Reagan's Legacy

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,565
Location
Pennsylvania
One of the major reasons the "conservative movement" is a joke in this country is because it venerates Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a life-long liberal activist whose hero was FDR and his New Deal. He was liberal as governor of California despite his "tough talk," and was the same as President. Lots of great conservative rhetoric, but precious little follow through. He was an actor, performing a job, in between naps.

Reagan's Centennial: Praise for State Power Over the Individual

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 24, 2011



Get ready for a lot of praise for Ronald Reagan in the days ahead. His centennial is on February 6. In the interim, we can expect the typical sort of cheesy plaudits worshippers of the state hand out to each other.



For instance, on Sunday, the Big Kahuna of state power over the individual, Barry Obama, wrote that the Gipper "recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change â€" putting our nation on a bold new path toward both."Â


John Boehner, now Speaker of the House, writes that Reagan represented a "promise of a smaller, less costly and more accountable government"Â and under his leadership the promise to "cut taxes and reduce the size and scope of government were set in motion."Â


"Reagan saw a federal government that had become, like a diseased heart, enlarged and sclerotic. Paving a path trod today by the Tea Party, he sharply cut taxes to restore economic growth,"Â writes Mitt Romney, the man who may very well be our next appointed president. "He fought to cut federal spending. He sought to restore our Founding Fathers' vision of American greatness and limited government."Â


"He understood America's purpose in this world and what we need to do to secure liberty,"Â the diva of the refashioned and defanged Tea Party, Sarah Palin, declares.


All of this cheery approbation for Reagan is completely uncalled for. Ronald Reagan was nothing if not a somewhat accomplished actor â€" some even dispute this after reflecting on his movie career â€" and his assigned task was to restore faith in a bruised state after Watergate, Vietnam, and the CIA's failure in Iran, to name but three.


Reagan's presidency was a disaster for the American people.


Mitt Romney has it wrong â€" Reagan increased the tax burden on average Americans. Granted, he did sign a tax cut in 1981, but this went to a wealthy minority, not the majority that had their wealth decimated by the banksters and the Federal Reserve.


Social Security taxes increased and inflation pushed millions into higher tax brackets. Reagan closed "loopholes"Â and increased government revenue from $517 billion in 1981 to $1.031 trillion in 1989.


These so-called loop-holes included the abolition of numerous shelters, the elimination of the deductibility of IRA contributions, the imposition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, lengthening of depreciation schedules, the tightening of investment-related deductions, and overall tightening of IRS enforcement.



"The federal deficit ballooned from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest peacetime deficit in history, and was still 5% of GDP in 1986," notes John Miller for Dollars and Sense.


Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman who played an instrumental role in the economic disaster we are all now living through. Prior to elevating Greenspan, Reagan endorsed the reduction in money growth â€" one end of the infamous whipsaw â€" initiated by the Federal Reserve in late 1979, a policy that led to both the severe 1982 recession and a large reduction in inflation and interest rates.


The privately owned Federal Reserve's shrewd manipulation of the money supply and the accumulated debt it has placed on the American people â€" debt owed to banksters for money loaned out of thin air to a government Reagan represented â€" has resulted in an unsustainable situation where 100 percent of what is collected at gunpoint in individual income taxes is spent on the interest on the federal debt.


Reagan's Grace Commission said as much. It suggested reforms to lower the national debt, but all proposals were ignored by Congress.


Reagan established a woeful legacy. When he took office, the national debt stood at 1 trillion dollars. Over the last 30 years, the government has accumulated an additional 12 trillion dollars in debt. "If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars," writes The Economic Collapse. The U.S. debt is now 90 percent of the GDP, or Gross Domestic Product.


Reagan was a tax-and-spender and promoter of big government from the get-go. "As governor of California and president of the United States, he enacted policies that, in the main, greatly expanded the role and size of government," writes Anthony Gregory. "As governor, he oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office."


In the days ahead, we will endure all manner of nonsense from the corporate media about Reagan's legacy. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, John McCain and the rest of the statist Republicans will sickeningly praise Reagan's accomplishments.


Reagan's real son â€" not the adopted neocon one who called for killing antiwar activists â€" writes in his new book that his father was suffering from Alzheimer's while in office.


Maybe so. But at the end of the day it does not matter. Ronald Reagan claimed to be a fire-breathing Libertarian opposed to big government. His policies were the exact opposite of those advocated by real Libertarians.


Like most of his predecessors, Reagan received his marching orders from a global elite determined to take down America and methodically usher in global economic carnage in their effort to reconsolidate and further monopolize power.


Reagan was just better at reading a script than most of those who came before and after him.
http://www.infowars.com/reagans-centennial-praise-for-state-power-over-the-individual/
 

Paleocon

Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
330
Location
On the far Right
Reagan is mythologized almost as much as Michael King. Pathetically, movement-cons can never cite anything other than pleasing quotes as the basis for his veneration. They ignore that Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon after the Beirut bombing. The movement-cons would never stand for that today; they would insist on war with Lebanon and denounce Reagan as an appeaser. The main problem is that movement-cons are blissfully unaware that conservatism
existed prior to Saint Reagan. Most "conservatives" have never even
heard of men like Russell Kirk or Joe Sobran.



Edited by: Paleocon
 

Deus Vult

Mentor
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
648
Location
Louisiana
Bill Maher doesn't get much right; but he was spot-on, however, when he observed that many big-name Republicans' veneration of Reagan is borderline gay.Edited by: Deus Vult
 

Solomon Kane

Mentor
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
783
I see Reagan mainly as a fairly weak person--easily outmaneuvered by the elite. I think hehad a few decent moments--the first taxcut package, the beginnings of a domestic budget cut, the military buildup (which youcould makea case forduring the cold war), maybe one supreme court appointment, buthe began his administration still-bornby bringing in all those Bush people. (What sense can it make to have James Baker--a strong personality and the man who ridiculed Reaganomics as "Voodoo economics" as your chief of staff? Conservatives were handcuffed from the start. Good men like Meese, Watt, etc. were relegated to the shadows. And Reagan did not have the moral strength to back them.)

Reagan was a mirage--every branch of conservatism placed their hopes in him--the states righters, the cold warriors, the libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers--

---the only conservatives he didn't betray were the neocons. Big Government conservatism is a part of his legacy. I don't think it was his intention....but it is his legacy.

Reagan was a go-along to get along guy--the biggest myth about him was that he was some sort of consistently principledstraight-shooter who always rode tall in the saddle.

Rather, he quickly abandoned tax cuts, spending cuts, states rights, and the pro-life agenda.

He did, however, through his rhetoric, help to raise the morale of the nation--and I guess that counts for something.Edited by: Solomon Kane
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Solomon Kane said:
He did, however, through his rhetoric, help to raise the morale of the nation--and I guess that counts for something.</div>

Yup that's about it. However for those who lived through those days his time in office was so much better then what Carter had done that it is easy to see why people from that time remember him so warmly. He would have been a good start on the road to real conservatism but of course the follow up was much worse.

As bad as he was you have to admit he was light years better then anyone in a looooong time. That's whats most sad of all. He was good as it gets!!!
 

Highlander

Mentor
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,778
He is often mentioned as the "father" of "voodoo (supply-side) economics" (although I'm
sure it wasn't his original idea), which has helped gut this country financially. Government spending is government spending, whether it's food stamps and welfare or weapons and warfare. The immense build-up of our "Defense" during his two terms helped explode the deficit into astronomic levels:



O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002,
raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president
balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a
string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate
crowd," a key constituency.


O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice
President Dick Cheney that growing budget
deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a
threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan
proved deficits don't matter,"
he said, according to excerpts. Cheney
continued: "We won the midterms (congressional
elections). This is our due."
A month later, Cheney told the Treasury
secretary he was fired.
Also, the EIC (Earned Income Credit) was part of the Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986 which helped subsidize (via our taxpayer dollars) the number of children born to those in the lower economic classes. This was the same year that the Immigration Reform and Control (Amnesty) Act of 1986 was passed. Hmmm
smiley24.gif
.

I don't think he had Alzheimer's during his first term, but he definitely did in his second term. He was mostly a figurehead president with Bu$h, Cheney, Ollie, Don Regan, and even Nancy (and her Horoscopes) either telling him what to do or controlling things behind the scenes without his knowledge. He was one of the better Presidential orators we've had, seemingly very sincere and empathetic, when necessary (Challenger explosion), and thus was able to relate on an emotional level with the majority of the citizens.

I believe he meant well and was generally a good-hearted person as well as a great father to his children but just mostly clueless (and deliberately uninformed by those surrounding him) as to what was really going on politically. They took advantage of his Alzheimer's later on in his Presidency.

Here's former Merill Lynch CEO, Don Regan, appointed as Secretary of the Treasury and later on Chief of Staff under Reagan telling Reagan during a speech to "speed it up":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM



Edited by: Highlander
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Interesting info and clip there, Highlander. I don't think Reagan did much to slow down the cultural decay of this country. Indeed he did a lot of things that sped it up. He was a good speaker and connected with regular folks. He did make a lot of people feel good about things, but all was not well behind the nice talk.
 

Deus Vult

Mentor
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
648
Location
Louisiana
Solomon Kane said:
I see Reagan mainly as a fairly weak person--easily outmaneuvered by the elite...  Good men like Meese, Watt, etc. were relegated to the shadows.  And Reagan did not have the moral strength to back them...
<div>Reagan was a go-along to get along guy--the biggest myth about him was that he was some sort of consistently principled straight-shooter who always rode tall in the saddle...

Good men like Nofziger and Buchanan were a small minority in the Reagan Administration. Ronald Reagan always seemed like a decent person who was in waaaaaaaay over his head. He relied upon -- or was used by -- scoundrels. His name still is used by scoundrels to fleece well-intentioned people.
 

TheAnimal

Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
160
Location
In Transit
Don Wassall said:
One of the major reasons the "conservative movement" is a joke in this country is because it venerates Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a life-long liberal activist whose hero was FDR and his New Deal. He was liberal as governor of California despite his "tough talk," and was the same as President. Lots of great conservative rhetoric, but precious little follow through. He was an actor, performing a job, in between naps.

Good post, pretty spot on. Neoconservatives problem is they live off of emotion, not Rationality and Reason. Reagan was an actor that was able to feed off of their emotions and make them FEEL good. I've tried debating it numerous times, the end always comes back to "leave him alone, he made us FEEL good as Americans."


The fact of the matter is he wasn't Conservative at all. He wasn't an economist, at all. Trickle down economics came out of a movie he was the star of. In the movie there was a happy ending. In real life there wasn't any happy endings from his bad ideas.

<div></div>
Don Wassall said:
Don Wassall said:
, now Speaker of the House, writes that Reagan represented a "promise of a smaller, less costly and more accountable government"Â￾ and under his leadership the promise to "cut taxes and reduce the size and scope of government were set in motion."Â￾

Promises YET to be fullfilled. Broken promises. The reality is taxes increased and continue to increase while Government rapidly increased under his reign.
<div><div>


Don Wassall said:
"Reagan saw a federal government that had become, like a diseased heart, enlarged and sclerotic. Paving a path trod today by the Tea Party, he sharply cut taxes to restore economic growth,"Â￾ writes Mitt Romney</font>, the man who may very well be our next appointed president. "He fought to cut federal spending. He sought to restore our Founding Fathers' vision of American greatness and limited government."Â￾

Incorrect, Mitt. The truth is Reagan cut taxes for the elite 1% while grafting the white middle class into higher tax brackets to offset those costs. Well I guess one should say what was left of the white middle class considering Carter then Reagan systematically destroyed most of the white middle class and industry. Sorry Mitt and GOP, Inc, that WASN'T the Founding Fathers vision. Neither was the amnesty nor the nonwhite entitlements.





Don Wassall said:
Reagan's presidency was a disaster for the American people.

The fallout of which is still effecting the American people to this day.



Don Wassall said:
Ronald Reagan claimed to be a fire-breathing Libertarian opposed to big government. His policies were the exact opposite of those advocated by real Libertarians.

Yes indeed they were. The truth of the matter is Reagan was a white Obama, utterly inept, clueless and screwing over white America when he wasn't sticking his nose into their bedrooms and private lives.



Don Wassall said:
Like most of his predecessors, Reagan received his marching orders from a global elite determined to take down America and methodically usher in global economic carnage in their effort to reconsolidate and further monopolize power.

Let's look at the fallout of Ronald Reagan.


Ronald Reagan declared war on the trade unions. A good thing? On the surface. No American should be forced to unionize. The fallout? Zero checks and balances. It went from a good idea to corporations holding all of the power and creating policy. Be careful what one wishes for. You can witness the fallout today, no benefits, no employee protections in place and any jerkoff with money for a tax ID can hire illegals at $4 per hour.

Thanks to the abysmal failure of trickle down economics coupled with the anti-union/pro-corporate stance the divide between white middle class and white upper class continues to increase while the divide between lower class nonwhite and middle class white shrinks and NOT because they are reaching the middle class level but because the middle class level is falling.


Thanks to his amnesty granted to 12 million illegal aliens from 3rd world south "america" we have gotten to enjoy a steady stream of millions more each year awaiting their free handout as well.

Because of policies either put into place by him or increased by him our industry no longer exists in America, we have to battle for lower wage jobs against 3rd world trash, we have zero protections in place, social security is broke just as Conservatives told him it would be as he took no action and America now resembles Haiti and Mexico. Thank Reagan, he played a HUGE role. Not the whole role but a huge role. Another corporatist, statist liberal. Conservative? In eight years the only thing he conserved is the bank accounts of globalists, the federal reserve and big business. He came as a Capitalist, instead he ensured the growth and well being of Corporatism, which despite the lefts proclamation otherwise is another flavor of Socialism.


Beware of any politician that comes out and hails Ronald Reagan as an icon. They are NOT a friend to white America and they are NOT a friend to Liberty.



http://www.infowars.com/reagans-centennial-praise-for-state-power-over-the-individual/</div></div>
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,565
Location
Pennsylvania
Even Pat Buchanan venerates Reagan, and Buchanan is as close to a "dissident" as can be found in the system, which is to say there are none. Worshipping Reagan is almost as bad as the way "conservatives" idolize ultra-leftist MLK.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
What do you men think about Texas Governor Rick Perry if he ran for President?
 

referendum

Mentor
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,687
I don't know all the details about the passage of Simpson Mazzoli, the immigration reform in 1986, but do remember that the horrible amnesty provision only narrowly passed. I wonder if President Reagan could have really put pressure on wavering congressmembers to strip the amnesty provision out of it. Had he been able to do so, his presidential legacy would have been much more positive. The fact that he didn't really try says much about his lack of conservative credentials.
 

whiteathlete33

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
12,669
Location
New Jersey
I'm being totally honest. Why hate Reagan? There hasn't been a good president in the past hundred years.

I'm an amateur on politics but this guy brought us out of a severe recession fairly quickly. He's decent in my book.
Edited by: whiteathlete33
 

whiteathlete33

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
12,669
Location
New Jersey
lost said:
whiteathlete33 said:
I'm being totally honest. Why hate Reagan? There hasn't been a good president in the past hundred years.

I'm an amateur on politics but this guy brought us out of a severe recession fairly quickly. He's decent in my book.
smiley20.gif

Thanks. lost! I have yet to see a good president, but Reagen was light years ahead of some.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
WA 33, I also agree with you. I suspect if Rand Paul ran for President, which in my opinion would be a great one, some would still find reasons to hate him. It seems the hate energy should be unleashed on the current socialist guy occupying the White House and how destructive he has been.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Westside said:
What do you men think about Texas Governor Rick Perry if he ran for President?

Perry's a pawn for the PTB like his pal Jorge Boosh. He shilled for Big Pharma (Merck) whilst pushing for mandatory HPV vaccines, was a huge proponent of the NAFTA/NASCO Superhighway (Trans-Texas Corridor) & attended the 2007 meeting of the Bilderberg Group in Istanbul, Turkey.
 

Paleocon

Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
330
Location
On the far Right
whiteathlete33 said:
I'm being totally honest. Why hate Reagan? There hasn't been a good president in the past hundred years.

I'm an amateur on politics but this guy brought us out of a severe recession fairly quickly. He's decent in my book.


I think this is more about hating how Reagan has been turned into this great champion of the conservative cause when he really wasn't. Ask just about any movement-con who the conservatives were before Reagan and they will look at you like you have two heads. "Conservatism" in their minds originated in 1980.
 

Deus Vult

Mentor
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
648
Location
Louisiana
whiteathlete33 said:
lost said:
whiteathlete33 said:
I'm being totally honest.  Why hate Reagan?   There hasn't been a good president in the past hundred years.  I'm an amateur on politics but this guy brought us out of a severe recession fairly quickly.  He's decent in my book.
smiley20.gif
Thanks. lost!  I have yet to see a good president, but Reagen was light years ahead of some.

A little balance is needed. A little perspective, that's all. Reagan was a decent white American. I don't believe he deserves a great deal of scorn. However, neither was he the great philosopher-king that Republican hacks make him out to be! He made some great speeches, sure. He also made some average speeches and said some dumb things. Depends on which speechwriter penned his script on which occasion...

Reagan cut taxes AND raised taxes. By any "conservative" measure, his Administration was a flop. It just was.

And the whole Reagan-Cult is just as creepy and inappropriate as the cult that pines for "Camelot."Edited by: Deus Vult
 

whiteathlete33

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
12,669
Location
New Jersey
Like I've said before, I don't know very much about politics and I'm not going to pretend I do. IMHO Reagen is as good as it gets, at least as far as any recent presidents.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,565
Location
Pennsylvania
whiteathlete33 said:
Like I've said before, I don't know very much about politics and I'm not going to pretend I do. IMHO Reagen is as good as it gets, at least as far as any recent presidents.



The thread isn't about comparing Reagan to other presidents, it's about how his record has been distorted to make it seem as though he followed his conservative rhetoric up with conservative actions, which was rarely the case.

Reagan has been turned into something he wasn't by pseudo-conservatives who invoke his name, just as those same people now almost always claim Martin Luther King as one of their heroes and insist that today MLK would bea "conservative" fighting affirmative action and the rest of the anti-White "civil rights" agenda.

The reality is that the U.S. is pretty much a one-party system with two wings when it comes to all important issues except the Second Amendment. When George Bush was selected as Reagan's running mate, that spoke volumes that his administration was going to be business as usual, and it was, though the old actor gave wonderful speeches. The President has very little wiggle room as he is a front man, carefully selected by the forces that control both monopoly political gangs.

JFK was the last President who tried to buck powerful, entrenchedforces with his own ideas, and it didn't end too well for him. In fact, his assassination can best be described as a coup, one that solidified the permanent warfare/welfare state and instituted Cultural Marxism to weaken White Americans to the point that they are incapable or unwilling to resist their slow but sure destruction. No one gets to be President who isn't firmly in the pocket of the multi-national corporations and Zionists and who doesn't otherwise pledge allegiance to globalism and empire.

Even Ron Paul cites MLK as one of his heroes. A "pro-White" President is inconceivable under present circumstances, which is why racially conscious Americans should focus their energies on action at the individual, local and state levels and stop putting so much importance on the presidential beauty contests, whichare now24/7/365 distractions/entertainment for the befuddled masses.
Edited by: Don Wassall
 

Highlander

Mentor
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,778
Westside said:
It seems the hate energy should be unleashed on the current socialist guy occupying the White House and how destructive he has been.
As Ron Paul said a few months ago, "Obama isn't a socialist, he's a Corporatist". I agree with Ron, although Obama is a Cultural Marxist.


President Barack Obama's next chief of staff holds more than $7.6
million worth of stock in JPMorgan Chase, according to a regulatory
filing.


William M. Daley, vice chairman at JPMorgan Chase, holds 175,678
shares in the $2.1 trillion behemoth, the nation's second-largest bank
by assets.


Hardly someone that a socialist would appoint as his chief of staff.

Good point on this thread that the contemporary "Conservative" believes the movement started in 1980, when it was really more a "neo-Conservative" movement that started then, or at least became the dominant philosophical mindset by that time. It proves that the contemporary "Conservative" has a similar political philosophy.

Barry Goldwater, circa 1964, provides more of a template of what a true, or at least, "classical" "Conservative" is.
 

Highlander

Mentor
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,778
Don Wassall said:
whiteathlete33 said:
Like I've said before, I don't know very much about politics and I'm not going to pretend I do. IMHO Reagen is as good as it gets, at least as far as any recent presidents.
<div>The reality is that the U.S. is pretty much a one-party system with two wings when it comes to all important issues except the Second Amendment. When George Bush was selected as Reagan's running mate, that spoke volumes that his administration was going to be business as usual, and it was, though the old actor gave wonderful speeches. The President has very little wiggle room as he is a front man, carefully selected by the forces that control both monopoly political gangs. </div>
<div></div>
<div>JFK was the last President who tried to buck powerful, entrenchedforces with his own ideas, and it didn't end too well for him. In fact, his assassination can best be described as a coup, one that solidified the permanent warfare/welfare state and instituted Cultural Marxism to weaken White Americans to the point that they are incapable or unwilling to resist their slow but sure destruction. No one gets to be President who isn't firmly in the pocket of the multi-national corporations and Zionists and who doesn't otherwise pledge allegiance to globalism and empire. </div>
<div>
One of the top 5 best Presidential speeches I've ever heard. I can't imagine a modern President saying stuff like this.

JFK's speech (June, 1963) against secret societies (NWO), five months before his assassination:
"For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."
"Its dissenters are silenced, not praised."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA

Another one on his speech against secret societies (NWO)
"Its dissenters are silenced, not praised...Its dissenters are silenced, not praised...Its dissenters are silenced, not praised..."
"I was director of the CFR" - Dick Cheney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvjCAWvF_Bo&amp;feature=related

John F. Kennedy vs. The Federal Reserve, Executive Order 11110 (June 1963), to get rid of the Fed.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

First 5 mins of this one regarding his Executive Order 11110:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvzakCIK8rI&amp;feature=related

Is this guy a closet-CF'er
smiley2.gif
- I seriously doubt it, but I agree with 90% of what he says here:
"Now that you that don't read news...you are BET...these silly sitcoms and "reality" shows. This is where your silly head is!. The whole damn world falling down around you and all you can look at is a foolish reality show!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vynT8XPEX0&amp;feature=related

JFK was on an all-out warpath against the NWO in the final year of his presidency, and that's why it was his final year. JFK wasn't naive or ignorant as to what was going on or how powerful the PTB and NWO were...his speech against them proves that. But he was naive in thinking that they wouldn't think twice in making him an historical artifact, unless he had a suicidal death-wish.

In addition to taking on The Fed and International Bankers, he was in the process of dissolving the CIA, getting out of Vietnam and threatening to Nationalize the Oil Companies.

He was nothing like his brother Edward.

Contemporary Presidents (since JFK), including Reagan, were and are well aware of the PTB and now know what fate awaits them if they ever try to buck it like JFK did. Ever see LBJ's limo behind JFK's in Dealey Plaza? Fort Knox couldn't have been better protected. Nixon was constantly paranoid the same thing was going to happen to him, always talking about the "Bay of Pigs Incident" as code when actually referring to JFK's assassination. Ford? The man who pardoned Nixon and was part of the Warren Commission? Reagan? By appointing former head of the CIA George Bu$h as his VP? George Bu$h? Now making it fully institutionalized as the official head of the snake. Since then there has been a complete merging of Cultural Marxism with the Military-Industrial-Complex, the "Free Press"/MSM, as well as the Trans-national Corporations and International Banking Cartel to form the 800lb Gorilla we now know as the New World Order.
</div>Edited by: Highlander
 

Dissident

Newbie
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
67
JFK was definitely out for the NWO's heads and like the previous poster mentioned he was on a collision course with infamy. Certainly, he was a philanderer and a ladies man, but he was the last President to truly challenge the status quo. And for that, he was killed.

That sends a pretty compelling message to all future leaders as to who really runs the show. It would take a truly brave man to resist such seemingly pervasive forces, and speaking frankly, it will never happen. The only chance we have is for a push from the bottom up and not the other way around. Cynically, I believe we've been checked, almost mated by the NWO goons, and now we're just awaiting our fate? Sorry to sound cynical, but I don't see this turning around.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
If the "status quo" is so powerful and all seeing why do people/posters viciously criticize the men who became President now? What would they do if they became President?

I don't believe in the almighty NWO bull crap and will put my hope and money into the TEA Party movement. Instead of trashing men who had good intentions, look to the future and join the movement to CHECK the NWO, PTB, NeoCons and Zionist or whoever you think pull the levers of power.

Never turning around! Ok lets all crawl under a rock and hope we are left alone. Nonsense.
 
Top