How Can They Hate America???

[Camp]

Damn that Ronald Reagan...

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

 

[irosie91]

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

wrong again ISIS was founded by the historic person----muhummad ibn amina al sharmootah

Stop your nonsense.

You might as well blame ISIS on Adam and Eve.

your ignorance of the history of islam is remarkable------ISIS ---is not the first
Islamic CALIPHATE, Isis is---very simply, a nation of SHARIAH LAW---historically and even contemporarily-------one of scores. Adam and Eve??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Damn that Ronald Reagan...

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

17 trillion to the country's private-sector assets sounds great until you realize that money mostly went to a very select few, and the majority got little or no part of it. Hooray for the rich, but **** everybody else was the Reagan plan in a nut shell.

What a stupid post....it identifies you as one of the brain-dead government school grads.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

Gee and here I thought the war on poverty was systematically destroying the US.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Not to mention the fact that ISIS to a great extent has been populated and run by former members of Saddam's military,
needlessly disruptedd and dismantled by Bush's Iraq disaster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_snd-soviet-archives.html

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. America was formed a 'the shining city on the hill.' It represented hope and opportunity for those not born into freedom and/or wealth.

a. “I now belong to the greatest and most moral country that ever existed on the earth. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights [practiced in] this graceful country allowed me to practice any religion or no religion and gave me human rights I could only [have] dreamed of under Islam. I am lucky and more than lucky, I am saved. I was never discriminated against even after 9/11.” From “Escaping Submission,” by Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish

b. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html



2. Yet....we are ruled by elites who hate the America of the Founders, the America of their birth...and have been able to co-opt huge constituencies to support them.

In a recent thread, blaming an administration of apologists for refusing to indict the heinous behavior carried out in the name of Islam...more acceptable in 7th century Saudi Arabia,....I wrote this:

'Democrats/Liberals have sold us out for their own benefit.'

This was the surprising response of one of the administration's supporters:

'That may be, just as it may be for all those who want to put their idea of Christianity above civil laws, but that isn't a threat in a plural society, strongly guarded by a written constitution and a Supreme Court that believes in upholding the prohibitions therein in an absolute manner.

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

WHAT?????


Wow.....how did the late, great Jurist Antonin Scalia get dragged into a discussion of an alien religion?

Here's how: Scalia and Thomas stand for the Founders.....they serve as proxy for America.


The only way to be opposed to Scalia and Thomas is to be opposed to the America envisioned by the Founders, an America where government's power is defined and restricted.....a view seen as the greatness of America by the rest of the free world.
It is what communists and all iterations of Leftists hate.


And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

huh? that 'VISION OF THE FOUNDERS" thing-----is not ALL THAT PERFECT------some of the founders supported slavery and some-----countenanced oppression of native americans and some were just too damned this or that religion-----they were persons------like PLATO----not JESUS CHRIST-----more like plato who was
quite a damned BIGOT and defined non greek speaking people as ---slaves aka
LIVING TOOLS

"...-some of the founders supported slavery..."

No they didn't.

yes they did

OK....the education you so sorely require:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hamilton was not as you want to portray him.

Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves, and he too was not all that he seemed. By today's standards, Hamilton was an arch-conservative. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton supported an elected monarchy with strong emphasis on rule by the rich and powerful. One of his biographers describes him: "Hamilton made no secret of his belief in the advantages of an aristocratic power in the common-wealth, or of his reasons for that belief.(2) One may wonder why Hamilton joined a society that threatened the understood social and racial caste system of the era? After further examination, another question arises as well. What kind of abolitionist was Hamilton if he owned slaves?

Closer analysis shows that Hamilton was at best ambivalent about the abolition of slavery. Unlike his enemy and fellow slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton never clearly, sincerely, or eloquently denounced slavery in his personal or private works, despite his membership in the Manumission Society. Hamilton's wavering on this issue is not typical of how he faced other challenges, like the National Bank, and this suggests that his heart was not into the cause. His inconsistent stance towards slavery most likely stemmed from his desire to be accepted in the Manhattan merchant elite, which viewed the ownership of slaves as a status symbol. This essay will argue that Hamilton thought about the issue of slavery and determined it was wrong, but he found it too convenient an institution to exterminate from his private life.
"Alexander Hamilton and the Abolition of Slavery in New York" by Weston, Rob N. - Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, Vol. 18, Issue 1, January 31, 1994 | Online Research Library: Questia

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. America was formed a 'the shining city on the hill.' It represented hope and opportunity for those not born into freedom and/or wealth.

a. “I now belong to the greatest and most moral country that ever existed on the earth. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights [practiced in] this graceful country allowed me to practice any religion or no religion and gave me human rights I could only [have] dreamed of under Islam. I am lucky and more than lucky, I am saved. I was never discriminated against even after 9/11.” From “Escaping Submission,” by Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish

b. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html



2. Yet....we are ruled by elites who hate the America of the Founders, the America of their birth...and have been able to co-opt huge constituencies to support them.

In a recent thread, blaming an administration of apologists for refusing to indict the heinous behavior carried out in the name of Islam...more acceptable in 7th century Saudi Arabia,....I wrote this:

'Democrats/Liberals have sold us out for their own benefit.'

This was the surprising response of one of the administration's supporters:

'That may be, just as it may be for all those who want to put their idea of Christianity above civil laws, but that isn't a threat in a plural society, strongly guarded by a written constitution and a Supreme Court that believes in upholding the prohibitions therein in an absolute manner.

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

WHAT?????


Wow.....how did the late, great Jurist Antonin Scalia get dragged into a discussion of an alien religion?

Here's how: Scalia and Thomas stand for the Founders.....they serve as proxy for America.


The only way to be opposed to Scalia and Thomas is to be opposed to the America envisioned by the Founders, an America where government's power is defined and restricted.....a view seen as the greatness of America by the rest of the free world.
It is what communists and all iterations of Leftists hate.


And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

huh? that 'VISION OF THE FOUNDERS" thing-----is not ALL THAT PERFECT------some of the founders supported slavery and some-----countenanced oppression of native americans and some were just too damned this or that religion-----they were persons------like PLATO----not JESUS CHRIST-----more like plato who was
quite a damned BIGOT and defined non greek speaking people as ---slaves aka
LIVING TOOLS

"...-some of the founders supported slavery..."

No they didn't.

yes they did

OK....the education you so sorely require:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hamilton was not as you want to portray him.

Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves, and he too was not all that he seemed. By today's standards, Hamilton was an arch-conservative. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton supported an elected monarchy with strong emphasis on rule by the rich and powerful. One of his biographers describes him: "Hamilton made no secret of his belief in the advantages of an aristocratic power in the common-wealth, or of his reasons for that belief.(2) One may wonder why Hamilton joined a society that threatened the understood social and racial caste system of the era? After further examination, another question arises as well. What kind of abolitionist was Hamilton if he owned slaves?

Closer analysis shows that Hamilton was at best ambivalent about the abolition of slavery. Unlike his enemy and fellow slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton never clearly, sincerely, or eloquently denounced slavery in his personal or private works, despite his membership in the Manumission Society. Hamilton's wavering on this issue is not typical of how he faced other challenges, like the National Bank, and this suggests that his heart was not into the cause. His inconsistent stance towards slavery most likely stemmed from his desire to be accepted in the Manhattan merchant elite, which viewed the ownership of slaves as a status symbol. This essay will argue that Hamilton thought about the issue of slavery and determined it was wrong, but he found it too convenient an institution to exterminate from his private life.
"Alexander Hamilton and the Abolition of Slavery in New York" by Weston, Rob N. - Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, Vol. 18, Issue 1, January 31, 1994 | Online Research Library: Questia

You posted this:

"Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves,..."
Case closed.


I recommend actually reading books....
...like this one, which I found exceptional:
"Alexander Hamilton,"
by Ron Chernow

 

[BULLDOG]

Damn that Ronald Reagan...

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

17 trillion to the country's private-sector assets sounds great until you realize that money mostly went to a very select few, and the majority got little or no part of it. Hooray for the rich, but **** everybody else was the Reagan plan in a nut shell.

What a stupid post....it identifies you as one of the brain-dead government school grads.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

Forgive me for poking holes in your religious belief in St.Ronnie, the jelly brain. By today's standards he would be considered a RINO. He was a huckster whose harm to the middle class outweighed all the good he did for the rich.

 

[BULLDOG]

huh? that 'VISION OF THE FOUNDERS" thing-----is not ALL THAT PERFECT------some of the founders supported slavery and some-----countenanced oppression of native americans and some were just too damned this or that religion-----they were persons------like PLATO----not JESUS CHRIST-----more like plato who was
quite a damned BIGOT and defined non greek speaking people as ---slaves aka
LIVING TOOLS

"...-some of the founders supported slavery..."

No they didn't.

yes they did

OK....the education you so sorely require:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hamilton was not as you want to portray him.

Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves, and he too was not all that he seemed. By today's standards, Hamilton was an arch-conservative. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton supported an elected monarchy with strong emphasis on rule by the rich and powerful. One of his biographers describes him: "Hamilton made no secret of his belief in the advantages of an aristocratic power in the common-wealth, or of his reasons for that belief.(2) One may wonder why Hamilton joined a society that threatened the understood social and racial caste system of the era? After further examination, another question arises as well. What kind of abolitionist was Hamilton if he owned slaves?

Closer analysis shows that Hamilton was at best ambivalent about the abolition of slavery. Unlike his enemy and fellow slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton never clearly, sincerely, or eloquently denounced slavery in his personal or private works, despite his membership in the Manumission Society. Hamilton's wavering on this issue is not typical of how he faced other challenges, like the National Bank, and this suggests that his heart was not into the cause. His inconsistent stance towards slavery most likely stemmed from his desire to be accepted in the Manhattan merchant elite, which viewed the ownership of slaves as a status symbol. This essay will argue that Hamilton thought about the issue of slavery and determined it was wrong, but he found it too convenient an institution to exterminate from his private life.
"Alexander Hamilton and the Abolition of Slavery in New York" by Weston, Rob N. - Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, Vol. 18, Issue 1, January 31, 1994 | Online Research Library: Questia

You posted this:

"Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves,..."
Case closed.


I recommend actually reading books....
...like this one, which I found exceptional:
"Alexander Hamilton,"
by Ron Chernow

Too lazy to read the rest?

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Justices Scalia and Thomas honor the Founders by following the guidance of the Constitution, that which memorialized the instruction left to succeeding generations of Americans.

How can any who love America write " The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'"?



How has it come to pass that the views of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin carry more weight with folks like the author of the above, than Madison, Jefferson, and George Washington???



'Even Karl Marx accepted the image of America as a land of boundless opportunity, citing this as an explanation for the lack of class consciousness in the U.S. "The position of wage laborer," he wrote in 1865, "is for a very large part of the American people but a probational state, which they are sure to leave within a longer or shorter term." ... The historical record suggests this widely shared belief about 19th-century America was more than myth. "You didn't need to be told. You lived it. And if you didn't, your neighbors did,"...'
As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls

 

[irosie91]

1. America was formed a 'the shining city on the hill.' It represented hope and opportunity for those not born into freedom and/or wealth.

a. “I now belong to the greatest and most moral country that ever existed on the earth. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights [practiced in] this graceful country allowed me to practice any religion or no religion and gave me human rights I could only [have] dreamed of under Islam. I am lucky and more than lucky, I am saved. I was never discriminated against even after 9/11.” From “Escaping Submission,” by Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish

b. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html



2. Yet....we are ruled by elites who hate the America of the Founders, the America of their birth...and have been able to co-opt huge constituencies to support them.

In a recent thread, blaming an administration of apologists for refusing to indict the heinous behavior carried out in the name of Islam...more acceptable in 7th century Saudi Arabia,....I wrote this:

'Democrats/Liberals have sold us out for their own benefit.'

This was the surprising response of one of the administration's supporters:

'That may be, just as it may be for all those who want to put their idea of Christianity above civil laws, but that isn't a threat in a plural society, strongly guarded by a written constitution and a Supreme Court that believes in upholding the prohibitions therein in an absolute manner.

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

WHAT?????


Wow.....how did the late, great Jurist Antonin Scalia get dragged into a discussion of an alien religion?

Here's how: Scalia and Thomas stand for the Founders.....they serve as proxy for America.


The only way to be opposed to Scalia and Thomas is to be opposed to the America envisioned by the Founders, an America where government's power is defined and restricted.....a view seen as the greatness of America by the rest of the free world.
It is what communists and all iterations of Leftists hate.


And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

huh? that 'VISION OF THE FOUNDERS" thing-----is not ALL THAT PERFECT------some of the founders supported slavery and some-----countenanced oppression of native americans and some were just too damned this or that religion-----they were persons------like PLATO----not JESUS CHRIST-----more like plato who was
quite a damned BIGOT and defined non greek speaking people as ---slaves aka
LIVING TOOLS

"...-some of the founders supported slavery..."

No they didn't.

yes they did

OK....the education you so sorely require:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hamilton was not as you want to portray him.

Alexander Hamilton was not only a member of the group but an officer in the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves, and he too was not all that he seemed. By today's standards, Hamilton was an arch-conservative. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton supported an elected monarchy with strong emphasis on rule by the rich and powerful. One of his biographers describes him: "Hamilton made no secret of his belief in the advantages of an aristocratic power in the common-wealth, or of his reasons for that belief.(2) One may wonder why Hamilton joined a society that threatened the understood social and racial caste system of the era? After further examination, another question arises as well. What kind of abolitionist was Hamilton if he owned slaves?

Closer analysis shows that Hamilton was at best ambivalent about the abolition of slavery. Unlike his enemy and fellow slaveowner, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton never clearly, sincerely, or eloquently denounced slavery in his personal or private works, despite his membership in the Manumission Society. Hamilton's wavering on this issue is not typical of how he faced other challenges, like the National Bank, and this suggests that his heart was not into the cause. His inconsistent stance towards slavery most likely stemmed from his desire to be accepted in the Manhattan merchant elite, which viewed the ownership of slaves as a status symbol. This essay will argue that Hamilton thought about the issue of slavery and determined it was wrong, but he found it too convenient an institution to exterminate from his private life.
"Alexander Hamilton and the Abolition of Slavery in New York" by Weston, Rob N. - Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, Vol. 18, Issue 1, January 31, 1994 | Online Research Library: Questia

Manumission of slaves is a COMPLEX issue in history. In some slave societies it---SIMPLY---cannot be done. In fact such was the case in the Americas in some
places------Slavery was ENTIRELY a matter of "race", Unless one can define just that the MANUMISSION society stood for-------it should not be assumed that it
advocated the abolition of slavery

It might interest some that muslim children ----in muslim countries, are taught that
MUHUMMAD invented the concept of freeing slaves and therefore----ABOLISHED SLAVERY in principle--------<<< not at all true-----most slave societies had a mechanism for freeing slaves ----long before the rapist was born. INTERESTINLY---parts of the Americas ----DID NOT. PLATO was obviously very equivocal about it-------so much for THE GREEKS---------the helot slaves of Sparta could not be
transformed into CITIZENS either

 

[Camp]

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

Here's 'modern terrorism:'

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917.

b. "Nobody knows how many were people were killed...we're talking about10 million or more..."
Norman Davies, Historian, Cambridge University.


Now your quiz: who made it possible for the ideology of mass murder to survive?

Was it Franklin Roosevelt..

or Franklin Roosevelt?


C'mon....you can do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

They don't. Stop spewing that sewage and stop making a fool of yourself. Your lies are getting boring.

STFU, *****.......the ones taking this country done has used the left like a cheap whore.

English, please.

****.......YOU.....clear enough, *****?

I think they sell panties now that don't bunch up. FYI. You're welcome.

Now, to the topic. Who is it exactly who hates America? Can't really tell from the jibberish in the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

Here's 'modern terrorism:'

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917.

b. "Nobody knows how many were people were killed...we're talking about10 million or more..."
Norman Davies, Historian, Cambridge University.


Now your quiz: who made it possible for the ideology of mass murder to survive?

Was it Franklin Roosevelt..

or Franklin Roosevelt?


C'mon....you can do it.

FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1917. I fail to see how he gets the blame for Lenin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

Here's 'modern terrorism:'

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917.

b. "Nobody knows how many were people were killed...we're talking about10 million or more..."
Norman Davies, Historian, Cambridge University.


Now your quiz: who made it possible for the ideology of mass murder to survive?

Was it Franklin Roosevelt..

or Franklin Roosevelt?


C'mon....you can do it.

And once again, for the 100th time, here we are back with Politicalchic's anti-FDR obsession.

Why can't you just do something normally obsessive/compulsive, you know, like take 10 baths a day, or chew your fingernails? Jesus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No wonder the Leftist hate Scalia and Thomas!
These Justices recognize their role as following the law....not some chimera known as 'social justice.'

5. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…” http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


[Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



6. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

"Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America.

 

[Camp]

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

Here's 'modern terrorism:'

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917.

b. "Nobody knows how many were people were killed...we're talking about10 million or more..."
Norman Davies, Historian, Cambridge University.


Now your quiz: who made it possible for the ideology of mass murder to survive?

Was it Franklin Roosevelt..

or Franklin Roosevelt?


C'mon....you can do it.

Keep running away and trying to deflect away from the topic at hand. Look up the word "MODERN". What went on in 1917 has nothing to do with the terrorism that blossomed under Reagan in the 1980's and continues into the present era. The terrorism of TODAY is modern. The terrorism against America that grew out of the 1980's under Reagan led to the terrorism we have today. 1917 and the 1930's are not modern. Roosevelt had nothing to do with the Kulaks and Lenin. Your responses have been lame, distorted and dishonest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean ISIS???

That was Obama.

No, I meant the terrorism that grew during the Reagan years and his poor responses when Americans were attacked, added to his willingness to negotiate and bargain with them that created terrorism as an accepted tactic.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flying and lining the streets in Iraq with the ISIS flag in 2006. Obama's predecessor was in charge during that period.

Ohhh....you mean the terrorism created by Franklin Roosevelt's support for Soviet communism!



Fruits from the Tree of Malice
Newly translated documents show how far Soviet wickedness extended.
Fruits from the Tree of Malice

1. …archive of documents from Soviet government agencies smuggled to the West by the Russian researcher Pavel Stroilov and the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky.
2. It is one thing to know abstractly, for example, that the Soviets sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. It is another to read a newly translated memorandum from longtime KGB head Yuri Andropov to Communist Party general secretary Leonid Brezhnev requesting authorization to fund a detailed plan by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to kill civilians around the world:
   1. In a confidential conversation at a meeting with the KGB resident in Lebanon in April this year, [PFLP official] Wadia Haddad outlined a prospective program of sabotage and terrorism by the PLFP [sic]. . . . The PLFP is currently preparing a number of special operations, including strikes against large oil storage installations in various countries, . . . the destruction of oil tankers and super-tankers, actions against American and Israeli representatives in Iran, Greece, Ethiopia, Kenya, an attack on the Diamond center in Tel Aviv, etc. . . . We feel it would be feasible, at the next meeting, to give a generally favorable response to Wadia Haddad’s request.
   2. “W. Haddad,” Andropov notes archly, “is fully aware of our opposition to terrorism in principle.” Unstated but implied: “He is fully aware of our enthusiasm for terrorism in practice.”
3. …the PFLP survives. It recently issued a statement denouncing the Middle East peace talks and the “surrender to the imperialist demands of the U.S. and Israel.” One of the newly translated documents might give pause to those inclined to see in the PFLP a consistent champion of anti-imperialism, however. It records the Politburo’s decision to provide the PFLP with “special equipment to the sum of 15 million rubles in exchange for a collection of art objects of the Ancient World.”
4. Also interesting is a document suggesting the pains taken by the KGB to ensure the eruption of “spontaneous” global demonstrations against Israel. According to the KGB’s estimates, spontaneously outraged Muslims cost approximately a quarter-rupee apiece: “The KGB station in India is capable of organizing a protest demonstration at the U.S. Embassy to India, with up to 20,000 Muslims participating. The expenses for organizing the demonstration would amount to 5,000 Indian rupees and be covered from the funds allocated by the CPSU Central Committee for special measures in India in 1969–1971.”

5. It would not quite be fair to interpret the Soviet Union’s anti-Israel agitation as an expression of ideological anti-Semitism, though. After all, the documents show the Soviets’ willingness—eagerness, even—to put Israeli Communists on the bankroll:

a. FROM THE CONVERSATION with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Israel M. Vilner, 11 Aug. 1980

In the course of the conversation, M. VILNER (who was visiting the USSR for vacation and health treatment) said that in Jan. 1981 D. VILNER, who is currently entrusted with the Israeli Communist Party security, will be visiting Helsinki for the “International Forum of Youth and Students for Peace and Disarmament.” The Party management would like to use the occasion of his passing Moscow for advanced special training and asks CC [the Party’s Central Committee] to help.

6. That there was scarcely a miserable group of miscreants on the planet that the Soviets did not, in some fashion, fund, train, and encourage is vaguely known now by some; it should be widely known by all. It is endlessly averred, for example, that the United States supported authoritarian anti-Communist regimes in Central America simply out of paranoia. Our support may have been unwise, but there was no paranoia at work, as we can see in a 1980 document in which the secretariat of the Central Committee resolves “to grant the request of the leadership of the Communist Party of El Salvador and task the Ministry of Civil Aviation with arranging, in September–October 1980, a shipment of 60–80 tons of small arms and ammunition of Western manufacture from Hanoi to Havana, for the Cuban comrades to transfer it to our Salvadoran friends.”

7. Above all, the documents suggest that the most enduringly pernicious fruit of the Soviet Union was its propaganda. The cliché view of the United States as a nation whose foreign policy may best be understood as an expression of racism—an interpretation that continues to hinder American efforts to do the world any good—largely emerged thanks to the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts, as a 1970 document details:

a. Because the rise of negro protest in the USA will bring definite difficulties to the ruling classes of the USA and will distract the attention of the Nixon administration from pursuing an active foreign policy, we would consider it feasible to implement a number of measures to support this movement and to assist its growth.

Therefore it is recommended to utilize the possibilities of the KGB in African countries to inspire political and public figures, youth, trade union and nationalist organizations to issue petitions, requests and statements to the UN, U.S. embassies in their countries and the U.S. government in defense of the rights of American negroes. To publish articles and letters accusing the U.S. government of genocide in the press of various African countries. Employing the possibilities of the KGB in New York and Washington, to influence the “Black Panthers” to address appeals to the UN and other international bodies for assistance in bringing the U.S. government’s policy of genocide toward American negroes to an end.


All thanks to FDR.

Your post is nothing more than a deflection away from confronting the birth of "modern terrorism". It was not FDR's fault that when terrorist attacks were launched during the Reagan era and grew into a virtual open season of terrorist attacks on American interest, with weak on non-existent responses. There was an almost 40 year gap between the FDR era and the Reagan era. Perhaps you are confused about the word "modern".

Here's 'modern terrorism:'

a. "Hang at least 100 hostages, execute the kulaks, do it in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see and tremble." Lenin (document shown) He took power in 1917.

b. "Nobody knows how many were people were killed...we're talking about10 million or more..."
Norman Davies, Historian, Cambridge University.


Now your quiz: who made it possible for the ideology of mass murder to survive?

Was it Franklin Roosevelt..

or Franklin Roosevelt?


C'mon....you can do it.

Keep running away and trying to deflect away from the topic at hand. Look up the word "MODERN". What went on in 1917 has nothing to do with the terrorism that blossomed under Reagan in the 1980's and continues into the present era. The terrorism of TODAY is modern. The terrorism against America that grew out of the 1980's under Reagan led to the terrorism we have today. 1917 and the 1930's are not modern. Roosevelt had nothing to do with the Kulaks and Lenin. Your responses have been lame, distorted and dishonest.

FDR endorsing communism, making certain that it survived its battle with its brother-ideology, is the source of genocide, terrorism, and the loss of America.

The term 'modern' is used for post-Enlightenment.



So.....do tell how Roosevelt's boots taste.