including Agenda 21? Another clearcut violation of our sovereignty?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

It is interesting that a war mongering jingo attempts to mitigate the actual or potential cowardice of his descendants as choice.

Either the US is worth fighting for, all hands, or it is not.

No decent person has a middle ground there for themselves, their family or anyone else living under the protections of the United States flag.

These hypocrisies sadden me.

 

[RoccoR]

Flanders, et al,

You speak of the UN as if it is a central government all it own. It is not. The ambassadors that comprise the UN represent nearly 200 member nations; each protecting the interests of their own sovereignty.

As an added bonus the US military will be fighting for the UN, not for this country. That’s important in planting the idea of fighting for the UN in the heads of those Americans who were born after the first Korean War ended. In addition, the US military fighting for the UN’s global agenda has been a hidden goal for Democrats going back to 1945. [/B]

(COMMENT)

What is the "UN's global agenda?"

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

The principle problem with the US is its foreign policy (National Security Strategy), or rather the lack of a clear understanding of what US foreign policy (National Security Strategy) is. Most people haven't read it, and they change from administration to administration. There is no one consistant policy.

We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone.
Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment.

SOURCE: http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2002.pdf

Building this stronger foundation will support America’s efforts to shape an international system that can meet the challenges of our time. In the aftermath of World War II, it was the United States that helped take the lead in constructing a new international architecture to keep the peace and advance prosperity—from NATO and the United Nations, to treaties that govern the laws and weapons of war; from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to an expanding web of trade agreements. This architecture, despite its flaws, averted world war, enabled economic growth, and advanced human rights, while facilitating effective burden sharing among the United States, our allies, and partners.

In recent years America’s frustration with international institutions has led us at times to engage the United Nations (U.N.) system on an ad hoc basis. But in a world of transnational challenges, the United States will need to invest in strengthening the international system, working from inside international institutions and frameworks to face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation.

We must be clear-eyed about the factors that have impeded effectiveness in the past. In order for collective action to be mobilized, the polarization that persists across region, race, and religion will need to be replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest. Swift and effective international action often turns on the political will of coalitions of countries that comprise regional or international institutions. New and emerging powers who seek greater voice and representation will need to accept greater responsibility for meeting global challenges. When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them.

SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

I think you might find that the UN has very little influence on American action. It is rather the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[yidnar]

Kick his ass Flanders!

To American Communist: Always a noble goal.

Flanders, do you see a possible scenario in which Russia and China have put NK up to this latest provocation? I believe we might be getting set up here.

To Jeremiah: That’s an insightful question. My answer: Absolutely. China is North Korea’s puppet master. And according to many reports in the past year or two:





To Jeremiah: Now that’s a complex belief; so allow me to skip to your next comment:



To Jeremiah: Put it in perspective this way: There was a time when two nuclear-armed Communist countries, China and the Soviet Union, occupied two out of five seats on the UN Security Council. They were close to making their move when the Soviet Union imploded.

The end of the Cold War did not mean Communism was defeated —— no matter how hard the media and the Left pushed that lie. Either by design, or by accident, the Clintons came along and gave worldwide communism an 8 year breathing spell to regroup.

Why would they bother to share power in nwo when they can have it all?

To Jeremiah: It’s essential that they have it all in the United Nations. The only respect the UN enjoys in non-Communist countries is derived from America’s participation. Socialism/Communism needs that cover. Put another way, the United Nations is a shortcut to worldwide Communist domination. Without the UN the Communists would have to invent a similar International organization.

Once America has been weakened enough, the combined militaries of China and Russia will dominate America’s military after it is placed under UN command. That means no one will stop communism as America did in Korea, and tried to do in Vietnam. Remember what President Truman said about stopping them in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear threat is not backed up by a military equal to China’s military, or Russia’s military; hence, communism is still the biggest threat American’s face. In his farewell address to Congress, General MacArthur might just as well have been talking about fighting their combined strength today:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8A&feature=player_detailpage]General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Speech - YouTube[/ame]​

i think another big winner if North Korea goes to war is Iran . diverting our attention to North Korea would be a big help to Iran and the Islamic radicals in the middle east . i could be wrong ...what do you think ??

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I must disagree with you, R. The UN is indeed acting as if it is an international / global government with buzz words such as "international law"....enforcing Agenda 21, etc.

A global government must have a bank and this one has the World Bank, it must have an arm that strips nations of sovereignty in order ( wait until they are near collapse and desperate for funds ) to install its own will over that nation - look no further than the IMF - the crimes against women ( gang rapes on continent of Africa are common ) at the hands of UN peacekeepers has revealed the level of corruption for this despicable organization has no ceiling to it. The stories go from bad to worse )

Indeed the head of IMF - Strauss -Kahn was caught red handed raping a NY Muslim maid and yet he is right back as head of the IMF today, isn't he? Of course he is, just like his paedophile best friend, Etienne Davignon - head of bilderberg - We are talking about the most diabolical and evil men on the face of the earth running this show from behind the scenes. Your dismissal of the obvious is amusing, R.

The systematic erasure of sovereignty - borders - all without the citizens of these nations being aware of what is happening? What do you call that? The best thing to do with the UN is get rid of it. It is a failure to a greater degree than its former name - League of Nations - which was also a failure.

- Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Kick his ass Flanders!

To American Communist: Always a noble goal.



To Jeremiah: That’s an insightful question. My answer: Absolutely. China is North Korea’s puppet master. And according to many reports in the past year or two:





To Jeremiah: Now that’s a complex belief; so allow me to skip to your next comment:



To Jeremiah: Put it in perspective this way: There was a time when two nuclear-armed Communist countries, China and the Soviet Union, occupied two out of five seats on the UN Security Council. They were close to making their move when the Soviet Union imploded.

The end of the Cold War did not mean Communism was defeated —— no matter how hard the media and the Left pushed that lie. Either by design, or by accident, the Clintons came along and gave worldwide communism an 8 year breathing spell to regroup.



To Jeremiah: It’s essential that they have it all in the United Nations. The only respect the UN enjoys in non-Communist countries is derived from America’s participation. Socialism/Communism needs that cover. Put another way, the United Nations is a shortcut to worldwide Communist domination. Without the UN the Communists would have to invent a similar International organization.

Once America has been weakened enough, the combined militaries of China and Russia will dominate America’s military after it is placed under UN command. That means no one will stop communism as America did in Korea, and tried to do in Vietnam. Remember what President Truman said about stopping them in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear threat is not backed up by a military equal to China’s military, or Russia’s military; hence, communism is still the biggest threat American’s face. In his farewell address to Congress, General MacArthur might just as well have been talking about fighting their combined strength today:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8A&feature=player_detailpage]General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Speech - YouTube[/ame]​

i think another big winner if North Korea goes to war is Iran . diverting our attention to North Korea would be a big help to Iran and the Islamic radicals in the middle east . i could be wrong ...what do you think ??

I agree with you. Of course Iran wins big if America is out of the picture. They consider us the obstacle to achieving their ambitions against Israel! With us out of the way? They will think it is theirs for the taking. That is not true, however. They have a big surprise coming. - J.

 

[Flanders]

Hillary Clinton wrote her disertation on Karl Marx - I'm told no one has been able to get access to it that either.

To Jeri: I know about her Wellesley thesis on Saul Alinsky. It was to hard to find several years ago, but I found it. Luckily, I made a hard copy because I lost it when I changed computers. I don’t know if it is available today. Type in “Hillary Rodham’s Wellesley thesis” if you want to look for it. It’s a helluva read. I don’t know how fawning all over Karl Marx could be worse.

It’s not much to go on, but I posted this message in 2008. The link to the thesis no longer works.

I noticed that the folks who lean to port refer to Barack Obama’s stint as an organizer as a résumé plus. How disarming.

It was a few months ago that I caught my first whiff of Obama’s “noble activities.” Back then I wondered what Senator Obama was up to with his references to his early years as an organizer (while Senator Clinton was lawyering for Wal-Mart)? My first thought was that he was trying to turn a negative into a positive; similar to the guy who takes part in a riot in order to grab a few household items for himself. Then years later, after his conversion to altruism is complete, he suddenly realizes his smash and grab days could bite him on the butt; so he claims he was down for the struggle; rioting for civil Rights; rioting for economic justice; rioting to show solidarity with the oppressed, and so on and so forth.

The goodies that politicians like Obama grab for themselves in their early years are résumé enhancements aimed at impressing a specific constituency. Obviously, Obama’s years as an organizer still carry weight with the still-poor, and the still-downtrodden; nevertheless, for the more respectable among us it is no less of a liability than would be a liberated TV set ending up in the hands of the less ambitious.

That brings me back to Obama’s game. The first question that came to mind is: How much of Obama’s training as an organizer was influenced by Saul Alinsky’s teachings? That question leads us directly to Hillary Rodham’s Wellesley Thesis which is all about organizer-nonpareil Saul Alinsky. You can find the thesis at this link:

http://gopublius.com/hillary-clintons-wellesley-thesis

Scroll down to: Click here to read it. After clicking on the word here the page numbers will come up on the left side of the screen. I am not sure if those numbers correspond to the page numbers used in the actual thesis. Click on the page you want to read. Page 5 is the beginning of Chapter 1. So far, I have only read a few pages. That is enough to understand why the Clintons wanted to keep that piece of crap under wraps. If you go to the appendices, beginning on Page 80, you will find a lot about signing up for training as an organizer.

Be forewarned if you decide to wade through it. It is a tough read in more ways than one. The first thing is that the subject matter is ugly —— it is about Saul Alinsky and communism. I would not waste a minute reading about his Communist garbage were I not looking for an insight into the author who is determined to use the presidency to further socialism/communism beyond Alinsky’s wildest dreams.

The second thing is that the typewritten format makes it hard to read. A reproduction of the actual typewritten page comes up when you click on a page number. A few “words” are impossible to decipher. You will see for yourself if you check it out.

Hillary Rodham’s admiration for the old commie is well-documented in her own words. Now, that Obama and his supporters are trying to turn a negative into a positive it is even more important for Americans know about Saul Alinsky. Hilary Rodham wrote about Alinsky —— Obama followed in his footsteps.

Senator Clinton’s Wellesley thesis provides a lengthy excerpt on Page 9 from Saul Alinsky’s 1946 book Reveille for Radicals. Alinsky comes off like Tom Joad. (Jane Fonda must love that.) I am sure it was intentional on Alinsky’s part. That specific excerpt provides an unusual insight into a young Hillary Rodham. For the woman who would now be president to have ever been impressed enough by Alinsky to quote his rah-rah bullcrap for communism is scary.

I got the impression that the Alinsky pep talk on Page 9 was Hillary Rodham’s introduction to doublespeak. Alinsky substitutes the word radicals for the word Communists. According to Alinsky the Communist were everywhere, doing wonderful things, even while the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution. One line really got to me:

The American Radicals were in the colonies grimly forcing the addition of the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

Somebody should ask Senators Clinton and Obama if that is the same Bill of Rights that FDR wanted to abolish?

Hillary Rodham was a young girl when she was a Goldwater Girl in 1964, but had become a college-educated woman by the time she wrote her senior thesis in 1969; a time of campus “unrest” to put it politely. The problem is that her statements and conduct since then are as bad as Alinsky’s Communist claptrap. Not only is her generation the Worst Generation, it now looks like it is the dumbest. I have to believe it was tongue-in-cheek when Dan Rostenkowski tagged her “The smartest woman in the world.” I hate to think that anyone exercising the political power Rostenkowski had acquired at the time was dumber than the leading light of the Worst Generation.

Ms. Rodham’s thesis tells us about Alinsky. Get a handle on him and you will begin to understand Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. To fall for Alinsky’s garbage Ms. Rodham had to be naive and stupid. Senator Clinton is less naive today but just as stupid. As for Obama: He is so sly he makes Clinton’s institutional cunning appear downright wholesome.

I want to include one excerpt from Page 6 where Hillary tells us about a young Alinsky:

He attached himself to the Capone gang, attaining a perspective from which he viewed the gang as a huge quasi-public utility serving the people of Chicago.

I still cannot figure out that one. Does she mean that today’s drug gangs are quasi-public utilities serving the people? Perhaps Obama the Organizer can answer that question since I assume he must have had contact with gangs when he was organizing this and that.

I will read a few pages of the thesis from time to time. Maybe it gets better —— or worse —— depending upon your perspective.

There is no doubt in my mind that both Clinton and Obama are admirers of the late Saul Alinsky. The thing is that Clinton learned enough to hide her admiration for the old commie by doing everything in her power to keep her thesis under wraps. Conversely, Obama seems to be bragging about the very thing that Alinsky was famous for.

What does it all mean in the contest between two like-minded liberals? Your guess is as good as mine. Neither one wants to say so much they might awaken curiosity in the conservative blogosphere.

Now that McCain has the nomination sewed up will he use Alinsky against Clinton or Obama? I doubt it. He’s not going to be too hard on fellow senators. After all, they do feed at the same trough, and the losers will return to the fold. I don’t have any doubts about MSM pundits. They won’t touch Alinsky.

Incidentally, as of this minute I do not intend to vote in the coming election. In the past the public had some input into who the nominees would be, then the MSM would support the one that media big shots preferred. In this election, the propaganda machinery pulled out all stops to give the public three senators to choose from. It doesn’t matter which one wins, the people who own the presses and the transmitters were determined to shove a senator down the throats of the American public. Each of them will sellout this country to the UN. I guess the only way for the America people to finally see what those people inside the Beltway are up to is to tape the next president performing oral sex on the secretary-general.

The only thing that will make me come out and vote for Republicans running for Congress is to hear them distance themselves from McCain with an unequivocal statement saying they will never vote to give the UN anything —— let alone give away America’s independence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In an effort to make sense out of events on the Korean peninsula…

And the OP fails in that effort, a delusional post by a partisan hack.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I agree with you, Flanders. The republican party has become fully infiltrated and unless they weed out these quislings inside their own camp who have sold out to the UN it's an act of futility to hope for something different. We will get the same results every time. Thank you for the information on Hillarys thesis on Marx. I would still like to read it. - Jeri

 

[Flanders]

Thank you for the information on Hillarys thesis on Marx. I would still like to read it. - Jeri

To Jeri: You might try this link:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Wellesley College Senior Thesis (1969)

Also this article is good background:

How the Clintons hid Hillary's thesis - politics - Decision '08 - Hillary Clinton News | NBC News

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thanks, Flanders. Years ago I remember your description on a political board of what a global government would need. You mentioned a main bank, military, taxes ( thank you IMF & VAT! ) laws, a judicial branch. Do you remember that? You were targeting international law, specifically. I cannot remember most of it but it was brilliant. I would like to see you write again about that. I think it would be very informative. - Jeri