Resurrecting a Cold War tactic

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,576
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    Starting in the 1960s threats of violence became the mainstay of American Socialists/Communists for the remainder of the Cold War. Either black Americans got what they wanted or they would riot. The riots in the 1960s were only a sample of worse to come.

    The Soviet Union was the muscle behind the threats and the violence. Responsible Americans rightly feared Soviet military intervention should massive civil unrest weaken the country. I do not know how many, if any, High Court justices saw what was happening. I do know that most of the Socialist agenda was ruled “constitutional” by the SCOTUS during the Cold War.

    Blacks leaders calling for violence in the Trayvon Martin incident is the same Cold War tactic except that the muscle behind the threats of violence has been changed. Communist China and radical Islam replaced the Soviet Union.

    NOTE: Islamic fundamentalists are not fools. Communists gave them the opportunity by laying the groundwork and Muslims took advantage of it.

    Additionally, Hussein is determined to weaken America’s retaliatory and defense capabilities to the point where it will be impossible to defend this country against an aggressive foreign enemy at the same time Americans are quelling civil unrest. That was not the case during the Cold War. Sad to say, Americans never saw two enemies replacing the Soviet Union; so they never called the bluff at home when they had the means to hold the Soviets at bay.

    Hussein did not challenge Supreme Court justices he threatened them:


    Hussein’s bureaucrats, czars, and czarinas are unelected, too. Don’t hold your breath until you hear him threaten them.

    Make no mistake on this one. Hussein was threatening the Court because pretty near everybody knows that ruling on a law’s constitutionality is what the Supreme Court does. Self-described constitutional scholar Hussein knows it; so why did he make himself look like a fool? Answer: He was sending the same old Cold War message: "Give us what we want or we riot.” He’s gambling that Americans will rollover for socialized medicine rather than stand firm and risk the consequences Socialists/Communists formulated during the Cold War.

    Finally, somebody must have told Hussein not to tell the “bipartisan” lie that was bandied about in the past:


    Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
    By Stephen Collinson | AFP – hours ago

    Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law - Yahoo! News Canada

    Even an accomplished liar like Hussein could not get away with saying “bipartisan” when not one Republican in Congress voted for the bill. Every Democrat voted for it. That’s unanimous partisanship.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,576
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    Hussein is catching hell for his attack on the Supreme Court. It’s turned into a fun story because his apologists sound like clowns insisting everybody wear clown shoes.

    So far, I’ve not read or heard anyone say he threatened the Court. “Intimidate” appears to be the accepted bailout phrase:


    McConnell to Obama: Back off SCOTUS
    By MIKE ZAPLER |
    4/5/12 11:59 AM EDT

    McConnell to Obama: Back off SCOTUS - POLITICO.com

    I cannot see how you can intimidate someone without a threat behind it. One definition of intimidate says:

    2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats.

    No matter. I don’t want to split linguistic hairs, but I’ll stick with my interpretation in the OP.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

cold war dicussion board