Don't make the REAL AMERICANS angry

The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.

J. Edgar Hoover, as quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ver-secret-fbi

Was J Edgar dressed up in your favorite panties when he said that?

9

"Real American" party! Seriously?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...y/#more-206236



Posted on December 18, 2020 by Sundance

When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion. McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.” The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition represented by Bart Stupak. The Democrat Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them to commit to radical agenda items.

A new party, THE new party, would not be a carving out within the Republican club. A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump. That’s the MAGA party.


A new party would be a SECOND party to the current UniParty occupants pushing more big government in Washington DC. The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus bills, debt ceiling, stimulus, bailouts, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) show that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.

The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power. Those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome. There is nothing conservative about expanding government and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom. CTH has been making this argument for years.

This example from 2015 rings just as true today:



2015 – A few days ago I took the time to read [Jonah Goldberg’s expressed concerns about the support for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.

Toward that end I have also noted additional GOP media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

goldberg headshotWhile we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable realities. I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?

A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus (then RNC Chair), or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget. We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?

All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

• Who worked against Donald Trump? The GOP

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us?

SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY? Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?









Seriously?

9

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ver-secret-fbi

Was J Edgar dressed up in your favorite panties when he said that? Originally Posted by WTF

Because 0zombies rewrite history does not mean it's true, Why The Fuck. I ain't no fan of JEH, either. Barky 0boneboy was well known too, especially when it was snowing...

here --> https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-...hoover-was-gay

FBI Tells DiCaprio, Eastwood There's No Evidence Hoover Was Gay
BY JEREMY KINSER

OCTOBER 05 2011 12:45 PM EDT

Leonardo DiCaprio and his J. Edgar director Clint Eastwood met with the FBI to investigate whether there's evidence that Hoover was gay, but learned "there is no evidence in the historical record on the issue," according to USA Today.

Assistant FBI director Mike Kortan says he met separately with Eastwood and DiCaprio, who plays Hoover in the upcoming film written by Dustin Lance Black, and both men inquired about Hoover's sexuality. Kortan says both men were told, "Vague rumors and fabrications have cropped up from time to time, but there is no evidence in the historical record on this issue."

Kortan says the bureau didn't attempt to shape the film, but simply provided information so the story would be accurate.

USA Today reports that former FBI agents campaigned to prevent any
depiction of the long-rumored sexual relationship between Hoover and
protégé Clyde Tolson.

William Branon, chairman of the J. Edgar
Hoover Foundation, wrote to Eastwood this year, saying, "There is no
basis in fact for such a portrayal of Mr. Hoover. It would be a grave
injustice and monumental distortion to proceed with such a depiction
based on a completely unfounded and spurious assertion."

Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, once a top aide to Hoover, says he and DiCaprio discussed the late FBI director's private life when the actor paid a three-hour visit to DeLoach's home in South Carolina.

"When the subject of homosexuality came up, I made it very clear that I never saw any evidence of it whatsoever," DeLoach says. "I traveled with him, I ate in his home and he in mine. I knew Clyde Tolson to be Mr. Hoover's companion and best friend. When you are somebody like Mr. Hoover, I guess you need somebody to talk to."

J. Edgar is scheduled for release November 9.

47

7 Longhair speak truth!

8

Because 0zombies rewrite history does not mean it's true, Why The Fuck. I ain't no fan of JEH, either. Barky 0boneboy was well known too, especially when it was snowing...

here --> https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-...hoover-was-gay

FBI Tells DiCaprio, Eastwood There's No Evidence Hoover Was Gay
BY JEREMY KINSER

OCTOBER 05 2011 12:45 PM EDT

Leonardo DiCaprio and his J. Edgar director Clint Eastwood met with the FBI to investigate whether there's evidence that Hoover was gay, but learned "there is no evidence in the historical record on the issue," according to USA Today.

Assistant FBI director Mike Kortan says he met separately with Eastwood and DiCaprio, who plays Hoover in the upcoming film written by Dustin Lance Black, and both men inquired about Hoover's sexuality. Kortan says both men were told, "Vague rumors and fabrications have cropped up from time to time, but there is no evidence in the historical record on this issue."

Kortan says the bureau didn't attempt to shape the film, but simply provided information so the story would be accurate.

USA Today reports that former FBI agents campaigned to prevent any
depiction of the long-rumored sexual relationship between Hoover and
protégé Clyde Tolson.

William Branon, chairman of the J. Edgar
Hoover Foundation, wrote to Eastwood this year, saying, "There is no
basis in fact for such a portrayal of Mr. Hoover. It would be a grave
injustice and monumental distortion to proceed with such a depiction
based on a completely unfounded and spurious assertion."

Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, once a top aide to Hoover, says he and DiCaprio discussed the late FBI director's private life when the actor paid a three-hour visit to DeLoach's home in South Carolina.

"When the subject of homosexuality came up, I made it very clear that I never saw any evidence of it whatsoever," DeLoach says. "I traveled with him, I ate in his home and he in mine. I knew Clyde Tolson to be Mr. Hoover's companion and best friend. When you are somebody like Mr. Hoover, I guess you need somebody to talk to."

J. Edgar is scheduled for release November 9. Originally Posted by Redhot1960

yet he was found to have a cross-dressing fetish after he died.


does his fetish indicate he was queer? prolly not.

8

Fong Fong Song... by Eric Swalwell

My commie lies over the ocean,
my commie lies over the sea,
My commie lies over the ocean,
O bring back my commie to me.

Bring back, bring back, O bring back my commie to me, to me:
Bring back, bring back, O bring back my commie to me.

O blow ye winds over the ocean,
O blow ye winds over the sea.
O blow ye winds over the ocean,
And bring back my commie to me.

Last night as I lay on my pillow,
Last night as I lay on my bed,
Last night as I lay on my pillow,
I dreamed that my commie was dead.

The winds have blown over the ocean,
The winds have blown over the sea,
The winds have blown over the ocean,
And brought back my commie to me.

My commie leaned over the gas tank,
The height of its contents to see,
I lit a small match to assist her,
O Bring back my commie to me.

47

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

here --> https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vp1IHgtmREOp/

--> https://streamable.com/8cdi3o

What is it, going to be? 11